Criminal law, Justice, Lawyering, Media, Politics

Report: White House Investigating Mueller

donald_trump_president-elect_portrait_cropped440px-Director_Robert_S._Mueller-_III-1The media is reporting that President Donald Trump’s legal team is investigating possible conflicts of interest  by former FBI Director Robert Mueller.  Today I ran a column in USA Today on those conflicts of not just Mueller but Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. I have great respect for Mueller but I believe it was a mistake of Rosenstein to select him given his history with Comey and his reported interview with Trump for Comey’s job.  Nevertheless, as I have stated since this story broke this morning, I am very concerned with any concerted effort to investigate the investigators.  Such an approach is less evidence of a strategy as a spasm.  Clearly, defense counsel has a right — if not an obligation — to raise any known conflicts of interest with the Justice Department.  Yet, such investigations can easily get out of hand and can trip legal wires if aides are too aggressive in investigating the investigators.

 

Both The Washington Post and The New York Times reported that the Trump legal team is looking for ways to “undercut” Mueller on conflicts with his investigation.  President Trump told the New York Times that he has evidence of multiple conflicts by Mueller that he might release. It was a highly disturbing interview since it sounded like a clear threat to an investigator. If Trump has such evidence, he should release it — not threaten an investigator with the possibility of a release.

The coverage also says that Trump is looking into whether he can pardon himself or others.  The issue of a self-pardon remains a long-standing debate among constitutional scholars with good-faith arguments on both sides.  Article II does not expressly bar a self-pardon and most academics probably favor the unfettered interpretation.

The Trump legal team needs to proceed extremely cautiously with any investigation of Mueller or his staff. An over-zealous aide can easily trip a legal wire, including obstruction, in a pursuit for such information.  Having said that, it is not uncommon for defense counsel to raise conflicts as part of guaranteeing a fair process for their clients.

This should not be the focus of the legal team. This White House is in desperate need of a strategy, not more tactical moves.  Their are plenty of people examining both sides of this investigation.  If the team has evidence of the conflicts referenced by the President, they should raise those conflicts with Main Justice.  Otherwise, there is much work to be done and diminishing time to do it.

222 thoughts on “Report: White House Investigating Mueller”

  1. Along with the Trump administration fighting phony political efforts a a coup the President has done the following: It is such a long list that I only copied a small part of it and the rest can be seen at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/07/20/president-donald-j-trumps-six-months-america-first?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20170720_ADM_1600-Daily

    BRINGING ACCOUNTABILITY BACK TO GOVERNMENT: In six months in office, President Trump has followed through on his promise to the American people to bring accountability back to government.

    President Trump fulfilled his promise to the American people by nominating and, after Senate confirmation, appointing Neil Gorsuch as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
    President Trump implemented higher ethical standards to make sure his Administration works for the American people.
    President Trump signed an Executive Order implementing tough new lobbying standards for political appointees, including a five-year ban on lobbying and a lifetime ban on lobbying for foreign countries.
    President Trump has donated his salary, following through on his promise to the American people.
    To make sure the Government serves the needs of all Americans, President Trump has called for a comprehensive plan to reorganize the executive branch and has used his budget to begin to implement his plan.
    President Trump created the Office of American Innovation to streamline and improve the Government for future generations.
    SPURRING JOBS CREATION:…

    Go to site for more of the list.

    1. I’m laughing so hard at “higher ethical standards” that it’s going to take a while to get through the rest of the list. His Ethics Director quit in reaction to the Trump family and their lack of ethical standards. Go back and see who’s exempt from ethics rules… his whole senior staff. I’d document it for you but you’d never believe it anyway so that would be time I’d never get back. I’m going to sit on my bed to read the rest of the list because if you cite his honesty I’m just going to fall out!

      1. You can only laugh enigma if you are ignorant of what has been done. He is stopping people from using government as a stepping stone to lobbying and has imposed rules preventing that from happening for 5 years and lifetime lobbying for foreign interests. That contrasts the imediate jump from the White House to lobbying.

        I am amazed at the ignorance I see on this blog.

        1. Donald Trump.. the champion of ethics! Said no one ever. Maybe he could call a White House staff meeting with his son-in-law and daughter to discuss it. Then chat with his son running the businesses he still owns. Maybe to keep from holding those meetings in the White House they could go down the road to Trump International and hope that foreign emissaries haven’t booked it all up. Of course they could go to Mar-a-lago, there might still be room available since he doubled the membership fees from $100k to $200k since taking office. Maybe he could personally interview all the immigrant staff he just hired there and threaten them with deportation if the sheets aren’t tucked just so. (I know I just strayed from ethics unless hypocrisy counts).
          Bannon still gets to talk to Breitbart (which would have been banned except for the waiver). Pruitt benefits from not following court orders to release his emails with the industry leaders he now regulates until after his confirmation. Wilbur Ross was involved with one of the largest money laundering bank in the world. The administration has multiple that have lied on their Federal background check forms (which is perjury… says so on the form). Ivanka and Melania have pushed their goods indirectly. Kellyanne pitched Ivanka’s products in a WH press briefing. I really could go on and on. Keep calling me ignorant if you think that changes the facts.

          1. Don’t change the subject to some other spurious information.

            Is it good or bad that political appointees are banned from domestic lobbying for 5 years and lifetime for foreign lobbying?

            Yes or no?

            1. His “ban” is weaker than that imposed during the Obama and George W. Bush Administrations. He didn’t expand the ban to Congressional officials which he promised and only says they can’t lobby their former organization so NO it’s not a good thing. And that other “spurious information” really ought to be considered before you claim that bunch of opportunists are ethical

              1. Trump did not reduce any prior ban. He increased the ban on political appointees.

                1. allan, you are only digging yourself deeper. Put the shovel down, please!

                  1. Juris, I am open to alternative facts so why don’t you present them instead of the overused phrases so frequently used by you and your friends. These phrases have no content and are used to hide a lack of intellect.

                1. The point is to stop the lobbying after one leaves a political appointment. If that is done then the rest is moot.

                2. I knew I was right when I wrote it. Allan wouldn’t acknowledge it under any circumstances. He’s too convinced nobody else knows anything about history or the Constitution.

                  1. “I knew I was right when I wrote it. ”

                    You also knew you were right in telling us when the Electoral College was created. According to your time line it was 1821 in the following century after the Constitution was ratified.

                    As far as lobbying, the idea is not that one cannot lobby after working in government, but I guess that concept is too difficult for you to understand. …And I thought you were smarter than frankly.

                    1. I never said 1821, I said California was still part of Mexico. I said it was conceived to protect the slave states with lesser populations. I didn’t say a thing about ratification of the Constitution, that’s all you.

                      Your main issue is that you want to believe that lying (multiple times a day) unethical (his whole life) fool in the White House is in some way good for America (he may actually be good for the rich and healthy). You agree with any claim of his accomplishments, almost all of which are vastly exaggerated or untrue and anyone willing to look could easily see that. You are among the unwilling. If a tape came out with Trump conspiring with the Russians to weaken Nato, disrupt European unity and allow them to increase their territory if he got the rights for a new Trump hotel, you’d find a way to justify it. This question is not rhetorical, do you think an investigation into his finances and taxes will find an honest and ethical man? What was it Al Capone went to jail for? (That question was rhetorical. He’s fighting the investigations so hard because there’s something to discover. I think it likely he fires Mueller (you’ll agree). He’ll impede the next investigation (you’ll say nothing) and maybe fire a couple Attorney Generals along the way (again nothing from you… possibly faint praise). You’ve spent a lot of time denigrating the intelligence of others while not recognizing the plank in your own eye (mixed metaphors but with your intelligence I’m sure you’ll grasp it).

                    2. The problem is that what you said about the Electoral College was wrong because you said that at the time it was created or ratified (real date -1787) California was part of Mexico. Unfortunately at the time California was part of Spain’s New World empire. Mexico did not come into existence until 1821 a completely different century. I realize the point you are trying to make, but what happened was you relied upon a history that was relying upon spin and you got sucked in. Go look at your own quote. If what you say below was true then tell us what California owned by Mexico had to do with the discussion.

                      The reasons behind the Electoral College involved many things and to a very minor extent the issue you are most interested in, slavery. The main point was there was distrust in the voting process. As far apportionment was concerned each state was an individual entity and the smaller states understandably didn’t want to give up so much of their power to the larger states. That is also why we developed a complex system where the Senate gave each state the same voice and the House provided proportional representation. What we got was a compromise.

                      Your slavery idea enters the picture because some states supported slavery more than others. But that was just one economic idea. Some states wanted to protect their industry. Some states wanted to protect their agriculture etc. etc. Later on compromises were made that directly involved slavery, but they too were in the next century.

                      It is time for you to put this embarrassing mistake due to lack of knowledge away and for you to learn to be more careful in your search for arguments. Look for the truth and not just the things that agree with your ideas. You are a good and decent guy so I wish you would learn how to analyze things better.

                      As far as Trump. Like all people he is a mixtrue of good and bad. Overall I believe he is more good than bad.I know a lot about his history because I was there and aware of what he did in NYC and how he had to fight the political machines to get anything done. You might not have that advantage so I can understand your skepticism, however in order to be a reasonable skeptic one has to provide proof on both sides to demonstrate one’s point.

                      “almost all of which are vastly exaggerated or untrue ” Let’s here specific proof.

                      “If a tape came out with Trump conspiring with the Russians to weaken NATO” But Trump is getting more Europeans involved in supporting NATO. Where did he conspire with Russia to weaken NATO?

                      “disrupt European unity” How did he disrupt European unity and if he did how was that bad for the US.

                      ” and allow them [The Russians] to increase their territory” That was done by Obama. Then the question arises about balance of power. Russia is a major power and will naturally have influence on countries around its borders just like the US. That provides a cushion between major powers and cushions can provide enough distance to prevent major wars.

                      All you are doing is writing words without any thought behind them. Please Enigma, try and do a better job.

                      You are asking me in a friendly tone so I will answer this question: “do you think an investigation into his finances and taxes will find an honest and ethical man?”

                      We will find a man who lived within the law whose ethics are at least as good as the ethics of the people that surround him. By that I mean other builders, poltiicans, etc. He is a smart cookie, smart enough that even banks that lost money at one time or another in one of his deals still want to do business with him. Look at the projects he completed. Start with the NYC Central Park skating rink because that shows the difference between a builder and a politician both intent upon fixing a major area in a major city. The former did it in about 6 months at a low cost. The later couldn’t complete the job over almost a decade after spending many many multiples of dollars on the project.

                      “I think it likely he fires Mueller (you’ll agree).” No. You are wrong. I don’t know what is going to happen. I do know that this investigation is based upon phony assumptions. I do know that American lives will be lost because we are being prevented from focusing in on dangerous international problems. The blame for that lies with the Democrats for their actions and on the Republicans for their lack of action.

                      Please Enigma, try and think before engaging again. Enjoy.

                1. Apparently Frankly you are unable to absorb anything but a head line so that must be the reason you post libraries instead of content.

                  1. Multiple sources? The problem sometimes has to do with the source and at other times has to do with your ability to correctly translate what the source said.

                    Look Enigma, I know you are a good guy and trying to do your best, but you have to be more careful. If you read objectively you won’t run into so many problems. You are too intent upon looking for proof and not careful enough when you think you found it.

                    Try harder. That is all I ask. I don’t mind a difference in philosophy, but the debate should be at a higher level.

                    Enjoy the night.

                    1. Thank you Mr. Objectivity Monitor… We have more than a difference in philosophy we have a difference if facts and history. I can document mine where you need merely disagree and deny facts. According to you I’m both ignorant and don’t have the ability to read with understanding. I can see why you get along with Trump so well. You think the same way except he doesn’t even have a vocabulary. #Sad

                    2. See my lengthy statement above. I am trying to save you from further embarrassment and trying to help you present your position in a better fashion. For the most part most of our end objectives are the same. We differ on how to get there. You should look deeper so that you don’t go down so many false paths.

    2. “Bringing accountability back to government?” First of all, you copied garbage written by Chump’s minions, so we know it’s garbage. But, secondly, how about starting with press conferences, on camera, so that we the people can judge the body English of whatever spokesperson is there? Why doesn’t Chump himself appear for regular news conferences, like every other modern President has done? We all know why: he’s a liar and he can’t think on his feet, so he tweets: hit and run mouth, with no accountability, no answering of questions. One-sided, which is the way Chump likes it. The antithesis of accountability.

      Chump merely accepted the Repub’s choice of Gorsuch as a radical conservative put in place to screw regular citizens for decades to come. Pro-big business, pro-prosecution, pro-death penalty, anti-union, anti-choice, the list goes on. Chump didn’t know him or know anything about him. This is no accomplishment of Chump. How could Gorsuch’s appointment have been stopped with the GOP in charge of Congress? Citing this as an achievement is laughable and pathetic at the same time.

      How about voluntarily disclosing his tax returns? That would be a good start for accountability to the American people? Why won’t he do it? We all know why.

      “Reorganize the executive branch?” Chump couldn’t reorganize the toilet paper in the hall closet. He has no idea how government works. He doesn’t even understand that the FBI Director, for example, does not work for him or owe him a pledge of personal loyalty. His daughter and son in law aren’t qualified to do anything other than shop and live the good life. How absurd.

      “Lifetime ban on lobbying for foreign countries?” Seriously? What about Manafort and Flynn? Sally Yates tried to warn Chump about Flynn and got fired for her efforts.

      “Office of American Innovation”? How to get away with polluting, help yourself to government grants, handouts, tax abatements, etc.

      “Spurring job creation”? For lawyers, maybe. How about the Carrier deal? Chump got the Indiana Legislature to gift Carrier with $7 million, and lied about saving 1100 jobs, when it was really only 700, and then, only temporarily. Eventually, all the jobs will go to Mexico. When the union president pointed out these facts, he was called a liar.

      1. I’ll read your response when you carefully read what the President has done. I guess for you ignorance is a blessing.

    3. Using the whitehouse.gov website as a source is like citing a television commercial as a source to buy a product?

      1. Juris, would you prefer to quote Enigma as a source? If you believe the website to be innaccurate then you can quote that passage you believe is untrue and then explain with fact why you believe what you do. That is how intelligent people discuss things. The alternative for you, like so many others of you ilk, is to retreat to your comfortable hole where logic and common sense need not apply.

        In the meantime I will supply you with a little more for you to reearch. This should increase your odds of being able to make an intelligent argument. I will provide the link to help you along even further. I like the idea of substantial discussion rather than the typical nonesense so many people provide. By the way if you are one of those construction workers, miners or manufacturers you might enthusiastically support the President because now you have a job denied to you previously because of stupid policy. By the way it is good to know we will have plenty of energy to keep prices down while we turn our A/C’s on for the summer.

        https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/07/20/president-donald-j-trumps-six-months-america-first?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20170720_ADM_1600-Daily

        SPURRING JOBS CREATION: President Trump’s impact on the economy has been immediate, spurring job creation across the country.

        President Trump signed the “Buy American and Hire American” Executive Order, prioritizing the interests of American businesses and workers.
        “Buy American” promotes American industry, protecting it from unfair competition by targeting the abusive use of waivers and exceptions to laws on the books.
        “Hire American” calls for the reform of our visa programs, ensuring that they no longer displace American workers, while fully enforcing laws governing the entry of foreign workers.
        President Trump signed an Executive Order, making it easier for businesses to start and expand apprenticeship programs.
        The Dow Jones Industrial Average has increased 17 percent since election day, hitting new highs 25 times this year already.
        Since January, the economy added 863,000 jobs, including 821,000 in the private sector.
        79,000 construction jobs added since January.
        42,000 mining and logging jobs added since January.
        41,000 manufacturing jobs added since January.
        CUTTING DOWN JOB KILLING REGULATIONS: Just six months in office, President Trump has taken historic action to eliminate wasteful and costly regulations that have stood in the way of hardworking Americans.

        The American Action Forum estimates a potential $70 billion in costs reductions from President Trump’s actions to cut back regulations.
        President Trump has signed 14 Congressional Review Act resolutions into law, ending burdensome Obama-era rules and regulations, more than all other Presidents combined.
        By withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord, President Trump protected America from a bad deal that would have harmed our economy.
        According to a study by NERA Consulting, meeting the Obama Administration’s obligations under the Paris Climate Accord could have cost the United States economy nearly $3 trillion.
        According to the same study, 6.5 million industrial sector jobs could have been lost, including 3.1 million manufacturing sector jobs.
        In order to control regulatory costs, President Trump signed an Executive Order mandating that for every one new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated.
        Through infrastructure reform and investment, the Trump Administration aims to dramatically reduce permit approvals for projects from 10 years to 2 years, spurring investment and job creation.
        OPENING UP AMERICAN ENERGY: In six months, President Trump has turned around America’s policy on energy production after years of opposition.

        President Trump has acted aggressively to increase exports of our energy resources to a global market.
        Updated guidance from the Treasury Department to allow the United States to export coal.
        Expedited the permitting and approval processes of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminals and exports, including the approval of the Lake Charles LNG terminal in Louisiana.
        President Trump has unleashed oil and gas development in the United States by expanding access to resources and the infrastructure needed to get them to market.
        Approved the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, creating over 42,000 jobs and $2 billion in earnings.
        Signed an Executive Order mandating future pipeline work to be done by American workers and with American steel.
        Expedited new pipeline approval and production, such as the New Burgos Pipeline to Mexico.
        Signed an Executive Order to extend offshore oil and gas drilling and reissued a leasing program to develop offshore resources.
        Boosting oil and gas development on Federal lands.
        The Environmental Protection Agency is reconsidering an Obama-era rule on greenhouse gas emissions that is estimated to cost oil and natural gas operators as much as $530 million annually.
        President Trump kept his campaign promise to coal miners and rolled back the previous Administration’s “Stream Protection Rule,” which targeted the beleaguered industry with estimated costs of at least $81 million a year.

  2. Maybe, the lets pardon everyone in the campaign is a good strategy too. That will head off Mueller and get the White House back to focusing on what’s important to the American people.

    Nixon had to resign because he was always thinking like a lawyer instead of President. I hope Trump takes that into account.

    1. That’s rich. Nixon had to resign because he got caught engaging in a criminal conspiracy.

      This it to coconspirator ocean

      1. No, Nixon had to resign because he was deserted by three of the four senior members of the House Republican caucus and a half-dozen Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee. That set off a cascade of defections and perhaps 15 members of the U.S. Senate would have voted to retain him in office.

        It’s conceivable that standards of conduct were sufficiently impartial that this would have happened to a Democratic President. (Though it is amazing how well concealed was the Kennedy-Johnson Administration’s misconduct). Not so today, where it’s all lawfare for the Democratic Party of Rackets. The permanent government in 1972 was sufficiently professional to resist some of Richard Nixon’s skuldeggery. As we saw during the Obama Administration, it is no longer. Partisan Democrats are fine with that. Well, you want to cut down the forest, they’re ain’t any trees for you guys to hide behind.

        1. Nonsense. Nixon resigned because he had in fact been caught in a criminal conspiracy. Anyone who was alive and followed the Watergate hearings knows what actually happened. This is simply more false revisionism from another anonymous troll.

  3. I’ve never understood why Mueller was appointed in the first place. The congressional committees were doing just fine. And why was he given such an open ended job-mission?

    Trump should either rein Mueller in, or fire him and replace him with someone else – with a very narrow scope.

    We’ve been down this time-wasting, energy-wasting, lets search for a crime, road before.

    1. The former head of the House investigation was the main obstructionist. The Senate is doing a bit better but Trump himself brought on the Special Counsel when he fired the FBI Director.

      1. The Democrats also wanted Comey fired. What piece of evidence do you know of that implicates Trump personally? Without that there is no need for a special prosecutor.

        I await your evidence and figure this blog will long be gone before you can provide it.

        1. He is continuing to attempt to obstruct the investigation daily. He threatened the Special Counsel about what areas not to investigate. I’m content to wait for Mueller while you see, hear and know nothing.

          1. Mueller was appointed to investigate potential Russian involvement with Trump.

            Time for facts. Where has Trump obstructed Mueller in that quest?

            1. He was appointed to review Russian interference into the campaign, possible participation of Trump officials and, ANY MATTERS that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.
              Threatening the Special Counsel is an attempt at obstruction. Not being successful isn’t really the criteria.

              1. The rationale behind his appointment was Russian interference. What he was permitted to investigate or how long was not defined. This is against American principles where an investigator needs no permission to go through your home or anything else without a specific directive known as a warrant that tells the investigator what he is permitted to examine.

                Your attitude is very Anti-American.

                Trump didn’t threaten the special counsel’s investigation of anything pertaining to the Russian investigation. He did object to an Anti-American theme that the Gestapo has total rights to investigate anything he wishes.

                Provide a fact that Trump obstructed the investigation of Russian interference. You can’t becasue like always you don’t have facts to back up your contentions.

                You sound as if you are a supporter of slavery, not racist slavery, but slavery to a government. You can be a slave in that fashion if you wish, but I find it unacceptable and repulsive.

                1. You may wail and deny to your heart’s content, but the sun will still rise in the east. Moreover, the quality of analysis displayed is more appropriately demonstrated on reddit or somesuch. I also recommend the use of Google to educate yourself regarding the structural framework surrounding the special prosecutor role.

                  This is to very sad allan.

                  1. You think you are smart, but that is not the case. You don’t think for yourself and treat political problems as if they are a ball team you root for. Education is a terrible thing to waste and in your case it was most definitley wasted.

                    Why don’t you provide some data. Exactly how has Trump obstucted the Russian investigation? Do you think Hillary dumping over 30,000 emails was not obstuction? Do you think wiping the computer clean after being supeoned by Congress is not obstruction? What did Trump do?

                    I’ll quote from Victor Davis Hanson’s sarcastic Swampland’s 10 commandments

                    7) Obstruction of Justice. Explicit obstruction of justice—an Attorney General ordering, for example, a FBI Director to alter the nomenclature or course of an ongoing investigation—is often not pursued; implicitly suggesting to a subordinate a desirable outcome is. The subtler the obstruction, the more likely authorities are to resent the subterfuge; the more crass and heavy-handed, the more auditors are impressed at its audacity—and therefore the more likely to exempt the violation in admiration (see Thucydides’s stasis at Corcyra discussion on the advantage of the “blunter wits”).

                    Forget the Thucydides reference by above. That presupposes an educated individual is reading what he wrote.

                    1. Uh, sit down, this will make you very sad…Hillary, is not the President; any reference to her is therefore completely irrelevant in regards to the Special Prosecutor and his duty to investigate all matters concerning the Russian involvement with our election. I know, I know, Pravda Faux News is still shilling the Hillary trope every 12 minutes, but that is their job — to preach to the choir. I don’t think that the Special Prosecutor has time for Pravda Faux News.

                      This is to refocused allen

                    3. Mark N. Hillary is not President. I am glad you at least recognize that fact.

                      I guess you missed the sarcasm of #7. “the more crass and heavy-handed, the more auditors are impressed at its audacity—and therefore the more likely to exempt the violation in admiration ” I would say that dumping 30,000 emails is pretty crass and when subpoenaed by Congress to destroy the hard drive is even more crass.

                      It appears that you just don’t get it and Google ‘ain’t helpin’.

  4. There has been no evidence of collusion – which would be Trump’s organization helping Russia to get illegal access to political opponents.

    To clarify, publishing, reading, or passing on truthful information is not colluding. For example, when I read Guccifer’s factual data dumps, I am not colluding with a hacker. I may not like how information is obtained, but I won’t ignore that it exists. The media did not collude with Russia, if Guccifer is Russian, when it published the hacked information. Once it was dumped, it was in the public domain.

    If someone in Russia hacked into Bill Cosby’s computer and found the smoking gun evidence that he had drugged and raped women, which I personally believe he is guilty of, then I would not be “colluding with Russia” if I read the information or formed an opinion of Bill Cosby based upon it.

    The term “collusion” has been quietly redefined by the media, but hypocritically so, because they do not apply the same definition to their own actions.

    Thousands of people provide opposition research to political campaigns.

    In this case, a Russian attorney claimed to have good dirt on HRC in order to get one of hundreds of similar meetings with Trump’s son. It was a ruse to agitate for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Similar meetings occurred with Democrats all over DC, because Russia really wants that act repealed. Donald Trump, Jr thought she was full of baloney, and curtly ended the meeting. He didn’t use any of the allegations she provided, as he felt they were made up. End of story. That is not the definition of collusion.

    On the contrary, the DNC is guilty of actual collusion to affect the results of an American election. They defrauded Bernie Sanders out of a fair shot. They picked their Establishment candidate in Hillary, and did not care what the people wanted. They cheated, for example when Donna Brazile fraudulently provided CNN questions ahead of a debate to HRC’s campaign. And, most damningly, a Democratic research organization, Fusion GPS, commissioned an entirely fabricated dossier on Trump. It was made up of the most egregious falsehoods, going so far as to claim that Trump peed on a bed full of prostitutes. They circulated that document, which caused the widespread urban myth that Trump was a puppet of Russia. The dossier has been found to be false, but the myth continues. That fabricated dossier was used to falsely influence the result of the election. These were not unpleasant facts that the public should know about, regardless of how we found out. These were lies. Deliberate lies by the DNC.

    http://nypost.com/2017/06/24/inside-the-shadowy-intelligence-firm-behind-the-trump-dossier/

    2. And one should note that rather than focusing on the content of the truthful information we have discovered about Hillary Clinton and the DNC’s nefarious activities, the DNC has successfully shifted the entire conversation to how it was obtained.

      Woman finds out her husband cheated on her with her sister.

      Husband is outraged that someone illegally hacked his emails and got the tawdry video evidence. Successfully gets wife to not file for divorce and instead spend all of her time working to fight against hacking.

      Makes about as much sense…

      1. And one should note that rather than focusing on the content of the truthful information we have discovered about Hillary Clinton and the DNC’s nefarious activities, the DNC has successfully shifted the entire conversation to how it was obtained.

        That’s exactly correct Karen. Kind of like when the wife asks the husband, “does this dress make me look fat?” The wife has no interest in the truth (she’s fat), she wants to know whether she has on a dress that will hide the truth. The truth hurts, and instead of dealing with that reality, place blame squarely somewhere else.

        1. Thanks, Olly.

          I’m also going to leak the relevant pages from the Handbook on Women: it’s never about the dress. That question is code for a lady having a crisis of self confidence. She’s worried that maybe her shelf life of youth, beauty, and self worth might have expired at around 35. While men are still considered sexy in their 80s, and know it, women lack that confidence when everyone they see on magazine covers are infantile stick figures. She needs reassurance so respond accordingly. And she should also not leave the house in any outfit in which she does not feel confident, or it’ll bug her all day, and it will show.

          Now, you are not in collusion with me in my hacked release of said Handbook. It’s out in the public domain, and you did not steal the password for me to get it. And Professor Turley is likewise off the hook in publishing this leak, as would all media when they post excerpts from Guccifer.

          1. There’s a handbook? Would have been nice if one of my four sisters had shared that with me over the last 40 years. 🤤

            1. They could neither confirm nor deny its existence!

              I just roll my eyes at the does this dress/jeans make me look fat. Give me a break. This is what we have to wear at a dressage show – skintight, white full seat breaches, with a Shadbelly coat cut to the waist in front. What the heck are you going to hide in that? Male and female riders alike want to know. Entire websites are devoted to hiding panty lines in these things, and the various ways one can injure oneself trying to hide those lines. Endurance ride tights are almost as bad, but no one is insane enough to demand they be in white. Whoever decided that one shall be required to show in white dressage breeches is likely in one of the circles of hell getting pecked apart by harpies for all of eternity for that little error in judgement. White. Breeches.

              https://www.google.com/search?q=pikeur+dressage+white+breeches&client=safari&rls=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqhsbG85vVAhUFVhQKHay5BK8Q_AUICygC&biw=1280&bih=739#imgrc=3cy-wjWT7qe5OM:

              Thousands of pages of forums have been devoted to choosing which underwear to wear under those blasted breaches, or even riding jeans, without injury. And YES, one can injure oneself – see the “Inverness Problem” and its ensuing hilarity. https://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/forum/discussion-forums/off-course/122930-the-solution-to-the-inverness-problem

              1. Ah, yes, the origin of the “Inverness Problem” thread, otherwise entitled “Get Thee to a Nunnery.” https://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/forum/archives/favorites/3389-practical-protection-for-private-parts-or-get-thee-to-a-nunnery?t=35083

                If anyone asks me if their stupid dress makes them look fat so help me I’m going to put them in breeches and send them around the arena in a working trot for 40 minutes and then hear them complain about their life in the spotlight in public.

      2. Words have meaning. Since you appear to be confused regarding the actual meaning of a word you have used repetitively, I have taken the liberty of included the definition here:

        col·lu·sion
        kəˈlo͞oZHən/t
        noun

        secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

        There are laws which prohibit election campaigns from collaborating with foreign governments. Now that you’ve been more informed, you can see that your reading of Guccifer analogy is inapplicable, as there are no law prohibiting your doing so. Glad I could clear this up for you.

        This is to now-enlightened karen.

        1. Ah, Mark, thanks for making the effort to enlighten me.

          The accusation of collusion in regards to Trump, Jr’s meeting with the Russian lawyer does not meet the definition of collusion. He was offered opposition research, which is never defined as collusion, which he dismissed and never used. The receipt of opposition research is not collusion, just as Guccifer’s hacks, which in essence is considered opposition research by the relevant parties, which have alternated on both sides of the aisle, is not collusion. My example of reading Guccifer’s hack or a party benefitting from the hack is applicable. And in this case, the opposition information was deemed facially absurd and never even used.

          Enclosed please find Professor Turley’s article on the allegations:

          http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/341461-opinion-don-jrs-russia-meeting-wasnt-collusion-just

          “It is common for foreign governments to withhold or take actions to influence elections in other countries. Information is often shared through various channels during elections from lobbyists, non-government organizations, and government officials. This includes former Clinton aide Alexandra Chalupa, who allegedly worked with Ukrainian government officials and journalists to come up with dirt on Trump and Manafort.

          Consider the implications of such an unprecedented extension of the criminal code. The sharing of information — even possible criminal conduct by a leading political figure — would be treated the same as accepting cash. It would constitute a major threat to free speech, the free press and the right of association. It would also expose a broad spectrum of political speech to possible criminal prosecution.”

          The definition which you provided, and thank you, failed to include the legal definition, which was merely one line below the one you cited: “illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially between ostensible opponents in a lawsuit.” Receiving or using opposition research is not illegal, else the media would all be jailed for all of the times that it printed or reported on hacked information.

          Here is another more in depth legal description of collusion:

          http://thelawdictionary.org/collusion/

          You will note that it requires illegal activity in order to defraud a third party. Campaign staff are doing nothing illegal when they take the hundreds of meetings they do every election year in which they meet with people or receive communications digging up dirt on their opponents.

          To further explain my original example, if Trump had hacked into the DNC’s computers, or stole a password, then that would be collusion. A black hat hacker colludes with a mole inside an organization that gains him access to top secret documents. But merely receiving information given to the public domain is not collusion, as he did not engage in criminal activity to obtain it. (We are ignoring for the moment the undisputed fact that Trump did not use any of the allegations promoted by the attorney as her bait and switch attempt.)

          Now, for further enlightenment:

          “Thousands of candles can be lighted from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared.”
          Buddha

          1. Also, Mark, what is your take on the well documented collusion between the DNC and CNN debate moderators, as well as other media sources to affect the outcome of the election and defraud third parties such as Bernie Sanders and American voters? For instance, Donna Brazile broke the rules by fraudulently giving Hillary’s campaign questions ahead of time in order to defraud her opponents. In fact, the DNC is currently getting sued for fraud against Bernie Sanders: http://www.newsweek.com/dnc-fraud-lawsuit-claims-bernie-sanders-would-have-won-rigged-election-hillary-611165

            1. “Attorneys for the DNC and its former chairperson, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, attempted to dismiss the lawsuit on multiple occasions, originally claiming it wasn’t properly served by Beck and his team, before stating there are no enforceable obligations for the organization to practice neutrality during the primaries.”

              Hear that? The DNC does not consider itself to have an enforceable obligation to be fair and neutral.

            2. I don’t think the Special Prosecutor will be investigating any of these shenanigans.

              this is to red-herring karen

              1. No, my name is “now enlightened Karen.” Pay attention! You named me and no take backs.

          2. Well done Karen! An objective analysis would conclude this is an investigation in search of anything. The fact Mueller has expanded the investigation is indicative that they haven’t found what they need to support their existence.

            1. The problem Olly is that people with a leftist viewpoint have to keep digging deeper and deeper until they find something. Occasionally when dealing with a government agency people will actually pay a token amount even though they did nothing wrong. The bookkeepers in government always want to show that in the end their investigation paid off.

              They spent so much time investigating Trump and then had to admit that there was nothing linking Trump so to prove themselves right they get a special councel. With what is said to be 14 attorneys and their respective staffs the amount of money to be spent will be tremendous so they have to dig and dig until they can create something to blame on Trump. This is a very dangerous situation hampering the government during very dangerous international times.

          3. You know what happened at this meeting how? I believe that unless you were there, you only know what Jr. has publicly claimed happened. Thus, the need for the Special Prosecutor and all his busy investigator minions.

            this is to karen

        2. How about a code cite instead of your unlettered legal opinions? Collusion’s a crime like swimming within an hour of eating is a crime. Conspiracy is well defined in federal law and requires a predicate offense you have’t named and there is no campaign finance law that you cite. Better check in with Fealess Leader; your talking points are going down faster than Trumps fake dossier hoes.

          1. Mespo, I think Mark M. is pretending to be an attorney. At best I can’t see him working in a law firm except possibly as a file clerk.

            1. That — or sleeping at the occasional Holiday Inn Express. Remember there were “A” student lawyers and “C” student lawyers but the degree reads the same for both.

              1. Excellent, but I don’t think he rates status as a lawyer though in California I understand one can get a degree online. Hmm Maybe one can become a lawyer, but not know enough to pass the bar. They probably end up as file clerks. 🙂

          2. Since the Special Prosecutor has a wide scope of investigative authority, I’ll lay my money on the easy favorite: false statements. You may Google the text at 18 U.S.C. 1001.

            As for the peanut gallery, I care nothing about what they do, or don’t, believe my job title to be. No one here will ever be persuaded by anything an opposition poster states, so this is merely a time waste as everyone yells past the other. My forays here are merely entertainment. Admittedly, it’s akin to clubbing seals, but it’s ultimately harmless.

            this is to 727 above and needs-a-hobby allan below

            1. They MIGHT be guilty of jaywalking, too. The problem with that, of course, is that despite your pronouncements of manifest criminal “collusion” and “conspiracy” there is no probable cause to believe that either. As for clubbing of seals, the smart money when you are involved is on the seals.

            2. ” I care nothing about what they do, or don’t, believe my job title to be.”

              Apparently you cared enough to have your words lead in a certain direction. Now you are taking a new direction because apparently your ego has been injured. That happens when you are out of your league. We understand this is for your entertainment, one needs an avenue of entertainment coming from the very boring file room. Here, you can pretend to be a successful lawyer and with your skills demonstrate a total lack of knowledge concerning the law.

      1. Ken, as usual you are either being disingenuous or don’t understand the meaning of the word “pablum”. Probably the latter because Karen has been posting some of the very important information that should be included in any debate. Then again maybe you don’t understand what Karen says because what she says involves compound sentences and compound words.

  5. Article II does not expressly bar a self-pardon and most academics probably favor the unfettered interpretation.

    If you’re going to set precedent, set a whopper.

    A self pardon that includes his family and any agents acting on his behalf, past, present, or future, including any business dealings domestic or foreign, will set the precedent Professor Turley was talking about the other day and save us a lot of time and money.

    Always wondered why Tricky Dick didn’t do that, instead of just getting Ford to do a one time rim job.

    1. Pardoning himself was presented to Nixon and he declined based on his consideration for the good of the country. Halderman called him and asked for a pardon and Nixon said no. I say this sincerely in that Nixon had far more class than Trump will demonstrate.

      I’m hearing (and have not researched) that acceptance of a pardon is an admission of guilt. If so, what would Congress do? Just wondering.

      1. I would be blown away if Nixon didn’t work out a full pardon with Ford before doing anything else in that saga.

        2. Once Ford assumed the office of the Presidency there was nothing NIxon could do. You seem not to remember history nor do you seem to understand our laws and the “laws” of decency.

        3. I should remind you that Nixon cut ?18 minutes of tape while Hillary dumped over 30,000 documents and then destroyed her hard disc.

          1. Newsflash: Hillary is not the President, so any reference to her is meaningless.

            This is to distracted allan

            1. No, she is not President and that is the first accurate statement you have made. She is not President because she probably belongs in jail and the people know it so they voted for the other guy. Trump is President, but he didn’t do anything wrong except unlike Bernie he persisted and was voted President.

              I’ll quote Hanson again. This one will be easier for one without much ability to understand.

              “All of the above commandments are subsidiaries of an overriding tenet: when conservatives in Washington sin, it is valuable window into their dark souls; when liberals do the same, it is a minor and regrettable lapse, attributable to the toll taken on them for heroically advancing the morally superior cause.”

              I remind you that he is saying these things using sarcasm. def: the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

              Using sarcasm with you is giving your intellect more credit than it should be given.

        4. Alexander Haig did call Ford the first week of August 1974 and discussed several options should Nixon resign, some of which included pardons. Ford called Haig later to relay to Nixon that he (Ford) had no recommendations for Nixon. That was the extent of any discussion of pardons for Nixon.

          Nixon had nothing with which to bargain.

          Ford had never held an executive position before and was uncertain on his feet regarding how to respond to questions which landed on his desk regarding Nixon’s status and future. Ford pardoned Nixon as a means of clearing the decks. Robert McClory and others had advised him on taking office to pardon Nixon. Someone else would have delegated matters to subordinates (and that is perhaps what should have been done).

          1. Unlike those on the left Ford was an honorable man who put nation in front of his own needs.

            1. Surprised you don’t consider Gerald and Betty Ford to be leftists.

              1. A response of such low intellectual quality. I was judging the man and not his politics. In politics I judge programs and how they adhere to American Individualism and the Constitution not whether they are left or right. In that decision I also consider what people want, but not in the superficial way I generally hear you using. If the people want something not in the Constitution, then it is easy to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

    2. If there were no limits on pardons, this would amount to immunity for the President and anyone he chooses to associate with. The Framers certainly knew how to write the Constitution to provide for immunity, but they didn’t. Chump is not immune.

      1. Natacha:

        How could Madison and Hamilton and the rest of the authors of the Constitution begin to compare to your recognized intellect and broad-based experience in governance? They were just governors and generals and such other insignificants. Any thoughts on the Einstein’s work?

        1. LOL! You see Einstein was a genius. And he had that whole Theory of Relativity thing. And so obviously when it comes to the law, everything must be relative. Any other questions, smarty pants?

  6. I wish people had questioned Obama about the 400 million in cash to the Iranians with as much zeal as we are witnessing now.
    Pay to play with our most archest of arch enemies to cut a deal.
    But alas he was loved without conditions.

    1. Are you daft? That was a public, legal and well debated transaction that had been on the table for decades—long before Obama, along with other western leaders, reached an agreement with the Iranian government. You right wingers need help.

      1. The lower the Trump supporters sink with that imbecile tied to their ankles, the more desperate and idiotic their arguments. The same mentality that elected this idiot is sticking by him. What a shame.

        1. Issac, I support the office of the President, not in particular its current occupant. If you don’t think legal president has anything to do with the future ramifications of how the occupant is treated regarding the law and how that said treatment can translate going forward to the next you are just a emotionally driven fool.

      2. I’m sorry. I conflated the hostage exchange for the nuclear deal.
        So let’s start over.
        How did Obama negotiate a deal for $400 Million in cash for exchanging hostages without congressional approval?
        How’s that?
        Is that more clear?
        I love how you ignored the hostage deal and concentrated on the nuclear deal of my point.
        However. . .

  7. Comey leaked to provoke an investigation of a political enemy. The investigator appointed is Comeys best friend. This is the stuff of the Soviets or Nazis.

    Not only should Congress step in and end this investigation they need to subpoenea Comey, Lynch, Hillary, Obama and Mueller and find out the truth behind this Coup attempt. They all belong in prison.

    If this ‘Investigation’ is allowed to continue it is destroying any power the American people have in elections. This is a Coup. End of story.

    Do people not understand that the very survival of our Constitutional Republic is at stake. This is NOT hyperbole.

    If Trump is impeached over this one of two things will happen. Either we descend into an Oligarchy run by the Deep State who removed a fairly elected President
    or We the People have a Revolution and remove the Coup and restore Trump to his rightful Presidency.

    Those advocating the removal of Trump better understand this. Nobody talked about defending Nixon. No Nixon voters talked of taking up arms to restore him to power. Tread lightly you are on very very dangerous ground. You do not know the meaning of the word ‘resist’….yet.

    1. “Do people not understand that the very survival of our Constitutional Republic is at stake. This is NOT hyperbole.”

      You are absolutely correct that the threat is real.

    2. Anonemouse, you write:”If Trump is impeached over this one of two things will happen. Either we descend into an Oligarchy run by the Deep State who removed a fairly elected President
      or We the People have a Revolution and remove the Coup and restore Trump to his rightful Presidency.”

      Yeah I hope the people who want to overturn a legitimately elected President realize their the ones who don’t want anything to do with guns and I’m just guessing most of Trump’s supporters have plenty that are currently loaded.

      2. Roscoe

        We are in an oligarchy with the biggest rat as the head oligarch. Can’t you read?

          1. Issac is incapable of answering questions with any degree of accuracy or fact. That is typical of many of the posters from the left.

      3. Trump supporters have guns all right. Trump opposition have not only guns, but also drones, emotional intelligence, knowledge, stealth, and mental competence.

      2. You truly are ignorant of the tide right now. Remove Trump and their will be a Civil War or Revolution. Nobody gives a damn what our government wants anymore. Trump was fairly elected. No other alternative will be accepted.

    4. Anonemouse: Comey created his memo because Chump demanded personal loyalty, something totally improper. He made the memo to create an evidentiary record because Chump is a pathological, chronic liar who doesn’t understand that the FBI Director is not his personal servant. The issue isn’t leakage of the memo: it’s Chump and his attempts to intimidate everyone, beginning with Comey, and now Mueller.

      You appear paranoid when you claim that HRC Obama and Mueller are involved in a coup attempt. There is no evidence of this, but plenty of evidence that Chump colluded with the Russians. Yes, he’s scared about the disclosure of his financial records, and because he can’t call Mueller into the White House and demand personal loyalty, he’s attempting to intimidate him by rattling his saber against Sessions and Rosenstein because he wants one of them or their successor to fire Mueller. He’s investigating the power to pardon himself and his skanky kids. He’s also putting out the word about alleged conflicts of interest involving Mueller because he knows that Mueller isn’t a man intimidated by a thug like him, so he’s trying to undercut the investigation into his finances. The financial records may be his undoing, but if so, it will be because of HIM, not HRC, President Obama or Robert Mueller.

      As far as your implied threats of violence if and when Chump goes away, bear in mind that most of this country already does not approve of Chump. If the evidence leads to financial dealings with the Russians, only a few nut jobs would attempt some sort of violence to keep the fat genital grabber in the White House. Did you ever think about how he would lead this country if this happened? He can’t lead it now because he lacks leadership skills and doesn’t really understand how government works. Do you understand how dangerous you sound when you make these implied threats?

    5. If the people had any power in elections then Trump would not be President at all considering he didn’t have the support of a majority of voters and under any system that did respect the sovereign authority of voters would have lost as he should have. He is only President because of a highly democratic anachronism in our Constitution that made some sense two centuries ago but none today. So get off your high, right wing, loony horse. You and the other nincompoops who talk about armed resistance if anyone does something they don’t like are welcome to try just like your political ancestors the treasonous confederates. You, like they, will be crushed. Hopefully though, the next time your lot gives it a shot the forces of the United States will show no mercy and utterly destroy you and the other miscreants who use such pathetic threats.

      1. Horuss – our lawful election process was designed to give each vote a say, so that NY and CA would not become king makers and the rest of the states be ignored because their votes wouldn’t matter. This design was deliberate to avoid any one region having undue influence.

        You may wish that the law governing elections was different, when it suits your purpose, but it’s not.

        1. You know California was part of Mexico when the Electoral College was developed. It was created to protect slave states and put them on more equal footing, not allowing those nasty Republicans to eliminate slavery. (Don’t be thrown by it being Republicans that were against slavery. The party was once the “good guys” but they’ve changed radically since then).

          1. You most definitely need to learn American history and the Constitution. The electoral college was created in 1787 when the Constitution was signed.

            If this is an example of your historical knowledge it answers why so many whaky ideas occur in your replies.

            Look up your history and see which party supported the Civil Rights legislation. Then take a look at how the black community voted almost exclusively for the Democrats. Then tell us what the Democratic Party has done to warrant such devotion.

            Just as a reminder the KKK was an important voice at the Democratic National Convention in the 1920’s. President Wilson advocated segregation.

            Look at the statistics and pictures of Harlem before LBJ and after.

            1. You really think I have no idea about American and particularly Civil Rights History. I have a book to suggest to you that you’ll never read. “Devil in the Grove” which covers a specific murder trial(s) in Florida yet covers much of the ground of the Civil Rights Movement. The “Black Community” used to vote almost exclusively Republican. There’s a reason that changed. The parties changed as the “Dixiecrats” fled the Democrat Party and became Republicans. Your point about 1787 is what? Do you think slavery wasn’t a significant issue and that the protection of “less populous states” and the 3/5th’s of a person weren’t direct reflections of protecting slave states? I am fully aware of the terrible history of the Democrat party when it comes to race matters, they have been replaced by a party that continues today to try to suppress minority votes, further enhance mass incarceration and gerrymander or redistrict minorities out of relevance.

              1. Enigma you just proved you have little to no understanding of American history with your discussion about how the electoral college was created. You have likely proven that what you do read is based upon fantassies you believe represent reality.

                You have to get over your prejudices. You are alive and not a slave unless you wish to let another enslave you. You have the same rights as everyone else. You also as a human being are as vulnerable as others to be abused unfairly. Many different people have suffered over the ages. Get over it.

                  1. You ought to stop Googling Enigma and learn American history and the American Constitution. You are too gullible, superficial and naive to simply use Google.You can choose to be a free man or a slave to your ideology and your leaders.

                    1. I just found for you what I already knew. You are in denial of everything that doesn’t meet your preconceptions You seem to be doing a good job of following a leader blindly as well. I could give a long list of my criticisms of Obama and the two Clinton’s. You keep following Trump… see that where that gets you.

                    2. “You know California was part of Mexico when the Electoral College was developed. ”

                      This is your statement that has nothing to do with your later citation. You have already been informed that Mexico didn’t beome independent until 1821 and that until then California was a part of Spain. Yet you insist on your blather about the Electoral College.

                      You are dealing with the wrong century which makes what you say laughable and makes whatever schools you went to look bad. Virtually everything you say is mixed with error.

                      Get a book on American history and read it.

          2. Actually, what is now California was part of Spain until Mexican independence in 1821 some 34 years after the Electoral college was established. The Electoral College was supported by Hamilton and Madsion who argued a blended election of the President was required to merge popular elections with republican appointments. Both were concerned about emotional majorities and obstructionist factions which the modified Virginia Plan addressed. Just a word of advice, engma, I wouldn’t make hall-baked historical pronouncements and ideologically driven statements on a blawg. There’s too many smart people around to call you on it. Save it for those radical rallies I see on the evening news. They’re not so discerning.

    6. I completely agree wth you that this is a coup, and that most government agencies have been politicized Democrat, weaponized against any other party lawfully taking power.

    8. Ah….More of this “Deep State” material, please. Kindly lay out the entire nefarious network so we can publicly identify this cabal intent on taking over the world.

      this is to the mouse

  8. Why doesn’t Chump start each and every day with an Executive Order, or whatever form of paperwork is required, pardoning himself, his skanky kids and their spouses, his aides and everyone else associated with him for any and all conduct that can be pardoned? If the power to pardon is unfettered, why not? Wouldn’t this cover it? Could this possibly be what the Framers had in mind? Or, perhaps, is the power to pardon not intended for this type of situation? Maybe it doesn’t extend to the President and his family. As I’ve said many times before, this jerk’s primary contribution to the economy is to make work for lawyers.

    As to the alleged “conflicts of interest”, why not spell out what they are? We all know why: this is just an attempt by the fat genital grabber to intimidate Mueller. It’s not going to work. How absolutely unprecedented and pathetic can he get, anyway?

    1. I don’t think the founders ever imagined, or could have imagined, the present situation. Trump is no George Washington.

    1. Mueller was not adequately evaluated for his conflicts of interest and he has many. He should go. Moreover, the investigation has no limits and it is set up to be opposition research should Trump decide to run for a second term. We know this type of investigation is supposed to be kept in secret, but it is already leaking so if secrecy cannot be preserved the investigation should cease or the number of people involved should decrease substantially while limits are placed on the investigation. It has been said that virtually all 14 of the high powered attorneys have connections to Hillary or her campaign where one was the lawyer for the Clinton Foundation that has been involved in illegal operations based upon pay for play and some of their expenditures.

      Invariably something can be found on almost everyone even all of us on this list. We have already seen things found against Trump where it was a set up and Trump was totally uninvolved. I don’t believe this investigation can have a fair outcome.

      2. It has been said that virtually all 14 of the high powered attorneys have connections to Hillary or her campaign where one was the lawyer for the Clinton Foundation that has been involved in illegal operations based upon pay for play and some of their expenditures.

        Four of the attorneys he hired are Democratic Party donors. Given how few people donate to political candidates or political parties (it’s a single-digit share of the electorate), that’s an indication that the investigation is not meant to be impartial, and they don’t care who knows it.

        1. That is right DSS, but don’t I don’t want anyone to forget that one of the attorney’s is supposed to have been an attorney for the Clinton Foundation. I believe that to be true, but I want to see a more primary source before stating it as a fact.

          1. Why call it nonesense when the evidence points to my statement being true? If it were proven to you that more than half were Clinton supporters in one way or another would that change your opinion?

        3. How many Washington lawyers contribute to political parties, probably most. The electorate percentage is meaningless as is most of your prattle.

          1. The vast vast amount of money donated by lawyers working for the justice department go to Democratic candidates. You can actually look it up on the net under each employees name. That is why it is known how much some of Muellers attorney’s donated to Hillary Clinton.

  11. Interesting that a major freak out by the president is that his taxes will be examined. Of course, this is no surprise. Based on news reporting, recent and remote, it looks more and more like one pillar of his business may be/have been dirty Russian money that had to be “cleaned up.”

    Whether or not the GOP congress will be the institution that either saves or destroys our democracy is still in question. Each of them will have to make a choice of being either a hero/patriot or a collaborating coward. They read the papers of record, even if Trump supporters don’t, and it’s clearer than ever from the NYT interview and audiotape [including comments on Sessions] that Trumpian loyalty is a one way street. They ONLY people he will be loyal to is his small family [and perhaps Flynn and Putin]. Everyone else is dispensable, disposable and available to be tossed under the bus at a moment’s notice. The GOP ought to start examining their consciences now with this in mind.

      1. If anyone thinks that they can”prove” the rationale for our current President’s thinking and subsequent behavior should please produce the next power ball winning numbers for next Saturday’s drawing.
        It’s up to a little of $200 million btw.
        You can guess all you want, but without facts it’s like predicting the weather which is done by only two types of people;
        Professionals and Fools.
        Right now it’s hard to tell them apart.

    2. Singinrain: you said a lot, and I agree: the future of this country depends on whether the GOP chooses patriotism over party loyalty.

    3. Trumps taxes have been looked at by the IRS every year. Additionally, even information not on his taxes was evaluated by NYC and NYState. Even New Jersey and Nevada including their gaming commissionshave done significant searches on Trump.

      You really ought to know what you are talking about sing-in-rain because you are all wet.

        1. What hard data is there? None. What hard data do the IRS, NY, NYC, NJ, and Nevada have? Lots of hard data where many were looking for something dirty especially the gaming commissions.

          You can keep quoting nonesense but I will refer you to the NY Public Library where enough information exists that perhaps you can educate yourself as to what is a hit piece and what is real.

  12. OK…..I’m not a lawyer. So can one of you legal eagles explain how Mueller could be considered appropriate for the job given this:……

    28 USC Section 528

    The Attorney General shall promulgate rules and regulations which require the disqualification of any officer or employee of the Department of Justice, including a United States attorney or a member of such attorney’s staff, from participation in a particular investigation or prosecution if such participation may result in a personal, financial, or political conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof. Such rules and regulations may provide that a willful violation of any provision thereof shall result in removal from office.

    Mueller was Comey’s mentor and, I believe, recommended Comey for the top job at the FBI. If that’s not a “personal” conflict of interest or “the appearance thereof” I don’t know what would be.

    Please explain.

    1. Because it’s what PROFESSIONALS do. They mentor less experienced people, they help with jobs and recommendations, they may even hire a former mentee themselves.

        1. RSA, He can’t. Too many people advocate all sorts of things and don’t have any facts or are unwilling to present the facts they have. Comey was a professional and he leaked.

    2. Mueller isn’t investigating Comey–he’s investigating Chump. Merely being acquainted with Comey does not constitute a personal or political conflict of interest, any more than a lawyer who is acquainted with a judge appearing before the judge.

  13. Detective Columbo investigates some phone bill irregularities. Columbo finds out a punk named Freddy ordered a $175,000 car. Then shipped the car to Europe. Paid cash too. That sounds like Freddy.

  14. There is no ‘think’ about it the facts are out in the open and self evident. Collusiion is not a crime it’s a cover up for a conspiracy covering more than one federal agency that together over a period of time allowed these breaches of national security to occur. The path is simple. The people responsible will either produce CYA paperwork or they will take the 5th and and look wildly around the room for someone to pardon them. The last to ‘fess up will be prosecuted and the first MAY be able to cut a deal. All of which may well do nothing to Clinton but prove she was arrogant and not the smartest bulf in DC or it may not.

    Crimes WERE commited. Chelsea receiving classified documents is the same as Wiener is the same as Putin is the same as some hack from the NYT. Crimes were commited. and NYT outing a serving agent is a measure of the extent and the value of the security system. Which is not much value and not much interest.

    Unacceptable.

    1. Michael, these people don’t understand what a crime is or what elements are needed for the law to consider a crime has been committed.

      They start with the premise that they don’t like Trump, therefore he must be guilty of something. Then they try to find evidence but can’t piece the evidence together so they use phrases like “where there is smoke their must be fire”, but the truth is they are the arsonists that created the fire in the first place.

  15. If Trump is correct and has no deals with Russia as he has said countless times then he should not be saying and doing the things that he keeps doing. He should let them open the books as they say and let the facts come out. If no deals, fine end it. The bigger problem is Trump has a habit of getting himself in trouble, Oh that’s right he can shoot somebody on 5th Ave and get away with it. I just hope he does not make the country pay for his alleged crimes.

    1. and then we end up with feeble commentary such as fish wing who has apparently willngly joined the criminal class. Color him or her ‘red’ and call him or her a herring.

    2. FishWings, you don’t understand the American legal system. One is innocent until proven guilty and that has not occurred. We have all sorts of laws protecting ourselves from governments that wish to put us under a microscope so they can find something to charge us with or use to intimdate us. What you are saying is totally outside the law.

      I agree that there are too many disturbing things so all things Russian should be investigated fairly and that means the DNC computers, The emails from all people including Clinton and Podesta, the uranium deal, the pay for play allegations and whole host of other things where guilt has already been established and tossed under the rug.

      The US government is not supposed to be doing opposition research on the enemies of one party. The IRS is not supposed to intentionally harrass right leaning groups which they have done. When GM was taking over government it was reported that the local dealerships that were Republican were the one’s most likely to lose a franchise. A whole host of illegalities have been reported that benefit the DNC. Are the Republicans complicit in some of these illegal actions? I think yes for we are developing rule by a triumverate, DNC insiders, Republican insiders and the plutocracy.

      1. “FishWings, you don’t understand the American legal system.”

        As an aside, in the group of legal nerds in our firm that follow this blog for entertainment, we have come to call irrational, hyper-emotional, juvenile and uninformed arguments ‘Fishwing-ing’ and ‘Natach-ing.’ They are both a great source of humor ’round these parts……..

          1. It really is, Olly. Plus, our youngster associates slip in a “frankly” and “enigma” into their briefs and/or correspondence to depict tot heir more senior colleagues that they are fully aware they are making especially “creative” arguments. JT has not escaped their snark. A mis-placed file or a poor citations is now nothing less than “chilling”.

            1. That’s rich. People in my firm follow it for the entertainment value provided by the Trump tea-baggers here who still haven’t got the memo about the big con.

              1. Your a member of a “firm” Are you the one that cleans the toilets?

              2. LOL Glad you are having fun with it too. We call you ‘Marky Mark’…………

  16. I took it as a way of exhibiting frustration at what is appearing to be favoritism and old school tie week which may not be true however it’s a heads up of a different type so…. all it would take is for Meuller to show some even handedness and put some of the investigation on what is known with actual crimes involved along that which is so far conjecture with no crime stated.

    Let Hillary alone for a moment if nothing else the people on her various staffs who were responsible for ensuring security briefings were conducted and security rules followed but didn’t OR they filed CYA documents are obviously culpable.

    Letting the foxes have paperwork such as the 5,000 being released even before the special counselor sees them? What is that?

    There is an obvious house cleaning needed and it may well lead to nothing more than a bunch of bureaurats not doing their job but even so … a crime is a crime and the crime is not collusion but willful violation of the laws on national security.

    and that is a cover of epic proportions when it covers the Department of State, The Justice Department itself, the National Security Agency, The Clinton Campaign and the DNC campaign and DNC itself and possibly the GOP…and member or members of Congress. At this point it’s a conspiracy at the very least.

    Is that not self evident?

    No one allowed Clinton to evade security regulations including taking a required briefing and no one covered thier ass with documentation. I Do Not Believe That for a single second.

    1. How do you know that Mueller isn’t being evenhanded? Spill the beans, please.

    2. Michael: I don’t recall Mueller holding any press conferences to discuss exactly what evidence his group has obtained. do you know, or are you listening to Fox again? Mueller is going to go where the evidence leads, and this will inevitably involve Chump’s finances. As they learned with Watergate, “follow the money”. Why is Chump so threatened, anyway, if he has nothing to hide?

  17. Fair assessment of a valid defensive option. Your point regarding the care which should be given to this tactic is spot on, and that caveat takes on greater significance here given the administration’s thus far tone-deaf approach to this process. Would you comment on how effectively (or not) similar tactics were handled in the Ken Starr/Whitewater investigations?

  18. We don’t need a Javert right now. We need more of a Columbo. You know, “Ah, one more thing just to tie up loose ends …”

  19. it is not uncommon for defense counsel to raise conflicts as part of guaranteeing a fair process for their clients.

    This should not be the focus of the legal team.

    That’s an odd conclusion. A defense team should not defend their client’s right to a fair process?

Comments are closed.