Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on an overlooked issue from the letter of Attorney General Bill Barr to Congress on the Special Counsel report. Whatever happens to the allegations and evidence facing President Trump, there remains the question of what to do with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Here is the column:
President Trump was understandably elated by the finding of special counsel Robert Mueller that the evidence did not establish a crime related to Russian collusion, as well as the subsequent decision by Attorney General William Barr that there was no basis for an obstruction charge. While Trump has described these conclusions as “total exoneration,” most believe the measure of presidential conduct is not found exclusively in the criminal code. Nevertheless, if it was not exoneration, it was to some degree vindication. There was, however, one person implicated in the letter Barr sent to Congress: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Soon after Mueller was appointed, I wrote a column detailing what I considered a conflict of interest for both him and Rosenstein. Mueller interviewed for the FBI director job left by James Comey and met with Trump soon after Comey was fired by Trump. That made him a possible witness to the events that he was appointed to investigate. But the more serious conflict, and most glaring ethical anomaly of the special counsel investigation, was presented by the direct involvement of Rosenstein.
Before Mueller was appointed, former Attorney General Jeff Sessionscorrectly recused himself from the Russian investigation due to his involvement in the Trump campaign. However, the investigation was then headed by not just a witness to alleged obstruction by Trump but a key witness. The first major task for Rosenstein as deputy attorney general under Trump was reviewing Comey’s record and writing a memorandum that concluded Comey’s tenure was marred by “serious mistakes.”
The memorandum cited a long list of former attorneys general, federal judges, and leading prosecutors from both parties who believed that Comey “violated his obligation to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the traditions of the department and the FBI.” Rosenstein also found that Comey “violated long standing Justice Department policies and traditions” and “refused to admit his errors.” The review of how Comey conducted himself and the sharing of those findings with Trump made Rosenstein a key witness on alleged obstruction. That position was magnified after the White House claimed Comey was fired on the basis of the memorandum. That led to a rare public rebuke by the recently appointed deputy attorney general in which his displeasure was leaked and he reportedly confronted the White House to demand a retraction.
When Mueller was appointed, Rosenstein was a witness to events before and after Comey was fired. He was central to the alleged false statement put out by the White House on the firing. For those of us who opposed the appointment of a special counsel because of the lack of a cognizable crime in the collusion theories, those circumstances shifted the equation entirely and prompted many of us to call for the appointment. Once Mueller was appointed, Rosenstein would be one of the first witnesses who would have to be called by the special counsel. Yet Rosenstein was technically Mueller’s boss and supervisor at the Justice Department.
To make matters worse, Justice Department officials later said Rosenstein participated in meetings that not only raised the possible need to remove Trump as an incompetent president under the 25th Amendment but reportedly discussed wearing a wire to implicate Trump in crimes, a suggestion that Rosenstein said was a jest but others insisted was serious. Rosenstein is also a key player in some of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants targeting Trump campaign aides in the Russia investigation. The conclusions of the special counsel report would have direct bearing on Rosenstein’s professional standing and record.
All of that would seem a clear basis for recusal. After all, Mueller could ultimately question the judgment or conduct of Rosenstein during those critical days. Mueller had to inquire into those actions and subsequent accounts if he was to do an objective investigation. Yet Rosenstein oversaw the investigation over two years, despite being a material witness, making decisions to expand its scope and resources.
It turned out that I was not the only one raising the conflict question after Mueller was appointed. A later report indicated Rosenstein ignored demands within the Justice Department to remove himself in 2017. It details a heated argument about his apparent conflict with then Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who objected to Rosenstein demanding that McCabe recuse when Rosenstein had an equally glaring conflict.
Over the course of writing numerous columns, I could arrive at only one compelling reason from an ethical standpoint for Rosenstein’s decision, which is that Mueller had made an early determination that there was not a likely basis for obstruction. This seemed possible because Trump had independent compelling grounds to fire Comey. I remain skeptical about any real basis for an obstruction charge for precisely that reason.
However, it now turns out that Mueller not only did not dismiss the obstruction allegations but was unable to reach a conclusion on possible criminal violations. He left it to others to decide. That takes us to this fateful line in the letter Barr sent to Congress: “Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the special counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction of justice offense.” Rosenstein was therefore one of two officials who made the final call on obstruction.
The timing also is concerning. Rosenstein was scheduled to leave the Justice Department weeks earlier but surprised many by announcing that he would stick around. Reports indicate that the Justice Department was told Mueller would not reach a conclusion of obstruction around that time. It would have been wise to avoid any role in the final report, given his personal and professional interests. Instead, he stayed in his position and, according to Barr, played a critical role in rejecting the basis for an obstruction of justice charge despite his potential conflict.
Rosenstein had opportunities to avoid making these decisions, including the final decision on the merits, and went out of his way to stay involved. He also reportedly is involved in redacting the report, including any material to protect the “reputational interests of peripheral third parties.” Of course, Rosenstein was not a “peripheral third party,” which is why he should not have appointed Mueller, overseen the investigation, defined its scope, ruled on the merits of obstruction, or now work on the redactions. To put it simply, the report implicates Rosenstein as much as it vindicates Trump. It also tarnishes the final decision on obstruction in a way that undermines both the investigation and the Justice Department.
The public report is likely to be issued in a matter of weeks. Americans have every right to review that report and gauge not just the alleged crimes but the conduct of the president before “exoneration” can be claimed. However, Trump is not the only person who may have much to answer for in the aftermath of the public special counsel report.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
If you separate Rosenstein into two words: Rosen and Stein, then how does that translate in German? Rose Cup? Rose Mug?
Stein is equivalent to Stone. Rosen (not Rose) is a metaphor for colors that are reddish or pinkish.
JT: “It turned out that I was not the only one raising the conflict question after Mueller was appointed.”
This is proof that you live in a bubble, Prof. The obvious conflicts of interest were thoroughly discussed by many on the right.
Poor lefties are slowly being forced to realize how insanely stupid and un-American they have been. These next two years are going to be fun as they come to terms with being the useful idiots to an attempted coup…the biggest scandal by far in American history. You are the Nazis you’ve been looking for.
Ivan: MOST Americans did NOT vote for Trump, consistently do not approve of him and the job he has been doing, and want him gone. You Trumpsters are the minority. Are you calling the majority of Americans “poor lefties”? This is the dish of daily slop served over at Faux News–that somehow the mainstream news, the “Dems”, the “libs” and the “lefties” got a comeuppance by Barr’s deceitful spin on the actual Mueller report that he is desperately trying to keep the American people from seeing. Hannity, Tucker, et al, tell you that you Trumpsters are in the majority and in the right. This is nonsense. You need to realize that you and fellow Trumpsters are in the minority. Even Barr’s misleading spin on Mueller’s findings did not improve Trump’s poll numbers. Talk about being un-American: everything Trump stands for is un-American: racism, misogyny, xenophobia, taxing the middle class so that the 1% can enjoy lower taxes, caging innocent children, bragging about assaulting women, cheating on taxes…the list goes on.
lol. of the total voting age citizenry fully 1/5 are not even registered to vote.
if you add in all those too young, and all the non-citizen residents, lawful and unlawful, then even a popular vote majority would probably still just be a plurality of the population.
get over yourself. we have an electoral college.
it will only be abolished “over our dead bodies.”
here is an essay. i will not name the authorship. instead look to the content. true or untrue, identify what you believe are the errors, if any?
________________
“Revolutionary Majorities” — Part One
If citizens of this country ever again enjoy the blessings of liberty and true freedom, it will not be the result of a majority of its citizens having risen up in righteous indignation at governmental abuse of themselves and their culture. If a restoration of the Constitution of our forbearers occurs – with all that this implies – it will probably not be because a plurality of citizens fought for it, supported it, or cared one way or another. If lawful government is reestablished it will come about because a revolutionary majority makes it happen.
Within the American historical experience a revolutionary majority may be defined as any number of citizens sufficient to initiate general hostilities against a destructive government.
The American Revolution of 1776 defines the term, sets the precedent and provides the example for patriots of today.
Throughout most of the Revolutionary War, those patriots who were seeking to overthrow the government lacked support of over two-thirds of their fellow citizens. John Adams, one of the “radicals” in favor of the Revolution and who was later to become the second President of the United States, stated that depending on how the war was going, those fighting for freedom had the opposition of from a third to two thirds of the people. Others like Pennsylvania delegate to the Continental Congress Joseph Galloway was sure that four-fifths of the people “were or wanted to be, loyal to the King.” (Galloway eventually sided with the Loyalists, as those who supported the King’s government were called.) Colonel London Carter, a member of the Virginia aristocracy and a strong patriot, stated in his diary in March of 1776 (but a bare three months before the signing of the Declaration of Independence) that an observer of events in the Northern colonies was sure “nine-tenths of the people are violently against it” (independence).
The exact number of “the friends of government”, as the patriots disparagingly referred to those who opposed the Revolution, cannot be stated with accuracy. As John Adams indicated, the number was in a constant state of flux, depending on political events and who was winning in the armed conflict. One thing is certain, however; the American Revolution was anything but a broad-based popular uprising of a disaffected people. Rather, it was a very unpopular rebellion of a politically radical minority who, because they possessed a clear understanding of the rights of man coupled with a deep concern for the state of relative personal freedom, were ableto perceive the shackles of tyranny prior to their being presented for fastening. This discernment of tyranny at a distance not only set them apart from their fellow man but constrained them to rebel.
The radical political leaders of the Revolution such as John Adams, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Richard Henry Lee, John Hancock, and Joseph Warren, to name but a few of the more well known, had to conduct their struggle for freedom in the face of disapprobation and rejection by their peers before the time of actual armed conflict, and after its commencement to charges and cries of “incendiaries and traitors.” Indeed “the friends of government” knew little restraint when it came to condemning the Republic’s Founders. The Loyalists called Washington, among other things; a liar, perjurer, murderer, blasphemer, criminal, traitor, patron of villainy, and a villain’s chief. The other Founders fared little better and were variously referred to as being dregs, illiberal (sic!) and violent men, despicable wretches, bandits, rude, and depraved. While thus labeled by “respectable citizens,” these men led the country toward rebellion.
Correspondingly, the Founders had an analogous movement among the common people which, although the objective of overthrowing the government was the same, the methods were those resorted to by people in every age when faced with overpowering force of all-powerful government, namely, mob action, riots, uprisings, midnight forays, and harassment, intimidation, or terroristic acts directed against governmental supporters. All of these and other acts came under the single heading of patriotism so far as their perpetrators were concerned.
After a review of non-battlefield hostilities, it becomes apparent that the American Revolution was won more by mob action than by armed conflict! Thus, any idea that the Revolution was won in an ordeal of battle is out of place in view of the facts.
During the entire length of the armed conflict from 1775 to 1781, the King’s armies lost only 1,512 men killed in battle; this seven-year, battle-death casualty rate was exceeded by Union forces at Cold Harbor in 1864 during the first eight minutes of a single engagement. The King’s armies had previously lost far larger numbers of men in the Seven Years War (French and Indian Wars) yet pressed on to victory. An adequate explanation then of the patriots’ final triumph over the government must be provided by other than a military victory.
An answer, in great part, lies in the violence and vigilante action carried on by the patriots against the government and its supporters! Though most Americans today are familiar with the Boston Tea Party, few know much about the secret organization that conducted it, the Sons of Liberty. Led by Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Dr. Warren (“the greatest incendiary of them all”), and Paul Revere, they met in secret, dressed in disguises, and carried out vigilante actions under the cover of darkness. ……
The means were simple and effective. Terror and intimidation were directed against the Loyalists. Methods used to create these twin scourges of “the friends of government” included, but were not limited to, whippings, coats of tar and feathers, banishment, church burnings (if run by a Loyalist preacher or used for a Loyalist meeting place), confiscation of property, and wherever deemed necessary – death of any one of several reliable methods.
Other patriotic groups formed throughout the thirteen colonies to carry on a relentless persecution of “the friends of government.” Each organization operated independently of the other though often exchanged information on Loyalists.
Often these ad hoc associations went by the name of “Committees of Public Safety,” though the name as well as the tactics employed varied from place to place. Thus in the colony of New York, the patriots bluntly called themselves “the oppressors of the friends of government” and stated proudly that they tarred and feathered governmental supporters with the “decorum that ought to be preserved in public punishments.” Boston had its mysterious “Joyce Junior” who led a group of Knight Riders and enforcers who saw to it that those who did not display the necessary revolutionary mentality were properly punished. The rebel Continental Congress established “associations,” whose purpose was to locate the Loyalists and turn their names over to the local vigilante to be dealt within the manner they deemed proper. In every colony, if the accusation was one of giving information to government agents, the traitor to liberty was hanged by the neck or dealt with in some other terminally appropriate manner.
Even religious leaders were not exempt from the patriotic purges that cleansed away supporters of the king. Preachers who failed to support the cause of liberty (or who had forgotten that David slew Goliath rather than turning the other cheek) were run out of town on a rail in the glowing light of the flames from their quickly disappearing church. This was considered leniency, others were forced to flee to England or Canada in fear of their lives.
By the end of the conflict in 1781, for every government Red-Coat killed on the battlefield, seventy Loyalists had been driven from their homes and forced to settle in England or Canada, totaling over one hundred thousand people.
The government and its “friends” accused the revolutionary freedom fighters (whom they often called “the Sons of Anarchy”) of “committing the most shocking outrages” and of “daily invasions upon private property” while led by men who were “well known incendiaries and traitors,” whose chief purpose in life was to commit “crimes against the Constitutional authority of the State” (historically, government’s which have oppressed and abused their citizens justify their actions based on the “law” or “Constitutional authority”).
No doubt, had the effort to overthrow the government been unsuccessful, the Founding Fathers and their citizen supporters would have been hanged by “the friends of government,” as the very worst sort of traitors and terrorists.
In summary of the American Revolution, while Washington’s determined and skillful leadership of the army, no doubt made victory possible, it did not assure it. The Spirit of ’76 – a massive campaign of terror directed by patriotic citizens against all those who supported the government was the deciding factor that brought freedom to America.
American Constitutional liberty was born in mob pressure, fostered by secret societies, nurtured during seven years of intimidating violence, and institutionalized at the expense of well over a hundred thousand people. With this American history in mind, one who is faithful to the ideas of the Founding Fathers of this nation can have nothing but contempt and suspicion of the motives (or ignorance) of those people both within and without the government who would condemn citizens of today “for taking the law into their own hands” in defense of their rights.
Had those who desired liberty in 1776 waited until a numerical majority of their fellow citizens were ready to “wake-up” (as the saying is today) to fight for the overthrow of the government, or had they hesitated in the use of “illegal” force and violence (force and violence are never legal except when used by those in power) against their governmental enemies, they would have all died in their old age as law-abiding subjects of the King – minus their freedom.
Patriots of 1775 considered the sympathies of less than a third of the people sufficient to begin general hostilities against their oppressors. Herein lies the historical context of the American revolutionary majority. It has been wisely said that those who do not know and understand history can repeat its successes.
In America today, the manacles of slavery and destruction once forged in London by the King are now forged in Washington. Acts of tyranny are carried out in the name of the federal government rather than in the name of the Throne. The vicious enforcers of dictatorial policies often call themselves F.B.I. or I.R.S. agents instead of his Royal Majesty’s troops or tax collectors of the Realm. Substituting for the Redcoats of the British are the “bluecoats” of the bureaucrats and in far greater numbers. Though babblings for “the divine rights” of kings to rule have ceased, modern fools prattle of “democratic majorities” composed of an illiterate electorate enfranchised for the purpose of dispossessing the descendants of the Founders. While different in nomenclature the end results are exactly the same – the dark, cold, tight chains of slavery.
A numerical majority of today’s citizens cannot read these footprints of tyranny nor understand where they lead. In this they are no different than their counterparts of 200 years ago. Modern governments have mass communications to subtly guide the thinking of their subjects; thus is seen the phenomenon of today’s citizen rushing forth to place the cuffs of bondage upon his own wrist by irrationally clamoring (as he has been indoctrinated) for more laws and government to solve problems created by an excess of both. This mental inversion, whereby the citizen willfully aids in efforts to subjugate himself, is of no small import for those who treasure their liberty. The implications are many, but the consequences could be singular: a governmentally programmed democratic majority may, as they dance along to mental tunes played by an electronic band of orchestrated communication, gleefully drag down (with their self-fastened chains) everyone else in the black hole of oblivion.
Only one thing seems capable of closing the yawning mouth of the pit and that is the formation of a new revolutionary majority coupled with resurrection of the Spirit of ’76. Anything short of this seems certain to pass on to today’s children an increasingly difficult task of freeing themselves from transistorized chains of governmental control. Such a legacy is the bequeathal of cowards, not free men.
The first American Revolutionists accused those who ruled them of excessive taxation, interference with property rights, illegal search and seizure, not protecting the citizens from incursions by several thousand Indians, policies destructive of the general welfare, and “altering fundamentally the form of our government,” among other things.
Today the federal government taxes its subjects for forty percent of their income, instead of the three percent (less than a dollar twenty a year) tax of the King; interferes with the ownership and use of virtually every denoscription of property; authorizes everything from game wardens to I.R.S. agents to search, arrest, or seize property without a warrant. It allows fifteen million aliens to illegally cross its borders in less than a ten-year period; and conducts a policy of systematic extermination of its young men through no-win wars, and subjects the Founders’ children to enforced equality. Each of the acts, individually amounts to altering fundamentally the form and purpose for which the federal government was created……..
This is not a list of virtues or the virtuous.
Quite the opposite, it is a word to the wise…
or not.
_____
RESI IPSA HITS 36,000,000
The most frequent commentators were:
Anon
This is absurd
Allan
Mr. Kurtz
Tom Nash
Karen S.
P. Hill
____
“It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt of it.”
― Maurice Switzer
Your comment was way to succinct.
“Succinct!” You don’t say. Actually, there are two inherent possibilities. Either these entities have no mechanism of restriction, proportion or control, or they are vying for the Res Ipsa record for abrasive filibuster by logorrhea.
There are also numerous possibilities as the number of anonymous trolls “named ” anonymous and their sock puppets play their games here. This is getting ****ing ridiculous.
If you want to see ridiculous, stop feeding them for a week. 😉
Tom, Enigma just said that Paul Schulte finally left the blog because it didn’t hold onto his address. It’s a pain and often forgotten when WordPress drops the details. I am having that problem as well. I wonder if Darren has a fix?
Allan,
Something changed around August 2018 that resulted in a lot of “new glitches” for some users, and those “new” problems were occasionally mentioned here.
It’s not really possible to know what the screen displays look like for those experiencing those issues; I
d
e
m
o
s
t
r
a
t
e
d
the sudden change in display of comments I tried to read as one of the ongoing problems ( a comment box
this wide –
the width of that dash….and a vertical stack of letters
l
I
k
e
t
h
I
s
.
on location I have received an entire post where the formatting is one letter per line. That makes it impossible to read and I just pass over it. That means, unless it’s L4D or one of the others like her, that I miss somebody’s words of wisdom. It’s most inconvenient and I don’t know why it is that people think wordpress is so wonderful.
Wally, I agree with you. Along with that problem the end user faces having his information continuously dropped. One can’t even use Grammerly or at least some can’t use it.
However, in recent months the dropped postings or postings ending up in the spam filter seem to have been reduced.
I think they could do something so that a person signs up for a blog and all information is kept so that their icon remains the same even if they change names. That way the sign in process would be required for an icon change and end a problem that I think few like.
Maybe L4B will weigh in on these issues with her own technical expertise.
I know that she’s taken an unusual and unprecedented interest the glitches that I have describe.
I think it’s “highly probable”, Allan, to that she’ll write an early AM column on how to solve these issues.-
Tom ( I don’t want L4D to get (even more) confused about that clarification).
Steve J.
Maybe so, but LT Anonymous has apparently posted exactly the same comment 3 times now.
That shows some real dedication, not to mention the great original insights LTA provides in cutting and pasting the words and thoughts of others.
LT Anonymous is working up to the limits of very limited capacity; were if not for posting links, cutting and pasting the same comments of others repeatedly, and quoting the words of others, LT Anonymous would have nothing to say.
Except maybe the statement that gbe empty vessel LTA once made that she finds the comments of OTHERS “lacking substance”.🤗☺️😄😂
That at least shows that the parrot known as LTA might have a sense of humor.
And you point is “?” . . . Wait. I’ve got it. Were it not for his own constant carping complaints against the commentary of the original anonymous, Tom Nash would not have made the list as the fifth most frequent fool to post comments lacking virtue on the Turley blawg.
I never pretended to have L4B’s “virtue”. 🤭😏😄😃😂
Actually my reply was to Kurtz.
Today the federal government taxes its subjects for forty percent of their income, i
Federal tax receipts are $3.5 tn per year as we speak. The sum of personal income is $17.4 tn. The ratio is 0.2
When all taxes state and federal are calculated isn’t the number closer to 40%?
The ratio of state and local receipts to personal income is about 0.11 About 40% of that consists of indirect taxes.
DSS, I have read the 40% number. Adding your two numbers together gets us to .31 closer but a bit far from a number that is often repeated. That doesn’t mean the 40% is true or false.
Maybe you didn’t count everything. did you count estate taxes and things similar to a wealth tax such as the extra premium paid by those well to do on Medicare?
Yes, I counted everything. The summary data is published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Are you sure? Does it count the premium more affluent people pay for Medicare? I’m looking for a potential hole in the ~31%. before I start using that number.
If you have it available can you provide the http for the BEA site that you are using?
https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm
Personal income for calendar year 2018 = $17,582 bn
Under ‘Government current receipts and expenditures’ you will find the NIPA table ‘State and Local government receipts and expenditures’
“Current tax receipts’ total $1.765 bn. ‘Contributions to Govt Social insurance’ = $21.7 bn
=1787 / 17582 = 0.102
The superordinate heading ‘current receipts’ includes federal grants (financed with federal taxes and federal borrowing) and dividend income.
DSS, thanks, this is a little tough to sort out and get used to in a limited time frame. You are better at this than me. In simple terms I think you are adding up revenue from taxes as the numerator and what was earned as a denominator. Since some pay 0 taxes, if they were removed would that not increase the .31? I don’t doubt your logic or numbers. I am trying to see in what way the .4 number might have been used.
Bwahahahahahaha! Well our constitutional republic minority kicked your mob rule democratic majority’s arse. We’ve done it before and we’ll do it again. It won’t matter what rules you want to play by, you will discover the same force that brought this nation independence is still there, patiently giving you every opportunity to fu** this thing up. And you will. And when we’ve had enough, we will do what is necessary to restore it. And when we’re done with you, we’ll write and sing glorious songs about it. 🙂 And then whatever remains of your ilk will begin the process all over again. And we’ll be ready…again.
Most didn’t vote for Hellary, either.
Numerous Grand Juries, indictments, and convictions are coming for those involved in the coup. The many ugly, shocking details are already well known. When you realize how ignorant and wrong you have been we will forgive you, but forgiveness requires contrition.
You may want to prepare yourself by actually listening to Papadapolous, Page, and others who were illegally targeted and set-up by the corrupt Obama administration. Your mistake has been in not listening to the accused while jumping to a guilty verdict in your mind- that is sinful. You, and the left, have been useful idiots…you have been played by corrupt and evil people.
You are giving Trump the worst possible advice. The last thing that Trump needs to do is to do the bidding of Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation. And yet, that is exactly the advice that some guy named “Ivan” is giving Trump.
P. S. Did you know that Oleg Deripaska ran the entire Russian active-measures operation from start to finish? And that Deripaska hasn’t finished with that operation yet?
Ivan though many on the left jump on anonymous claims that are ludicrous they can’t seem to put the dots together despite all the evidence that is accumulating. They are so affixed to their ideology they appear almost blind to reality.
https://youtu.be/CC4xMiHRqK4
Natacha/Anonymous might have mentioned some of these things before….they had a familiar ring to them….
So I checked the record (see link) and found that that she had said very similar things many times in the past.
(comment and link were about Natacha/Anonymous’ 3:06 PM post).
I’m not big on making predictions here, but I’ll go out on a limb🧐:
sometime between now and the 2020 election, we’ll see a number of comments here by people permanently stuck in a 2016 time warp, re-holding that Trump-Hillary election over and over again.
It’s an open question whether these obseesive loons will pay attention to / get involved with the 2020 election, so no predictions from me on that.😎
Compelling post Tom. Good to get a jump on imaginary future comments in a similarly imaginary future category. I may take the rest of the day off while I contemplate it’s far reaching implications.
Future?!? Comments? What a joke, when you’ve repeated the same question 1O-20 times already.
Yeah, that really takes a glimpse into the “future” to figure that out, Anon.😄😃
More than 20 Tom – each time somebody relies on a nonsensical theory which does not stand up to that most obvious question.
“theory which does not stand up ”
Anon, though you may not realize it theories are created to be torn down in the effort to get to a better theory or actually prove something. Using a theory to disprove another theory doesn’t work except for those that lack proper understanding.
Well, Anon, I understand your preference for your own, personal non-sensical theories.
And your need to post and repost and repost the same inane “question” in virtually the same language.
Constant carping complaints against the comments of other commenters are the most frequent type of comments that Gnash posts on this blawg. So many carping complaints that Gnash has elevated himself to the fifth most frequent commenter on Res Ipsa Loquitur simply by lodging constant carping complaints against other commenters. Gnash is a complaint-junkie. A complaint-junkie is just another name for a NAG.
Well, I’ll explain that ”carping’ to you. There is a select group of propagandists, liars, and “columnists” here who, day in and day out, play the same games
Now there’s nothing to stop you and others in that relatively small group from playing these games; but after a point, some of the less polite people here might start to comment ( or carp) on these chicken**** stunts you and a few others here are noted for.
So you carrying on with your anonymous trolling and propaganda here, and I’ll continue to point out that you are a lying propagandist hiding behind aliases.
Hope that clears things up for you.
Tom Nash says: April 7, 2019 at 7:29 AM
I’ll use this reply box in the absence of one below my comment about Lies4Breakfast, which just posted as “anonymous”.
The reply box to which Gnash refers above is currently at the top of the next page of comments. There are only a few indentations remaining before the text window will become too narrow for Ptom’s constant carping complaints to fill.
This whole fandango has been Rosenstein’s baby from the beginning. It’s a reasonable wager it was Rosenstein who talked Sessions into recusing himself. It was Rosensein who approved the last iteration of the FISA warrants. It was Rosenstein who pretended that the justification for a counter-intelligence investigation could be repurposed to allow for a criminal investigation, and set the ‘scope’ of the investigation accordingly. Rosenstein is a Justice Department lifer defending other Justice Department lifers. He should be canned and disbarred.
He is a saboteur. Flog him
JT must be going thru a groundhog day moment where he thinks it’s April Fools Day again. Growing problem of Rosenstein? Really? The fact that most of America doesn’t believe or trust Barr is the growing problem. But true to form, JT says look over here, never mind about that 4 page summary from Barr that looks like he’s acting as Trump’s legal team instead of the USAG.
The AG IS THE PRESIDENT”S LEGAL TEAM! do you understand what a cabinet is? The AG is one of the top four slots.
Your ignorance is a problem Fish. Please study up a little on the administrative theory behind our constitutional regime
Mr. Kurtz: you claim to be an attorney, so if you really are, you should know that the AG is the AMERICAN PEOPLE’S LAWYER, sworn to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including those the POTUS violates. The AG of the U.S. owes a duty of loyalty to the American People, not Trump. Trump doesn’t understand this, which is why he fired Sessions. Barr doesn’t understand this either, apparently, because according to widespread reports, he has mischaracterized Mueller’s actual findings, giving Trump a positive spin not supported by Mueller’s findings. Ironically, Trump’s poll numbers did not improve after Barr’s deceitful spin on the Mueller findings. Trump was NOT cleared of wrongful conduct by Mueller, regardless of whether there are grounds for criminal prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. The majority of Americans are demanding to see the full report, which they have every right to do. Trump, Barr, and probably you, too, all understand that the Mueller report will not help Trump. Barr wanted to give Trump an opportunity for a victory lap and to raise money before the full truth is exposed. He should be fired and disbarred.
ha. i know that a corporation is represented by the chief executive officer. duty of loyalty to an amorphous mass is an excuse that some scoundrels use to permit themselves to refuse taking lawful orders from the boss.
Trump is the duly elected boss. AG is the top lawyer. simple! you advocate unlawful sabotage here on a systematic basis and arrogate to yourself the role of judge of those who are in office, according to your own whims, not “the people.”
Uh, Kurtz: maybe you might want to research the nature of the oath an AG must take: the oath is not one of loyalty to the POTUS–the oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States. As a matter of fact, FBI, CIA and intelligence agents all take a similar oath. They are there to investigate and prosecute people who violate the laws of the United States, including the POTUS, if applicable, regardless of politics. Barr doesn’t understand this, and neither do you, so maybe you should do a little research. Listening to Hannity, Tucker and Ingraham doesn’t count.
the constitution is a piece of paper. it has no mouth. orders are taken from a leader not a piece of paper.
ideas are inspiring and important guiding legal principles. ideas do not have mouths any more than papers do.
get out of the theoretical world and into the real one.
the one where employees have to take orders and cabinet officials answer to the president.
The Constitution is THE piece of paper (actually, I think it’s vellum) that sets forth the founding of America and its ideals and guiding principles. It is the foundation of our laws and system of government. Trump is no leader. The AG does not work for him, is not there to protect him against being held accountable for violations of the law, nor to spin the Special Counsel’s report in a false, favorable light. Barr has sullied whatever good reputation he previously had by hitching his wagon to Trump’s star.
So are you saying the Attorney General is not the president’s wingman?
why do you always spew that idiotic refraid. i never watch hannity, i never watch ingraham, and while i do like tucker, i rarely view him. i don’t get my ideas on poltics from tv that should be obvious.
but you are just addressing stereotypes in your own imagination not real people.
Mr. Kurtz,
It does not matter what you watch, or if you never watch, TV.
The brilliant Hannity, Fox News “argument” is always there from a number of our prominent debaters here.
Who could not be impressed with the intellect of those who spout “Hannity, Rush, Fox News, right wing media bubble”,etc.
There may be a thousand examples on these threads of that brilliant “debating style”; you can’t swing a dead cat without running into some intellectual giants here who have used that devastating attack.
If Kurtz and others here don’t somehow make up by themselves the exact same nonsense memes – like the Deep State – we know are promoted by those on Fox and talk radio, it is a matter of logic that they watch and listen to them or get it 2nd hand.
Anon, many on the left are ignorant of a lot of things and we know how the left wing media copies one another only to be copied by left wing pundits or visa versa.
You seem to believe the term ‘deep state’ is something that was first mentioned when Trump became a national political figure. Some of us actually read and I think that is mostly those that are NOT on the left. That is why there is a paucity of information coming from those that support the left. That is why a lot of times the left cannot respond to the more educated responses coming from places other than the left.
John le Carré wrote a book over 5 years ago where the deep state was in part defined in that novel of suspense and intrigue. I have read that it may have originated in Turkey and I think DSS mentioned something about that earlier. Some of us actualy expand our knowledge and aren’t left with simple talking points.
You simply have no idea how it is that conservatives can arrive at exactly the same conclusion without the aid of some coordinated 3rd party feed.
You Lefties remind me of the ensign who asked the Chief why was it that Chiefs could become officers, but officers couldn’t become Chiefs? The Chief replies, because we have standards.
The magic that coordinates conservatives is our nation’s founding first principles. We believe in natural rights and the rule of law. We believe in the separation of powers. We believe anyone that takes an oath to serve this country is to be measured by their fidelity to that oath. We don’t believe in giving any politician a pass merely because they represent a political party, or our dreams and desires. Not Reagan, not Clinton, not Bush(s), not Obama, and not Trump. Same standard…period. You don’t understand this because you don’t agree with those standards.
Funny stuff Olly, especially given that you probably sincerely belief all that. I like the dedication to the separation of powers when most Trump supporters are full on with his attempting to take over the Congressional power of the purse and how you don;t give any politician a pass – hell, ya’ll give Trump your proxy and the keys to your wife’s bedroom and defend ANYTHING he says or does.
” with his attempting to take over the Congressional power of the purse”
Can you show us where Trump has taken over the power of the purse and wasn’t just overturning an executive order by Obama? If you have an example are you sure Obama didn’t do something similar or worse.
I don’t like governing by exectuive order but I do know what Obama meant when he said ““We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,”
Wrong, Olly. Some of these brilliant analysts here know EXACTLY, and with certainty, how conservatives think, how they’ve developed political/ policy views, and where they get all of their information and news.
It’s FOX, of course. In the pre-Fox News days, there were no conservatives ideas.
Now we know the above to be true; if it were not true, why would it be mentioned thousands of times in these threads over the course of years?
To Allen’s question, by his declaration of a national emergency – has that right – and planned spending of funds allocated by the Congress for other purposes on an issue fully vetted by Congress a month ago, at which time and times before the president and his congressional allies had the ability to either convince or compromise to achieve his goals legislative, he is violating the Congresses power of the purse. Significant numbers of GOP house and senate members voted against him on this issue, while most violated their oath of office in a weak display of primary fear.
And by that same “logic”, it’s obvious that Anon gets his ideas and talking points from David Brock, Soros, MSNBC and Racheal Maddow and co, the DNC ads, etc. If Anon and a few others here want to keep playing the Fox News/ Hannity etc game to be dismissive of other’s opinions, then maybe the “Brock Butt Boy” line we saw a few times here should become standard and frequent payback for clowns.
Natacha doesn’t know the difference between illegal and legal acts.
This was from Allan
https://youtu.be/rDXN7T3-Jrg
Natacha and the other one from the same coven don’t know the difference between a lot of basic things, Allan.
Your pathological narcissism only is exceeded by your dear leader. Now have someone read to you what I wrote…” looks like he’s acting as Trump’s legal team “
Fishead, you’re not hired. Even for an entry level job, let alone the cabinet, you have to learn to take orders.
Imagine if every hamburger flipper at mcdonald’s thought he owed a duty of loyalty to “the shareholders” that allowed him to flaunt the manager’s orders. he could just make big macs however he liked, because OF COURSE THE EMPLOYEE ALWAYS KNOWS BETTER THAN THE BOSS
that’s Diane’s logic and of course it appeals to you
back in your hippie wagon and spark some bud, back to lala land, quit wearing yourself out by thinking too much
You people are truly obsessed with being The Boss of your neighbors, fellow citizens and fellow human beings. You elected a man who had a registered trademark on the catchphrase “You’re Fired” because of your obsession with being The Boss of your neighbors, fellow citizens and fellow human beings. You go to sleep at night dreaming of firing your neighbors, fellow citizens and fellow human beings. You wake up in the morning daydreaming of firing your neighbors, fellow citizens and fellow human beings. You come here to the Turley blawg and post comment after comment in which slake your pent up desire to fire your neighbors, fellow citizens and fellow human beings. You are broken. Like horses trained to the bridle, the bit and the saddle. Thoroughly broken. And Trump has strapped that saddle to you backs so that Trump can ride you into town. YOU NAGS ARE ALL SO SAD IT BREAKS YOUR NEGHBORS’ HEARTS.
P. S. Trump says, “You’re Fired.” Now off to the glue factory with the whole lot of you.
ha ha what a nutty remark that is. “you people” another armchair shrink
I would not employ the likes of you because you obviously would not know how to take an order. the most basic requirement for an employee.
Life is full of authorities. parents, spouses, bosses, cops, coaches, captains. Woe to those who feel the need to always rebel.
It’s something of a religion in the US isnt it; constant rebellion, a nation full of overgrown children. A sickness in our culture, this constant worship of rebellion against natural order. And Democrats promote this today. They didn’t in the past. The Democrats of the 60s were still a pretty righteous crew, overall. Major Daley knew how to handle disorderly hippy revolutionaries, didn’t he?
Mr. Kurtz,
Maybe “you people” wasn’t the best phrase for L4B to use.
I think “you all look alike to me”, a time-honored phrase used in other contexts, was closer to what L4B had in minds.
Did L4B call OTHERS nags?
Now that’s funny.😄😃😂🤣
What is groundhogs day is that when you’re faced with facts from JT that challenges what you believe to be true, you never consider the possibility JT might have a better grasp of the facts than yourself. This goes for the rest of your cohorts on this blog.
“Thousands Rally for Release of Mueller Report in 300 Events Across US”
You were part of one of those protests weren’t you Fishy? The fact that you believe “most of America doesn’t believe or trust Barr” suggests that you are being manipulated, yet again, into believing some kind of conspiracy regarding AG Barr….and THAT might actually be the “growing problem” Fishy…
The Mueller report included four summaries that were prepared by the special counsel’s office. One summary for each of four sections in the Mueller report. AG Barr ignored all four of those prepared summaries and told Congress that there were only two section in the Mueller report. The two sentence fragments from Mueller that Barr quoted were not quoted in full. That is, AG Barr redacted two of Mueller’s own sentences written in Mueller’s own words because . . . Well. We don’t know yet. Do we? But we’re going to find out why Barr redacted Mueller, himself, in his own words.
Nah. I think in Fishy’s case it’s really just about him going to protests and then saying, “Look, Mom! I’m RESISTING!” 😉
another federal law, another day to ignore it
Aint that right Anon, L4D, et al…..?
Article II, Section 1, Clause 3: Electoral College
Search domain http://www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/2/essays/80/electoral-collegehttps://www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/2/essays/80/electoral-college
Electoral College. The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.
Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution – Wikipedia
Search domain en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Twelfth Amendment ( Amendment XII) to the United States Constitution provides the procedure for electing the President and Vice President. It replaced the procedure provided in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3, by which the Electoral College originally functioned.
“assume the DOJ policy is settled as the law of the land.”
Until you change your mind just like you have done on the US Constitution on every article and amendment you detest
🖕🏾
Article II, Section 1, Clause 3: Electoral College
Search domain http://www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/2/essays/80/electoral-collegehttps://www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/2/essays/80/electoral-college
Electoral College. The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.
Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution – Wikipedia
Search domain en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Twelfth Amendment ( Amendment XII) to the United States Constitution provides the procedure for electing the President and Vice President. It replaced the procedure provided in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3, by which the Electoral College originally functioned.
Nona (New Orleans, Nebraska?) – If I have said the electoral college should be dismantled without proper legal action, including a new amendment, or the actions of states – who have the authority – to make their electors conform to the national popular vote, or even assigning them proportionally instead of winner take all, you’d have a point.
I haven’t.
You don’t.
You have yet to meet a Federal Law, Statute, Rule or Founding Father you support. You are all about relativism just like your high queen and matriarch, HRC except that she is filthy rich while you are not. Sux to be you
We support the Bribery statute in full. How’s about you, BO? We support the Conspiracy statute in full. How’s about you, BO? We support the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in full. How’s about you, BO? We support The Federal Election Campaign Act in full. How do you shave your face without a mirror? What? They won’t let you shave your own face? Well, then. What’s it like living in a room with rubber walls, BO?
Many of the talking heads one sees or reads in the media — including the good professor — decry the term “fake news.” Is it inaccurate? If you search for the legal definition of the word fake you will get the definition of the word “false.” From Black’s Law Dictionary: Untrue; erroneous; deceitful; contrived or calculated to deceive and injure. I believe that precisely describes the reportage of CNN and MSNBC.
Secondly, the term “witch hunt” was exactly the correct description for Mueller’s investigation. Why? Because the women who were brought to trial in Salem were innocent victims.
So, Professor Turley: where is it written that an innocent person mist remain silent in the face of non-stop false claims made by so-called legal experts and reporters who have an agenda. Buck up, Buttercup. The president has the same free speech rights as the guy who picks up your garbage. Or you could always move to France.
You should pass that on to the WH, because the poor guy just sits there and takes it. This free speech thing could really help him out.
How about a song, Anon? This one’s for you 😉
https://youtu.be/pmnKP47tB7M
TBob,
This one is for those who are still whining about the 2016 election results.
Tom, presidential candidates are advised to win elections ‘decisively’. That’s really important. When candidates lose the Popular Vote by significant margins but get the White House anyway, it leaves a residue of bitterness that never goes away.
When not ‘one’ but ‘two’ Electoral College victories happen in a span of only 16 years, it creates the strong impression that something’s out of whack. It looks to many people like their votes are meaningless. That, in turn, undermines faith in elections.
But Trumpers, of course, dismiss all these concerns as just common whining. Like people should be good sports about ‘victories’ that don’t look like victories. And when the so-called ‘victor’ keeps claiming he won really big, that insults everyone’s intelligence.
Well, Peter, maybe no one “advised” Trump that he needed a “wide margin” win to become president.
Tom, some people never learned to play under the rules of the game. That is why they have temper tantrums, call others deplorables and print fake news.
Given the results in 6 of the last 7 elections, it’s not likely to happen, but it would be fun to see the Democratic candidate win the electoral college while losing the popular vote so we could be taught the proper reaction by our GOP friends here to losing an election by an unrepresentative relic of slave state compromises. I’m certain the fair minded attitude they always display would result and be their finest hour.
You would probably learn how to behave.
P. Hill — what are your thoughts about Stacey Abrams not only refusing to concede the Georgia governors race, but going around today saying “she won” that election? Results were that she lost by over 50,000 votes. She claims it was voter suppression and that she “won.”
“Failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams has said at least a dozen times since her loss in November that she was cheated out of a victory and the result was rigged by Republican Governor Brian Kemp when he was secretary of state.
Abrams has called Kemp’s 2018 win “tainted” and “an erosion of our democracy,” said “we don’t know what really happened” because of voter suppression, and even declared “we won” a race she lost by more than 54,000 votes.
She has gone on a national media tour since her defeat and never been pressed on her claims, but Democrats and liberal media members thrashed Donald Trump when he questioned the integrity of the 2016 race before it was over. He infamously remarked at his third debate with Hillary Clinton that he would “keep you in suspense” over respecting the election’s results.
Clinton and running mate Tim Kaine (D., Va.) said Trump was acting like a “sore loser,” and Clinton said Trump’s potential lack of respect for the result was a “direct threat to our democracy.”
Clinton has since said Abrams should have won the election because she was “deprived of the votes” she “otherwise would have gotten.”
Then-President Barack Obama said Trump’s rhetoric was dangerous, telling one rally, “When you try to sow the seeds of doubt in people’s minds about the legitimacy of our elections, that undermines our democracy.” His former senior adviser David Axelrod feared Trump’s supporters wouldn’t accept a loss and called it “frightening for our democracy.”
Then-Republican strategist Steve Schmidt, who predicted Clinton would receive more than 400 electoral votes at one point, said in 2016 it was a “moment of clear and present danger to our constitutional order.” Schmidt has since left the Republican Party.
Abrams’s claims that her defeat was unfair have not been fact-checked by mainstream media outlets—several have simply called the race “marred” by voter suppression charges—although the Free Beacon, National Review, the Weekly Standard, and the Washington Examiner have shown such extreme charges are unsubstantiated.”
https://freebeacon.com/politics/according-to-democrats-stacey-abrams-is-a-sore-loser-threatening-our-democracy/
TBob, As soon as he announced his candidacy for Governor, Brian Kemp should have stepped down as Georgia’s Secretary of State. But Kemp not only stayed in that position, he pursued policies that could easily be labeled ‘voter suppression’. Therefore Kemp opened himself to accusations that he did, indeed, ‘rig the election’.
Now it’s possible that Kemp actually won a narrow victory. But again, he could have headed off a big controversy had he just stepped down from his old job before seeking the governorship.
Voter suppression, for the record, is widespread in the South. Republicans have given Blacks good justification to be paranoid. And Republicans were okay with that. They ‘wanted’ to discourage Blacks from voting.
There will always be what Peter calls voter supression because illegals are not permitted to vote, one person one vote and all sorts of rules that make the voting process secure. Voter ID is a simple way to register and vote. That would lead to a paper trail of voter supression. ID is found not desireable by the left because it insures valid voting.
Oh, good one, Tom 😉
Here’s another one I was going to post on the Christiane Amanpour thread…comes with sing-a-long lyrics, too 🙂
No, Congress is the only institution that may act on the information if we assume the DOJ policy is settled as the law of the land.
Meant as reply to Tom way below.
Anon,
I was pointing out the dual roles and activities of Congress as legimate “recipient” of sensitive information, and certain members of Congress leaking “like a screen door on a submarine”.
I thought it was a given that motive alone cannot constitute a crime. So even if your motivation is suspect, you have to actually engage in an illegal act. Otherwise we’d have thought trials going on all over the place. In the instance, Trump exercised his article II powers. It doesn’t matter what his state of mind was.
The pardon power is an Article II power of the president. AG Barr said three times in his testimony at his Senate confirmation hearing that a president offering a pardon to suborn perjury and tamper with witnesses would be crime. Of course, one would have to prove criminal intent in order to secure a conviction at a trial before a jury on a charge of obstruction of justice by means of subornation of perjury and tampering with witnesses. But the criminal intent is merely an element of the crime. Not the criminal conduct itself.
P. S. The state of mind with which any given president exercises any given Article II power remains an issue for both The Congress of the United States and We The People of the United States whenever we exercise our power at the polls on election day. Hoorah!
“AG Barr said three times in his testimony at his Senate confirmation hearing that a president offering a pardon to suborn perjury and tamper with witnesses would be crime.”
I don’t see how the use of the pardon power can be illegal. And the sequence of facts in this example doesn’t make much sense. How do you know there’s any perjury until the witness commits it? Then you have to charge the witness with it and prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. The pardon would come AFTER that. Talking to the witness and telling them to lie would come BEFORE. And you would be charged with that action, not the pardon.
Manafort lied so many times that he was in breach of his cooperation agreement. Since Manafort had already pled guilty, he was not charged with any additional false statements nor perjury. Michael Cohen pled guilty to lying to Congress. Trump abused the pardon power by offering pardons to Manafort, Cohen, Flynn and who knows who all else for the sake of suborning perjury and tampering with witnesses.
I understand that it’s just too hard for you to keep up, Steve. But at least you could put some effort into it. And you don’t. It’s tiresome and boorish.
Just to elaborate a bit, I’d be happy to take a correction on this, but I believe any quid pro quo in an obstruction charge has no bearing on the charge. It is merely used as evidence to make a stronger case against you for telling or asking somebody to lie in a proceeding. Telling or asking somebody to lie in a proceeding is the illegal act — not the quid quo pro.
Suppose you’re on really good terms with a neighbor. You’ve done substantive things for each other down through the years. One night you tell or ask your neighbor to lie in a proceeding and he does so. I believe you’re just as guilty of obstruction as if you tell or ask someone to lie in a proceeding and write them a $10,000 check. Now unless you’re honest with the prosecutor, they have a much stronger case that you obstructed in the second instance than the first — assuming the prosecutor finds out about the check and notes the timing of it. But I don’t believe it has any bearing on the charge.
So I don’t know what Barr was getting at or what his exact language was.
In the case of the Comey firing, you don’t have an illegal act.
Late4Dinner says: April 5, 2019 at 9:06 AM
AG Barr’s audition memo:
Obviously, the President and any other official can commit obstruction in this classic sense of sabotaging a proceeding’s truth-finding function. Thus, for example, if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suborns perjury, or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he, like anyone else, commits the crime of obstruction.
AG Barr’s Senate testimony:
Leahy: Do you believe a president could lawfully issue a pardon in exchange for the recipient’s promise to not incriminate him?
Barr: No, that would be a crime.
Klobuchar: You wrote on page one that a President persuading a person to commit perjury would be obstruction. Is that right?
Barr: [Pause] Yes. Any person who persuades another —
Klobuchar: Okay. You also said that a President or any person convincing a witness to change testimony would be obstruction. Is that right?
Barr: Yes.
Klobuchar: And on page two, you said that a President deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence would be an obstruction. Is that correct?
Barr: Yes.
Klobuchar: OK. And so what if a President told a witness not to cooperate with an investigation or hinted at a pardon?
Barr: I’d have to now the specifics facts, I’d have to know the specific facts.
Klobuchar: OK. And you wrote on page one that if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, that would be obstruction?
Barr: Yes.
Klobuchar: OK. So what if a President drafted a misleading statement to conceal the purpose of a meeting. Would that be obstruction?
Barr: Again, I’d have to know the specifics.
Lindsey Graham: So if there was some reason to believe that the President tried to coach somebody not to testify or testify falsely, that could be obstruction of justice?
Barr: Yes, under that, under an obstruction statute, yes.
Lindsey Graham: So if there’s some evidence that the President tried to conceal evidence? That would be obstruction of justice, potentially?
Barr: [nods]
SteveJ says: April 6, 2019 at 10:04 AM
So I don’t know what Barr was getting at or what his exact language was.
So Steve J does not actually read this blawg nor follow this thread nor any other thread. Steve J is a drive-by commenter who prefers to remain perpetually confused about pretty much everything–including especially the law as described by the Attorney General of the United States.
As Comey himself has said he served at the pleasure of the President and the President didn’t need any reason to fire him. So why is JT trying to keep stiring things up by implying there was not a compelling reason?
Obstruction of Justice does go to intent and Trump both publicly declared and grinningly to the Russians in the WH that he fired him over the investigation.
And Trump had the right to fire him over the investigation. In particular, the fact that Comey never outlined that the steel dossier was a DNC/Clinton product bought and paid for.
Had Comey actually told the entire story, the country would have not had to go through these past 2 1/2 years.
Comey most certainly deserved firing, for a great many reasons.
How did Comey not “outlin(ed) that the steel dossier was a DNC/Clinton product.” You do know that the language of FISA applications leaves out names – Trump was “candidate one” or some such generic code – and the dossier was noted as being produced by a rival campaign. The judges may ask questions if they had any doubts about what that meant.
This meme is as stupid as the one about Nancy Pelosi supposedly saying the Representatives had to pass the ACA so they could see what was in it – no, she didn’t say that.
Trump and others have made more claims, too. Do you deny Trump’s claim that the entire foundation, the very source of this entire “Russia” crimes claim was political in nature? That claim is indeed true, as there has been to date not one criminal charge relative to Russia.
Define exactly to readers what was Peter Stryok’s “insurance policy” if not the lies Re. Trump and Russia/Putin? CRICKETS.
Normal practice is for the campaign loser to appear in person at her HQ and admit defeat. Instead of doing this, Hillary conspired with Podesta to activate Plan B of the “insurance policy.” Plan A was to use the Russia angle to win. Plan A having failed, Plan B was to destroy Trump’s Presidency before he took office.
(And no, I’m not so blind or dumb to deny that Trump has done a superb job of self-flagellating since he won the election. He has definitely and positively and clearly made a mockery of most of his campaign promises. Hiring Bolton should be considered a crime against his voters. Even Congress has demanded he end the death and maiming in Yemen, which he won’t. His love fest with the Al Saud Krime Syndikat is pure evil. His love fest with Israel makes a mockery of George Washington’s advice in his Farewell Address that “all foreign entanglements are temporary.” The US gains absolutely nothing by our relationships with Israel. Not one person has made a case for our presence in Syria. We should have withdrawn from NATO decades ago.)
I’m guessing Peter was using that old trick of bragging to get …..some, since he did nothing unprofessional in fulfilling his duties according to the IG.
I don’t believe the investigation was political, since it was known the Russians were trying to interfere in the elction with the goal of electing Trump and he and his operatives had uncounted meetings with Russians they lied about and in other ways acted suspiciously – see Papdopoulus and Trump Tower meeting, changing of GOP platform on the Ukraine, and sucking up to Putin.
It is not disputed that Russia attempted to interfere in the campaign, however, it has been demonstrated that the Russians were looking to create confusion, not necessarily support one or the other candidate.
The changing of the Ukraine policy and other items you have noted have been more than adequately explained in the past. Perhaps you should read those explanations before you spout off foolishly…
Can you link me to what you consider an explanation of the Ukraine platform change?
You neglected to mention that our intelligence agencies and the FBI concurred that Russia interfered in our election with the intent of helping in Trump’s election.
“with the intent of helping in Trump’s election.”
Anon, how do you know what the FBI’s intentions were? Speculation is not a substitute for fact. It can lead to some silly conclusions. But if you want to speculate you should recognize that the greater evidence is in the other direction.
I spoke to the intent of the Russians as discovered by our intelligence agencies and the FBI. I don’t know what you mean about the FBI’s intentions – about what? – which I didn’t address.
PS My relaying the conclusions of our intelligence agencies and the FBI regarding the intent of the Russians is not an opinion, it’s a matter of fact.
Anon, You didn’t quite get the facts right but forget about that. Your facts are based on what members of the FBI wanted you to believe not what actually happened.
There was a lot of false testimony from the FBI and a lot of lying. Some of the former members have been dismissed or under criminal referral for their actions.
When so much of what the FBI did is questionable there is not such thing as a matter of fact.
No one was fired from the FBI for presenting false evidence regarding Trump or the investigation..
“No one was fired from the FBI for presenting false evidence regarding Trump or the investigation..”
No one said they provided false evidence. They lied, leaked, didn’t appropriately inform the FISA Court, and did many other things. We have to wait to get all the details but many have been released. That you find the behavior of the FBI satisfactory is a reflection on your understanding of justice and what the FBI is supposed to do and be. We will have to wait and get more specific details to see if any will end up in jail.
A smattering below of how the FBI managed the investigation of Trump.
“Former FBI Director James Comey’s testimonies cannot be reconciled with those of his own deputy director Andrew McCabe. He falsely testified that the Steele dossier was not the main basis for obtaining FISA court warrants….”
“Andrew McCabe currently is under criminal referral for lying to federal investigators about leaking to the media….”
“Former CIA Director John Brennan has admitted to lying under oath to Congress on two occasions.”
“Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr did not tell the truth on a federal written disclosure required by law when he omitted the key fact that his wife Nellie worked on Christopher Steele’s Fusion GPS dossier. Ohr’s testimony that he completely briefed key FBI officials on the dossier in July or August 2016 is not compatible to what former FBI attorney Lisa Page has testified to concerning the dates of her own knowledge of the Steele material.”
“the FBI concurred that Russia interfered in our election with the intent of helping in Trump’s election.”
The evidence that is being gathered shows a distinct hostility towards Trump. The FBI has stated at times Russian interference was on one side and at other times on another side.
But we should not forget. The FBI clearly was biased in what they were doing. Some members have already been dismissed.
I will more fully provide data in a seperate email written by VDH.
Yeah, we got it. The actors who torpedoed Hillary’s campaign were aiming for Trump and missed – or something like that.
“actors who torpedoed Hillary’s campaign ”
I only recall one significant action by Comey over the over 2 year time period the FBI was acting in a partisan fashion against Trump. It was one short statement that came in the time frame where the FBI attorney had said that charges should be brought against Hillary Clinton. The original Comey statement was watered down by others at the FBI.
At the same time on a continuous basis Trump was being accused of Russian Collusion and obstruction. So far we know that there was no evidence for collusion. There wasn’t evidence of obstruction either but since any stray movement made by the President could be foolishly considered obstruction we have to wait until the full report comes out or rely on Barr and Rosenstein that no obstruction occurred. The reason for that decision to be made is complex so I understand that some people are unable to deal with such complexity.
Anon, I should have made it clearer for you. What the FBI said was the intent of the Russians, as “discovered” by the FBI, represents the intent of the FBI to prevent Trump from gaining or keeping the Presidency. Take a look at the article by Hanson I just posted and take note of the various people involved. Do you want to dispute any of his facts?
What did the FBI do to stop Trump from “gaining” the presidency? What they might have done to keep Hillary from gaining it is obvious, though I’m not stupid enough to think it was a conspiracy.
“though I’m not stupid enough to think it was a conspiracy.”
Anon, that is not saying much of anything. When the lies mount up everywhere including in front of Congress and when people are writing to one another about their hatred of the President one gets the inkling that a conspiracy might exist. Some are unable to comprehend the possibility.
That seems to be your problem, but why don’t you start by explaining all the lies and emails having to do with Trump along with what appears to be a major problem with the FISA warrants. There is a lot more but these few issues are easier to talk about.
The above is from Allan though my icon might change.
The Blowhard asked, “Anon, how do you know what the FBI’s intentions were? Speculation is not a substitute for fact.”
3 June 2016
Rob Goldstone to Trump Jr
Emin [Agalarov, a Russian pop star represented by Goldstone] just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.
The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras [a Moscow-based developer who tried to partner with Trump in a hotel project] this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin.
What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?
[repeated for emphasis] This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin.
[end excerpt]
Wrapping your eyes in bandages is no denial of fact.
It appears that a lot of improprieties were seen.
Diane, can you explain why the primary evidence for the FISA court seems to be the Steele dossier?
For starters, the fact that Mueller has done nothing about the Ukraine issue indicates there was nothing there. There are articles online explaining it, and you need to research them. The reason you need to research them is because you never believe anything anybody says, you never seem to do any research to ascertain the facts and prefer to believe your own liberal garbage, so you need to educate yourself rather than let us do it for you. Perhaps the exercise will make you less of a mindless nuisance here.
I believe the determination was that the Russians were seeking to screw things up in general, not necessarily to support Trump. In any event, if they were trying to help get Trump elected, that would make them the only ones who believed he had a chance, at least besides Ann Coulter.
I provide links to many of comments and especially if they are about not commonly known facts. If you have information explaining the Ukraine passage in the GOP platform I’m eager to hear it. I don’t think anyone has alleged that changing it was illegal, so I doubt Mueller addressed it.
@Anon So nobody has alleged that the change in the platform regarding Ukraine was illegal. In that case, why in the hell are you worrying about it?
As for Mueller, he was tasked with examining everything, and I’m quite certain that the Ukraine issue was one he looked at, particularly considering that many fools on the Democratic side look at it as a smoking gun. The fact that nothing was said by the SC means clearly, nothing was wrong there.
What is it about this concept that you find so difficult to grasp? There is no there there. Give it up.
I didn’t realize you had read the Mueller report, so clearly i’m at a disadvantage.
I’m still waiting for that explanation of the change to the GOP platform on the Ukraine you claim to know about. Can you give us just a quick outline?
@Anon… As I have already said regarding the Ukraine situation, since Mueller didn’t find a problem there, I don’t see why you should. However, I’m noticing with many others have said here. You’re immune to the facts.
You haven’t presented any facts to back up your claim that there is an alternate explanation for the changing of the GOP platform on the Ukraine and your speculation about Mueller’s conclusions – if any – regarding it is highly questionable. I’m interested in new information if you have any.
@L4D Yawwnnn. Did you say something?
Re anon’s question about what the FBI took to stop Trump from becoming president……it didn’t stop Trump from being elected.
So Strzok’s statement to Ms.Page, answering her question “he can’t win, can he”, answering “we’ll stop it” indicates a high (and widespread) belief that Hillary’s victory was in the bag ( more accurately, the Stzrok-Page exchange reflects that.
Had the Trump-Clinton looked like a tossup, we may have a better idea of what Strzok meant by “we’ll stop it” (Trump being elected).
As things were, there was no perceived need for Strzok and others to far beyond attempts to protect Hillary by pre-determinong that she was “extremely careless” rather than “grossly negligent” .
And when Strzok and McCabe learned of the Abedin/Carlos Danger laptop 6 weeks before the election, the 4 week period of inaction might have been extended for an additional 2 weeks ( or 4 years) had the Anon version of the Deep State within the Deep State not upset their plans.
( That version has a group of New York FBI agents actually running the FBI and calling the shots).
Stzrok/Page/McCabe seemed to have some minor doubts about Hillary’s anticipated victory, given the “insurance policy” discussed on “Andy’s office”. So while the FBI did not successfully stop Trump from winning, at least two high level FBI officials discussed “insurance” if the unthinkable happened, and Trump won.
If the discussion had been about “stopping” Hillary from winning, and “insurance” in case she did win, I’m sure that Hillary and her supporters would say the discussions were “no biggie” .
And a President Hillary, had she won, would not have been a bit suspicious of or pissed at the FBI.😉
While this comment thread is still (barely/ legible on my smartphone, on the issue of the change in the 2016 GOP platform:
It’s an area that should be review, starting with a basic, clear understanding of what happened when, and who did what. If a delegation ( or delegate) proposes that an aggressive policy on the Ukraine be in the platform, and that proposed change is rejected, then who “changed” the platform?
Was it cast in stone long before the 2016 GOP Convention, an official, established document like the Constitution? Or were there platform debates and no finalized platform even that convention started?
If it’s the former, than the accusation about “changing the platform” is valid. Of it’s the later, “the changed accusation” about an evolving platform, taking shape with multiple parties advocating different policy language, means that a lot of people where “guilty” of “changing” the platform by virtue of their participation in the process.
I can’t proofread this before submitting the comment, so I’ll post it anyway as is.
To begin with, NY agents hostile to Hillary would not need to “run” that office as Tom suggests in order to leak the reopening of the Clinton emails as may have been the meaning of the otherwise apochryphal comment of Giuliani at that time.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-fbi-leaks/fbi-fear-of-leaks-drove-decision-on-emails-linked-to-clinton-sources-idUSKBN12Y2QD
As to Tom’s larger argument that the supposed Deep State conspirators were just overly comfortable with Hillary’s lead, yeah, maybe,, but then they would not have been paying attention to polling showing her advantage dropping from 6% to 2% (her final vote tally margin) or the ease involved in either leaking or stating in the interests of fairness to both the candidates and the voters the investigation into Trump’s campaign. I remind all that the IG found no instances of unprofessional actions by Strzock save using his agency cell phone for personal and political communications. Lots of government employees have strong political opinions of all flavors. So what?
In short, no matter how you cut it, the supposed Deep State by it’s own actions, put Trump in office. That’s irrefutable.
As to the change of the platform, it us my understanding – and I am happy to be corrected – that this had to do with a position which continued from previous campaigns being changed without the usual procedures as if from on high.
Tom, we can all note how Anon neglects each and every incident you or anyone else mentions. Selective bias is dangerous to the truth. Does Anon care about the truth? I don’t think so for if he did he would comment on each and every issue where the FBI was shown to be doing things that did not appear appropriate.
“the supposed Deep State by it’s own actions, put Trump in office. That’s irrefutable.”
That is delusional.
When the 2016 Republican primaries began, the Republican establishment was leery of Donald Trump. It seemed that Trump was a loose cannon who would say anything to incite an audience. What’s more, Trump’s business dealings with Russia had been well-documented for many years by Business Media. In fact, Christopher Steele was more than likely influenced by all those Business Media stories. They probably pointed him in the direction he went.
So this idea that a few ‘deep state actors’ orchestrated the investigations that became The Mueller Probe completely ignores Trump’s history. Commenters like Tom would have us believe that Trump was an establishment Republican respected for political wisdom. That portrayal of Trump is revisionist history, to say the least.
Trump was not liked by many Republicans and disliked by virtually all Democrats. In fact if Democrats so happen to say anything not considered PC even when true that are slammed by the PC police. This is a set up for the fascist state. The SS did the same before Hitler took complete power.
Despite what you desire the Mueller probe was supposed to be looking into Russian interference not Trump. You are having a hard time coping with the fact that the Mueller report clearly states no collusion. Perhaps you should obtain some psychiatric care.
Refute the statement then.
The Mindless Nuisance said, “I believe the determination was that the Russians were seeking to screw things up in general, not necessarily to support Trump. In any event, if they were trying to help get Trump elected, that would make them the only ones who believed he had a chance.”
Twelve Russian military intelligence officers hacked the DNC email server, the DCCC email server, the Podesta G-mail account, Hillary Clinton’s campaign headquarters email account, The State Department and the DNC data analytics at the AWS cloud storage because they were seeking to damage Clinton’s chances of being elected, which, in turn, would, and did, help Trump’s chances of getting elected president.
That Russia also “screwed things up in general” is not even relevant, let alone a rebuttal, to the proven fact that Russia hacked and disseminated thousands of emails damaging to Hillary Clinton just like they told Papadopoulos they would do.
Moran is a mindless denial-monger.
@L4D- Based on the replies of yours I’ve seen here, you would certainly know what mindlessness is.
The fact is, and it has been reported, that the Russians also tried to hack the RNC and other GOP sources.
The bottom line, and this I cannot possibly accentuate enough for anybody as foolish as you… First Rosenstein, and now Mueller, have made it clear that there was no collusion. That no Americans willingly or knowingly cooperated with the Russians.
Once you get that through your thick skull, you might get a glimmer of insight into what’s really happening. I hold out little hope that this will happen – You and yours haven’t been able to get over 2016, why should we expect you to realize that your fervent hopes for Mueller have been totally and actually destroyed?
The Russians supported Trump’s candidacy for president. You disputed that fact. All of your rebuttals are fecklessly irrelevant to your initial disputation of the fact that the Russians supported Trump’s candidacy for president. Consequently, your head is as thick and dense and hard as a hockey puck, Moran.
@L4D… so show me where they said they supported Trump. Show me the lawn signs in the front of Putin’s dacha. Otherwise, all we have is you blithering on and Lord knows we get enough of that
Moran says: April 6, 2019 at 3:07 PM
@L4D… so show me where they said they supported Trump.
3 June 2016
Rob Goldstone to Trump Jr
Emin [Agalarov, a Russian pop star represented by Goldstone] just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.
The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras [a Moscow-based developer who tried to partner with Trump in a hotel project] this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin.
What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?
[repeated for emphasis] This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin.
You have actually to read the blawg, Moran. Is it really that hard for you?
Seriously? Give it a break.
Moran says: April 6, 2019 at 3:07 PM
@L4D… so show me where they said they supported Trump.
Twelve Russian military intelligence officers hacked the DNC email server, the DCCC email server, the Podesta G-mail account, Hillary Clinton’s campaign headquarters email account, The State Department and the DNC data analytics at the AWS cloud storage because they were seeking to damage Clinton’s chances of being elected, which, in turn, would, and did, help Trump’s chances of getting elected president.
You have actually to read the blawg, Moran. Failing that, you really need to stop pretending to be a moron. For instance, demanding a statement from Russia that they supported Trump before accepting the above facts as Russian support for Trump would be literally moronic if you weren’t merely pretending to be a moron, Moran..
@L4D- The last person who equated my last name with moron was in grade 3 at the time. That is about what I expect as an intelligence level for you, given what I read of your material here.
Anon, that you don’t believe the investigation was political means very little. Your prior statements including that Congress subpoena Trump’s IRS forms tell a different story. Your inabilityto understand the difference between politics and legislating is very scary. That is what we are seeing from AOC and how NYC lost 25,000 needed jobs.
If, or when, Trump launches a counter-investigation against the FBI, the DOJ, the SCO, the Obama administration and who knows who all else, not only will that counter-investigation be a purely political ploy, but it will also be Trump doing the bidding of Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation so that Russian military intelligence can have a free hand to wage informational warfare against the United States of America without running the risk of being caught by the FBI, the DOJ, any future SCO, nor any future presidential administration.
Let’s find out if Trump can get re-elected by helping Putin render America defenseless against Russia.
@ L4D Who drop this fool on his/her/it’s head when he/she/it was born?
I’m glad to see that Moran is opposed to Trump launching Putin’s counter-investigation against the FBI, the DOJ, the SCO, the Obama administration and who knows who all else. Moran should call The White House and tell Trump not to launch Putin’s counter-investigation–STAT.
So far Trump has done nothing of the kind, however each and every actor that was involved in this giant ploy needs to be investigated.
So far no person in their right mind thinks Trump hasn’t been fighting Putin. All one has to do is compare the prior actions of Obama where the Russians expanded and the present actions of Trump where the Russians haven’t.
Take note Putin sent troops and arms into Venezuela to support Maduro and how the left is supporting both Maduro and Putin. We have to give it to you Stalinists. You don’t get embarrased with the foolishness you promote.
Trump had plenty of good and legal reasons to fire Rod. If he had, Mueller could have legally interpreted that as obstruction. Trump had legal authority to fire Comey. Did you miss how that turned out?
I honestly can’t tell if you’re statement springs from being naïve, obsequious, or some ratio of both.
See my post above. You don’t need to “interpret” something when it is stated plainly by the suspect.
Anon are you denying that Trump had the legal right to fire Comey?
Are you denying that Rosenstein put the ball in motion when he recommended Comey be fired?
Do you deny that there can be a multitude of reasons that Trump would fire Comey?
What precisely was illegal in the firing of Comey?
Do you believe the firing of Comey was the reason behind the FISA requests?
Trump had the legal right to fire Comey.
No, Rosenstein was asked for a letter on firing Comey by Trump. He did not instigate the firing.
Trump stated publicly that he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation. It’s irrelevant to the obstruction charge that he may have secondary reasons.
The FISA applications predated Comey’s firing.
Good. The FISA applications predates the firing of Comey and that indicates the direction the FBI was taking. Based on your prior statements I wasn’t sure if you realized this.
As head of the executive branch though certain protocols are required Trump could have Comey fired. He did. There are many reasons for Trump to have wanted Comey fired and they were vocalized. We also know Democrats wanted him fired. Your opinion of which reason was the most important doesn’t count.. This is the official letter and the official reason. You can continue to create facts not in existence.
Dear Director Comey,
I have received the attached letters from the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General of the United States recommending your dismissal as the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, I have accepted their recommendation and you are hereby terminated and removed from office, effective immediately.
While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau.
It is essential that we find new leadership for the FBI that restores public trust and confidence in its vital law enforcement mission.
I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors,
Donald J. Trump
This was from Allan. Darren is there a reason my information keeps getting deleted? I check the box to save the information. Thanks.
I don’t “have an opinion” about why Trump fired Comey, I have knowledge of why and so does everyone with a pulse, as he stated it in public.
what did he say?
Google Trump Lester Holt interview
“I just want somebody that’s competent,”
Snippets from the Holt Trump interview:
(re Comey) “He’s a showboat, he’s grandstander, the FBI has been in turmoil,” “You know that, I know that. Everybody knows that. You take a look at the FBI a year ago, it was in virtual turmoil, less than a year ago. It hasn’t recovered from that.” “I just want somebody that’s competent,” Trump responded. “I am a big fan of the FBI, I love the FBI.” “I want to find out if there was a problem in the election having to do with Russia.”
“As far as I’m concerned, I want that thing to be absolutely done properly,” “Maybe I’ll expand that, you know, lengthen the time (of the Russia probe) because it should be over with, in my opinion, should have been over with a long time ago. ‘Cause all it is, is an excuse but I said to myself, I might even lengthen out the investigation, but I have to do the right thing for the American people.”
(re the investigation) “I want that to be so strong and so good. And I want it to happen.”
Asked by Holt if by firing Comey he was trying to send a “lay off” message to his successor, Trump said, “I’m not.”
“If Russia did anything, I want to know that,” he said.
But Trump also insisted there was no “collusion between me and my campaign and the Russians.”
“Also, the Russians did not affect the vote,” he said.
test
Excerpted from The NYT article linked below about Trump’s original letter for the dismissal of Comey:
Mr. Trump was angry that Mr. Comey had privately told him three times that he was not under investigation, yet would not clear his name publicly. Mr. Comey later confirmed in testimony to Congress in June that he had told the president that he was not under investigation, but said he did not make it public because the situation might change.
Mr. Miller and Mr. Kushner both told the president that weekend that they were in favor of firing Mr. Comey.
Mr. Trump ordered Mr. Miller to draft a letter, and dictated his unfettered thoughts. Several people who saw Mr. Miller’s multi-page draft described it as a “screed.”
[end excerpt]
There is now no longer any legal reason not publicly to disclose Trump and Miller’s angry, meandering screed against Comey. Trump and Miller would have sent that dismissal letter to Comey had McGahn, Sessions and Rosenstein not stopped Trump and Miller from doing so. To call that a deliberative process beggars belief. It is a presidential communication. But it is a dismissal letter as well. But most importantly, Trump and Miller’s angry, meandering screed against Comey remains evidence that Trump may have had a corrupt purpose for firing Comey and that, if so, then Trump may have committed the crime of obstruction of justice.
And pigs might fly. But until they do so we won’t require them to get licensed by the FAA. Grow up
I’m glad to see that Moran is so deeply worried about what Trump and Miller wrote in that angry, meandering screed of a dismissal letter to Comey that Moran is threatening his neighbors with flying pigs in the event that that letter were publicly disclosed. It is an admission of Moran’s suspicion against Trump. Or else Moran just don’t give a damn.
@L4D – I can see why you get no respect here. You don’t deserve it.
Listen closely, Moran: Your respect is worthless. Your approval even less than worthless. You’re free to overbid the value of your own opinion as high as you like. But no one is ever going to pay so little as one red cent for your thoughts, Moran.
@L4D – actually, that’s where you’re wrong… I work professionally as a writer. Years ago as a newspaper owner, laws were changed both in my county, and in my country, because of articles I wrote. So yes, people do pay attention to what I say. At least they do if they have any intelligence. Obviously, this removes you from consideration.
Moran claims to have been a self-employed newspaper owner. Moran claims to have paid himself for his own thoughts. Moran appears to be unaware of those his own thoughts that he reveals in the sentences that Moran writes and posts on this blawg. This necessarily means that Moran is not a professional reader. But merely a self-employed professional writer. Sorry, Moran, but your respect, your approval and your thoughts are still worth less than zero dollars and zero cents.
You appeared to enjoy deeply being in the minority when it comes to intelligent thought.
Wally Moran says: April 6, 2019 at 3:09 PM
@L4D – I can see why you get no respect here. You don’t deserve it.
Wally Moran says: April 7, 2019 at 8:56 AM
You appeared to enjoy deeply being in the minority when it comes to intelligent thought.
Thusly does the majoritarian intellect depend upon its peer-group for affirmations of respectability in its majoritarian thought. The trouble is that Moran’s peer-group is not a majority anywhere else outside the bubble of Res Ipsa Loquitur. IOW, Moran never got over high-school.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-jr-emails-hope-hicks-robert-mueller_n_5a727da8e4b0bf6e6e2196ae
Jan 31, 2018 … A former legal spokesman is expected to say that the White House communications director gave assurances to Trump.
“For those of us who opposed the appointment of a special counsel because of the lack of a cognizable crime in the collusion theories, those circumstances shifted the equation entirely and prompted many of us to call for the appointment.”
“You were for another one of these behemoths but not because of the collusion theories?”
Did Mueller even do so much as to talk to Rosenstein?
Do you realize we’ve had one of these behemoths every decade since Watergate?
70s — Watergate
80s — Iran/Contra
90s — Whitewater — supposedly
2000s — Weapons of Mass Destruction
20teens — Russia Hoax
Now I appreciate the need to look into the bowl of dung we were sold in the lead-up to Iraq along with the violation of the Boland Amendment with regard to the Contras, but there are many ways to do that and these extra-government behemoths really should be used in very rare instances. With the exception of Watergate, I can’t support the use of any of the others.
AG Barr’s audition memo:
Obviously, the President and any other official can commit obstruction in this classic sense of sabotaging a proceeding’s truth-finding function. Thus, for example, if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suborns perjury, or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he, like anyone else, commits the crime of obstruction.
AG Barr’s Senate testimony:
Leahy: Do you believe a president could lawfully issue a pardon in exchange for the recipient’s promise to not incriminate him?
Barr: No, that would be a crime.
Klobuchar: You wrote on page one that a President persuading a person to commit perjury would be obstruction. Is that right?
Barr: [Pause] Yes. Any person who persuades another —
Klobuchar: Okay. You also said that a President or any person convincing a witness to change testimony would be obstruction. Is that right?
Barr: Yes.
Klobuchar: And on page two, you said that a President deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence would be an obstruction. Is that correct?
Barr: Yes.
Klobuchar: OK. And so what if a President told a witness not to cooperate with an investigation or hinted at a pardon?
Barr: I’d have to now the specifics facts, I’d have to know the specific facts.
Klobuchar: OK. And you wrote on page one that if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, that would be obstruction?
Barr: Yes.
Klobuchar: OK. So what if a President drafted a misleading statement to conceal the purpose of a meeting. Would that be obstruction?
Barr: Again, I’d have to know the specifics.
Lindsey Graham: So if there was some reason to believe that the President tried to coach somebody not to testify or testify falsely, that could be obstruction of justice?
Barr: Yes, under that, under an obstruction statute, yes.
Lindsey Graham: So if there’s some evidence that the President tried to conceal evidence? That would be obstruction of justice, potentially?
Barr: [nods]
Reporter Byron York sat down with John Dowd (President Trump’s attorney from 6/17-3/18) and provides more context on how Rosenstein blindsided both AG Sessions and the president —->
“Although Dowd consistently described an atmosphere of professionalism and cooperation between the Trump team and the Mueller investigation, he nonetheless remained unhappy that there was a Mueller investigation in the first place. And he said he has many unanswered questions about the role of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
“How the hell did that happen?” Dowd asked, referring to the May 17, 2017, appointment of Mueller. “On that day, that’s the day after the president interviewed Mueller for FBI director and didn’t want him, and they discussed the conflict they had with the Trump golf club. The next day, Sessions and Jody Hunt, who was Sessions’ chief of staff, were in the Oval Office talking, when I think Don McGahn or someone walked in and said Rosenstein has just appointed Bob Mueller special counsel.”
Sessions, of course, had recused himself from the Russia investigation, an action that made Trump angry to this day. Now, in the Oval Office, the attorney general was blindsided by the Mueller news. “Sessions was just horrified,” Dowd said. “He was so embarrassed. And the president said [to Sessions] how could you not know? And Jody Hunt, who was the chief of staff for the attorney general, did not know, and he was horrified. And poor Sessions resigned right then and there. They started drafting a resignation letter. He was so embarrassed and humiliated.”
“And then afterwards Hunt went back to the Department,” Dowd continued. “He walked in Rosenstein’s office and said [Rosenstein] was hunkered down behind his desk and asked Hunt, are they going to fire me? Think about that for a minute. I mean, no one knows how Rosenstein and Mueller ever got together, why Mueller was picked. No one has ever answered any questions about that. And then the order he issued doesn’t have a crime in it … It’s a counterintelligence investigation … And Jody Hunt wrote in his notes that he told Rosenstein that what he had done was despicable and unprofessional. And that’s all I know about it. I don’t know any more.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-from-former-trump-lawyer-candid-talk-about-mueller-manafort-sessions-rosenstein-collusion-tweets-privilege-and-the-press
“Think about that for a minute. I mean, no one knows how Rosenstein and Mueller ever got together, why Mueller was picked. No one has ever answered any questions about that. And then the order he issued doesn’t have a crime in it … It’s a counterintelligence investigation …”
I’m not sure how many people haircut what you just did… The counter intelligence investigation is for the information of and assistance to, the president. He has 100% control over that.
he didnt actually because he was a subject of it
the agency was acting ultra vires against him
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/07/09/the-legal-theory-binding-team-trump-in-opposition-to-team-mueller/
Jul 9, 2018 … About Trump’s “joint defense agreement” and whom it might include. … speaks with members of the media in the lobby of the Trump Tower in …
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/us/politics/trump-comey-firing-letter.html
Sep 1, 2017 … James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, testified before the Senate … Stephen Miller, one of Mr. Trump’s top advisors, helped the president …
Excerpted from the Washington Post:
Some members of the office were particularly disappointed that Barr did not release summary information the special counsel team had prepared, according to two people familiar with their reactions.
“There was immediate displeasure from the team when they saw how the attorney general had characterized their work instead,” according one U.S. official briefed on the matter.
Summaries were prepared for different sections of the report, with a view that they could made public, the official said.
The report was prepared “so that the front matter from each section could have been released immediately — or very quickly,” the official said. “It was done in a way that minimum redactions, if any, would have been necessary, and the work would have spoken for itself.”
Mueller’s team assumed the information was going to be made available to the public, the official said, “and so they prepared their summaries to be shared in their own words — and not in the attorney general’s summary of their work, as turned out to be the case.”
Excerpted from The New York Times:
Mr. Barr has said he will move quickly to release the nearly 400-page report but needs time to scrub out confidential information. The special counsel’s investigators had already written multiple summaries of the report, and some team members believe that Mr. Barr should have included more of their material in the four-page letter he wrote on March 24 laying out their main conclusions, according to government officials familiar with the investigation. Mr. Barr only briefly cited the special counsel’s work in his letter.
However, the special counsel’s office never asked Mr. Barr to release the summaries soon after he received the report, a person familiar with the investigation said. And the Justice Department quickly determined that the summaries contain sensitive information, like classified material, secret grand-jury testimony and information related to current federal investigations that must remain confidential, according to two government officials.
WaPo owner is Jeff Bezos, who is in bed with the Al Saud Krime Syndikat. Jeff insures that the WaPo has a standing policy to never publish any articles about Jeff’s business relationships with the House of Saud, positively the most evil and blood thirsty criminal dictatorship on the face of the earth, and has been since day one.
The Al Saud Syndikat not only hacked Kashoggi into pieces, they paid off his family to keep them silent. They finance and build Madrasas throughout Arabia and the ME, where they train children to hate the US and chant “Death To America!”, while proclaiming their love and affection for the US.
Ethical quandary? The dragnet surveillance programs described below were the forerunner of the NSA’s Stellar Wind program.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/dea-began-bulk-collection-of-phone-records-in-1992-with-approval-of-then-ag-william-barr-report-says
Mar 28, 2019 … Under AG Barr, phone surveillance program began in ’92 without legal review, IG finds … in 1992 by the Drug Enforcement Administration, according to a report from the Office of the Inspector General released Thursday.
Document: Inspector General Report on DEA Bulk Data Collection …
https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-inspector-general-report-dea-bulk-data-collection
3 days ago … The Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Justice has released a report on the Drug Enforcement Agency’s use of administrative …
well that’s a stain on Barr for sure.
But considering the lack of condemnation of dragnet methods apart from Ron Paul & co on the “extreme right” and a handful of sincere liberals now derided as the “extreme left” the “Center” clearly does not care about that.
Did you know, when bill binney was at NSA designed a more targeted method of sifting intelligence that was not violative of the Fourth amendment rights of citizens. i think he said porter goss didn’t want to use it.
but we know you don’t really like bill binney either, because he dared tell the truth it was a hack not a leak. don’t fake caring about that now you are too “late”
https://theintercept.com/2017/11/07/dnc-hack-trump-cia-director-william-binney-nsa/
But Mr. Barr, who applied for his job by taking a position that the president is virtually immune from prosecution, is ok with you? No conflict there!?
Anonymous, you are as predictable as the sunrise, something I sleep through daily. Also a predictable effort at deflection from Professor Turley’s message.
Anonymous is still in the Hotel California. “You can check out, but you can never leave.” She’s been stuck there since the election of 2016. 😉
Anon, you are certainly correct here.
“Anonymous”,
There is a long-standing DOJ policy that a sitting president can not be indicted.
How do you expect a sitting president to be prosecuted if he can’t be indicted?
Barr’s position is consistent with DOJ policy. And he did not state that a president has life-long immunity from prosecution; there are no barriers to indictment/prosecution once a president becomes an ex-president.
All of which points to the Congress as the proper receptor of the report.
Did you mean “conduit”, Anon?
No, Congress is the only institution that may act on the information if we assume the DOJ policy is settled as the law of the land.
Incorrect logic.
Its ok with me. The removal of a president is by a means called “impeachment.”
it is nonsensical for an executive to prosecute himself. Excuse me but I have a very simple notion about that which comes from actually working for executives and organizations. It’s called Follow Orders.
Neither voters, nor dissenting shareholders, nor directors, nor Congressman, nor even supporting shareholders directors, voters congressman, etc etc; none of these are officers. Officers represent the organization as such and have an agency to speak and command for it.
If they act ultra vires, wrongly, etc, then can be removed by the legislative process. The judiciary has to respect the constitutional prerogatives of the other branches and overtake its own proper functions. Simple stuff really unless you never had to take an order.
The United States of America is not a corporation. The Constitution of the United States is not a corporate charter. The powers separately conferred upon The Legislative, The Executive and The Judicial braches of the federal government of the United States are not contracts between those three separate branches. The only constitutional application for the doctrine of ultra vires is when The Supreme Court decides that one of The States has enacted a law that goes beyond the powers reserved for The States.
Neither The Senate nor The House work for Trump. The Supreme Court does not work for Trump. We The People of the United States do not work for Trump. Quite the contrary. Trump works for us. If Trump goes beyond the powers that Article II of The Constitution confers upon The Office of The POTUS, then Trump will be fired, either by The Congress or by We The People exercising our power at the polls on election day.
I told you that you dream of firing your neighbors, your fellow citizens and fellow human beings. You scoffed at it. And then posted your latest daydream of firing your neighbors, your fellow citizens and fellow human beings. The original Mr. Kurtz was Belgian. You are German through and through, Herr Sauer-Kraut.
Just clicked on Jon Turley Hype Machine this morning for kicks and giggles to gauge if Witch Hunt 2.0 has legs in eyes of lefty loons. I see Late4Yoga blathering on with multiple voluminous posts, craap which probably not catching the attention of many eyeballs. Country cares more about the [non?] crisis at the border etc and don’t care that Trump campaign took meeting with wacky cast of Russian characters who walked by media in light of day for dopey Trump Tower meeting which resulted in Zero. Meanwhile Madam HRC actually paid foreign nationals and Russians for dirt on Trump, which ultimately was kindling for wild fire Trump-Russia collusion investigation. Nobody needed to pay me $25 million+ to figure out this was a big fat farce of an investigation from the get-go. So it goes.
Then release the damned Mueller report to The House Judiciary Committee at the very least. You cannot seriously expect that anyone else to believe that you don’t care about the evidence that AG Barr is suppressing, redacting and withholding from The House Judiciary Committee and, by extension, from the American people. Your president is most likely clutching his pearls over that very same evidence that he needs his AG to suppress, redact and withhold.
And remember: If Trump launches Putin’s counter-investigation against the United States, then all of the evidence that AG Barr is suppressing becomes discoverable as exculpatory evidence in defense of the United States. Hoorah!
“Then release the damned Mueller report to The House Judiciary Committee at the very least. ”
Crazy people jump into a pool without first checking if there is water in it. Diane never cared how long the Mueller investigation lasted as long as the media was writing false anonymous stories implicating the President in collusion, or as long as Brennan was stating on CNN that collusion was going to be proven without a doubt. Since he was so high up in the intelligence department Diane thought she could trust what he said especially since he espoused exactly what she wanted to hear.
The report clearly states no collusion and that is backed up by Mueller’s silence. Barr and Trump both have stated they want the Mueller report released, but the contraints of law and security makes it so the entire report has to be reviewed in order to withhold sensitive material and material that cannot be released as a matter of law.
Suddenly Diane wants a quick end and is jumping in the pool without any water. As usual she will be bloodied not due to anyone elses poor manners but solely due to her being so unhinged.