Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on Barr hearing and its aftermath. The Democrats continue to focus on Barr rather than the report. Congress now has 98 percent of the original report available to it. Only two percent was redacted from the sealed copy in conformity with federal law barring the release of grand jury material. Less than ten percent of the report is redacted in the public version and only a small percentage in the key obstruction section is redacted. However, the leadership prefers to fight over the remaining two percent and the Barr letter than to commence actual impeachment proceedings against Trump. I wrote back in 2017 that the Democratic leadership has long been opposed to any actual impeachment of Trump. There are obvious reason why the Democratic leaders are opposed to removing Trump. That position has held firm as leaders struggle to assure voters that they want to impeach without actually impeaching. The result is a mutual effort by Congress and White House to run out the clock. The result is political theater at its worst.
Here is the column:
High profile hearings in Congress often look like a casting call for B-Grade actors reading a low budget slasher film script. The key is that look of shock and disgust regardless of what the witness answers. The standout performer is Senator Cory Booker, who has mastered that “I Know What You Did Last Summer” look, even when asking the most mundane or mixed questions. He knows that, in this genre, the script is less important than the optics.
Indeed, the hearing with Attorney General William Barr this week seemed, at times, to involve two scripts for two different movies, with Barr reading from the 2000s “Drag Me To Hell” while Senate Democrats read from the 1970s “I Spit On Your Grave.” Senator Mazie Hirono did not even stop to listen for his responses before denouncing his failure to answer questions.
Some new information was shared, such as the fact that special counsel Robert Mueller slowed the release of his report by ignoring requests from Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to identify grand jury information in advance. There was also Barr stating he and Rosenstein asked Mueller to reach a conclusion on all crimes. Barr effectively shifted the burden over to Mueller on such questions. Claims by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that Barr lied under oath are simply unfounded and unfair.
Yet, Barr stumbled to answer when Senator Kamala Harris asked, “Has the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested you open an investigation of anyone?” Barr got caught up with the meaning of “suggest” then categorically denied that anyone had asked he open any investigation but said, “I’m trying to grapple with the word ‘suggest.’ I mean, there have been discussions of matters out there.” Just like the seasoned former prosecutor she is, Harris pounced on his answer and suggested that someone might have “hinted” or “inferred.”
This is why both compound and vague questions are generally barred in actual cross examination. Barr looked evasive and uncomfortable, even though he explained that his concern was that conversations clearly did cover possible investigations but he was never asked to open one. The distinction makes for bad television but is a legally important point here.
President Trump has repeatedly crossed the traditional line of separation between the White House and the FBI, with his probing of officials like former FBI Director James Comey on the status or direction of the Russia investigation. While I have been critical of Comey, he was absolutely right in his objections to the inquiries from Trump. Past presidents generally avoided meeting alone with FBI directors, much less recklessly pressing them on investigations that touched on political or personal interests.
A demand from the White House for an investigation can raise serious questions of political influence over prosecutorial decisions. However, the line can be blurry. Presidents often call for investigations on issues of national importance. After a police shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, for example, President Obama held a press conference in which he was heralded for announcing that he had ordered the Justice Department and the FBI to both “independently investigate the death of Michael Brown.”
The Justice Department is part of the executive branch, and there is often discussion of the priorities and controversies involved in its investigations. For that very reason, Democrats were not aghast when former Attorney General Eric Holder publicly proclaimed he was a “wingman” for Obama. Likewise, Democrats applauded Obama when he ordered the Justice Department not to prosecute certain immigration cases. The line that cannot be crossed is the direction or influence of such an investigation.
Anyone can ask the Justice Department to look into allegations of criminal conduct. The Justice Department then makes an independent decision on whether to investigate. This includes members of Congress, who often call upon the Justice Department to investigate individuals despite their interests. Indeed, Harris has repeatedly done so, including calling for the Justice Department inspector general to investigate Barr. There is nothing improper in such a request, even if it has more political than legal merit.
Take the latest request from Senate Democrats for an investigation into Barr and Rosenstein reaching a conclusion on the obstruction evidence after Mueller had refused to do so. They wrote in a letter to the Justice Department inspector general, “It is unclear what statute, regulation, or policy led the attorney general to interject his own conclusion” that the conduct of the president did not amount to obstruction of justice here.
It is a bizarre question since the United States Code says, “All functions of other officers of the Department of Justice and all functions of agencies and employees of the Department of Justice are vested in the attorney general,” with a couple narrow exceptions dealing with administrative judges and prisons. The Justice Department makes the prosecutorial decisions, and the ultimate decision maker here is the attorney general.
What makes the request even more curious is the omission of the more obvious question. Why did Mueller not reach a decision? As I wrote on the day that Barr released his summary of the Mueller report to Congress, it is perfectly incomprehensible that Mueller did not reach a conclusion. After reading his report, his reasons for refusing are even more inscrutable.
The special counsel is mandated to “provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the special counsel.” While the report references the Justice Department policy not to indict a sitting president, nothing suggests that a special counsel cannot reach a conclusion on the evidence of criminal conduct by a president. If there was any doubt on Justice Department policy, it should have been clarified when Barr and Rosenstein, who oversee Mueller, pressed him to reach a conclusion. Barr still cannot explain the rationale for a special counsel not reaching a conclusion.
He is not alone. Democrats have also called for an investigation of what they view as a “lack of impartiality” under the attorney general. Harris expressed surprise that Barr did not personally review the underlying evidence, consisting of millions of documents and records, collected by Mueller before reaching his conclusion on obstruction. What she ignored is that such an independent review would have negated the work by Mueller. As Barr correctly stated, “We accepted the statements in the report as factual record. We did not go underneath it to see whether or not they were accurate.” Democrats presumably would want him to do that instead of substitute his own facts for those of the special counsel.
Harris was not wrong in pressing Barr on any White House pressure to open investigations. However, there is nothing improper with the White House raising priorities and controversies with the attorney general. What raises serious ethical concerns is when those cases directly impact a president or his campaign. An attorney general should push back on anything he or she views as efforts to influence prosecutorial decisions.
Of course, every good slasher film has a sequel, and there are several in the works in this case with the calls for Mueller, Rosenstein, and former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify. Congress has every right to call on these officials, and the suggestion from Trump that he will block McGahn would be entirely unjustified. But if Congress truly wants answers and not just optics, it might try keeping the jump scares to a minimum.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
Stuck Pigs
The Democrat Party has run afoul of the ancient nostrum that if you strike at the king, you must kill him, and the price for that mistake will soon be upon them. Because what Barr has perceived, which no one seriously doubts — and that includes those Capitol Hill Democrats who so loudly denounce the Attorney General — is the entire Trump-Russia collusion narrative was a bought-and-paid-for lie of the Clinton campaign, fed through the intelligence and law enforcement apparatus of the Obama administration to give it false legitimacy and to weaponize it against Candidate and then President Trump, and perpetuated in an attempt to destroy his presidency and effect a de facto coup d’état against the duly-elected leader of the free world.
And Barr is now the instrument of the destruction of those Obama administration and Clinton campaign operatives, who are now faced with horrors — legal, financial, and reputational — to come which may not be avoided. Investigations have begun; recriminations are coming.
And what is worse, those Democrat operatives have no respite ahead from the factual record. It will be found, from the evidence, that the FISA warrants allowing the Obama administration to spy on individuals associated with the Trump campaign were attained through deliberate falsehood and abuse of power, and it will likely be in evidence, when the investigations get to the appropriate point, that this abuse came from the highest levels of government.
Furthermore, the investigation will prove not only that the Obama administration covered up criminal activity associated with and underlying Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct government business as Secretary of State under Obama, activity not only tolerated but participated in by officials at the highest levels of government.
And nothing can stop this. Nothing, that is, but political pressure on Barr. As Strassel said, he must be demonized and discredited before the inspector general’s report and the related investigations of the Trump-Russia mess are made public and the prosecutions begin.
That’s why the Democrats on Capitol Hill are so intent on attacking Barr. He is the messenger, and he must be silenced before the message can be delivered.
https://spectator.org/stuck-pigs/
Obama himself used a fake name in order to email Hillary Clinton on her illegal server that he denied having knowledge of until the media told him about it.
Obama was such a liar.
We have a lot of friends who are of various racial, ethnic, socioeconomic persuasion and though none of us identify as being of one political party or ideology, many of them agree: Obama was a fraud. While he really did nothing of lasting, virtuous impact we all have come to have such a disgust for the news media, that if the MSM loves Obama, we know it is bad
Thank the antisemitic, lying fake NYT, WaPo, CNN, et al
“Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president, hundreds of former federal prosecutors assert”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-would-have-been-charged-with-obstruction-were-he-not-president-hundreds-of-former-federal-prosecutors-assert/2019/05/06/e4946a1a-7006-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html
By Matt Zapotosky May 6 at 2:00 PM
You’re reposting something already posted within the hour? For what purpose?
new trolls from David Brock, some use the same handle,
Turley seems to be running off Trump’s script, you can fool some of the people all the time.
TURLEY IS DEEF STATE, TOO!!!
Contributed by The L4D–Mind Your Ps and Fs–Project
“Just like the seasoned former prosecutor she is, Harris pounced on his answer and suggested that someone might have ‘hinted’ or ‘inferred.'”
– Professor Turley
______________
As a non-attorney and simple layman, I’m going to take a wild guess that, in my opinion, Willie Brown’s (the very married-with-children Willie Brown) former girlfriend, barren woman and presidentially ineligible child of foreign citizens, ensconced in a senate seat by the one-party, communist state of California, Comrade Kamel Harris, finding a lifelong compulsion to compensate for a peculiar appearance and being shunned by society, was neither “seasoned” nor “pouncing,” but rather rude, interruptive, overbearing and abusive as she “badgered” the witness – the eminently qualified, highly esteemed, experienced and confirmed Honorable U.S. Attorney General William Barr.
The public can discern the devil and boorish, Machiavellian hucksters employing “cheap tricks.” The public understands that generational welfare and affirmative action privilege engender uppity artifices which are not virtuous.
_______________________________________________________________
Kamala Harris was asked on the radio about whether she smoked pot when she was young.
“Half my family’s from Jamaica, are you kidding me?”
“I have and I did inhale”
“I think that gives a lot of people joy and we need more joy,”
– Dow Jones
Kamala Harris will NEVER be eligible to be U.S. president.
Kamala Harris’ parents were foreign citizens at the time of her birth.
– A “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – not after.
– The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”
– Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”
– The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.
– Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.
– The Constitution is not a dictionary and does not define words like “natural born citizen” as a dictionary, while the Law of Nations,1758, did.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758
Book 1, Ch. 19
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:
“…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787
From John Jay
New York 25 July 1787
Dear Sir
I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d
Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore
Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,
which sailed Yesterday.
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to
provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the
administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the
american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect
Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere
I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt
John Jay
“Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president, hundreds of former federal prosecutors assert”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-would-have-been-charged-with-obstruction-were-he-not-president-hundreds-of-former-federal-prosecutors-assert/2019/05/06/e4946a1a-7006-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html
By Matt Zapotosky May 6 at 2:00 PM
Excerpt:
More than 370 former federal prosecutors who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he held.
The statement — signed by myriad former career government employees as well as high-profile political appointees — offers a rebuttal to Attorney General William P. Barr’s determination that the evidence Mueller uncovered was “not sufficient” to establish that Trump committed a crime.
Mueller had declined to say one way or the other whether Trump should have been charged, citing a Justice Department legal opinion that sitting presidents cannot be indicted, as well as concerns about the fairness of accusing someone for whom there can be no court proceeding.
“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice,” the former federal prosecutors wrote.
“We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment,” they added. “Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. . . . But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.”
This Is the End of My Presidency. I’m F**cked,” Trump Said on May 17, 2017
by Christopher Frizzelle • Apr 19, 2019 at 12:02 pm
https://www.portlandmercury.com/blogtown/2019/04/19/26348530/this-is-the-end-of-my-presidency-im-f**cked-trump-said-on-may-17-2017
Replace asterisks, above (in the link(, with a big fat “u”…
Now why do you think Trump might say that?
“Now why do you think Trump might say that?”
Trump had ambitions to make life better for all Americans especially American families and he realized that he couldn’t do all the good things he wanted but like a true American hero despite Democrat obstruction he managed to bring unemployment to a 50 year low while increasing the GDP growth to 3.2%. He is not satisfied, like Obama was, to let the American family sink to mediocrity.
MAGA
Allan: you really, really need to see the A & E Biography on Trump. Trump’s ambitions center solely and exclusively on him, him, him. Attention and adulation for him. Sex for him, him, him. Praise for him, him, him. According to him, he’s the wealthiest, most-famous, most sexually-desirable, “very stable genius….vigorous young man…in astonishingly good health” that ever lived. He has an arrogance that is literally stomach-churning. He lies, constantly. He cheats people, and always has. He is a proven tax cheater, which has been legally established. He has virtually NO conscience, and never has had. He has always been a racist, which has been legally established. He brags about assaulting women. He is far from a “true American hero”. Quite the opposite. He cheated to get out of military service. He has no attributes that comply with American values.
List something, anything that Trump personally did that directly resulted in lower unemployment or improving the GDP. Can you? No, because these parameters are long-range and multi-factorial. Trump inherited a robust economy that Barak Obama turned around from the worst economy since the Great Depression.
Natacha, Honey, your vocabulary is very small so you have problems understanding others.
And you, Allan old boy, have trouble understanding anything at all.
Natacha, Honey, don’t worry your small brain matches your small vocabulary.
“Mueller had declined to say one way or the other whether Trump should have been charged, citing a Justice Department legal opinion that sitting presidents cannot be indicted,”
Once again a factually incorrect and fallacious statement. The finding of a crime is not the same as indicting someone. They are 2 separate acts. Nixon was found to have committed crimes. He was impeached, and would have been removed from office by the Senate — which is why he resigned. After leaving office, he would have been indicted and done jail time had he not been pardoned.
Completely fallacious sentence.
SteveJ,
AG Barr testified before Congress that DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting president did not preclude determining if a crime had been committed by a president. At a minimum, Mueller had the option of making a conclusive determination on whether a crime was committed by Trump.
By punting, he guaranteed that this debate ( about whether Trump committed a crime) will play out for months, if not years. It’ll give Congress something to do beside “inconsequential things” like dealing with the budget, the infrastructure, foreign policy, etc.
Steve J.,
It sounds like you probably saw Barr explicitly state what you wrote in your comment. Just to be clear, I wasn’t disputing what you said.
One view is that Mueller not only “could have” made the determination on whether Trump committed a crime, but that he actually had an obligation to do so.
Lack of objectivity in the news media is a ‘systemic problem,’ says polling editor
RealClearPolitics executive editor Carl Cannon said in an interview that aired Tuesday on Hill.TV that the news media has a “systemic problem” when it comes to objectivity.
“What people hold against us is that we pretend to be objective and we aren’t,” Cannon told host Jamal Simmons on Monday. “This is a big systemic problem.”
“This exists in a business environment where the old, just the facts model doesn’t necessarily sell,” he continued. “You have a fiduciary responsibility to your publisher to be outlandish.”
“The voters have noticed, and they don’t like it. It’s an existential problem,” he said.
Cannon was discussing a new Marist poll on trust in U.S. societal institutions.
Twenty-six percent of respondents said they had “a great deal/quite a lot” of confidence in the news media, while 72 percent said they had not much confidence in the media, or none at all.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/441410-lack-of-objectivity-in-the-news-media-is-a-systemic-problem
Turley says: “Only two percent was redacted from the sealed copy in conformity with federal law barring the release of grand jury material. Less than ten percent of the report is redacted in the public version and only a small percentage in the key obstruction section is redacted.”
Turley: have you seen the report? I assume not, so how do you know whether the redactions were “…in conformity with federal law barring the release of grand jury material”? The fact is, you don’t, so you must be basing this statement on the word of a proven liar, Barr, who campaigned for the AG job by promising to deep-six the Mueller investigation and to help Trump get away with stealing the presidency.
What relevance does the 2% figure have? We know now that Barr was hired to serve as Trump’s personal attorney, contrary to the oath he took, so the actual percentage of redacted material is irrelevant. To the extent you are attempting to make some point, it falls flat. We now know for certain that we are dealing liars and crooks here, and that’s all we really know for sure. The 2% may be crucial information that would conclusively prove that Trump belongs in prison– maybe even sufficient to convince Trumpsters. Redacting this information may or may not be legal. Based on what I’ve seen from Barr, I doubt the validity of his stated reasons for redacting.
It would be foolish to be anything other than skeptical. Barr is supposed to be America’s top law enforcement official. He has traded his soul and whatever good reputation he may have had to throw in with a crook who colluded with Russia to “win the victory” by denying the American people their choice as President. He refuses to prosecute for obstruction of justice, which is a separate prosecutable crime whether or not Trump could be convicted of other crimes. If anyone else had engaged in Trump’s behavior, there would be no question. Barr even went so far to make up the story that if Trump knew he did nothing wrong, then he could properly fire the Special Counsel. That is a flat-out lie and is more than sufficient grounds for Barr to be removed. The midterm elections were a mandate: the American people want the full truth, and they elected Congressional representatives to get that truth. We wouldn’t stand for Nixon cheating to try to win, and he didn’t even collude with a Communist dictator.
You didn’t get what you wanted from Mueller’s inquisition, because what you wanted had no basis in fact. Suck it up.
READ IT. 10 clear cases of obstruction of justice. Laid out very clear.
READ IT. 10 clear cases of obstruction of justice. Laid out very clear.
The notion you can ‘obstruct justice’ when there is no underlying crime is…innovative.
technically possible I think but a tough case to make. really tough.
some examples show how this can and has been deployed in notorious contexts: Martha Stewart, Scooter Libby,
the analogy to watergate is off. in watergate even though the POTUS did not order nor sanction the CREEP burglary, he appeared to have obstructed. so there was a real crime being “obstructed” whether he played a part in it or not
with no collusion, there was no real underlying crime, and hence the analogy to watergate falls flat. falls hard, flat on its ugly face
Mr Kurtz,
How is it most of these type of important cases end up in DC, Eastern District of Virginia or Southern District of New York all some of the most total corrupt courts in the US.
Why don’t these cases get scattered around the US?
Texas , Oklahoma & many other states have federal courts were the Grand Juries & Judges are less apt to be as corruptible then the Est Coast.
Well, maybe if Trump, Trump, Jr. and bottle blondie sat for depositions, you might have an argument. Mueller did not have full facts because Mueller did not have full cooperation. Barr was recruited for his pre-commitment that a sitting POTUS, even one who cheated by conspiring with a Communist dictator, can’t be indicted while in office. If these things were present, you might have an argument, but they aren’t.
A prosecutor ( or team of prosecutors) can’t necessarily count on their targets screwing themselves over in “cooperating”.
The OSC had a great deal of time, a head start with the preceeding 10 month FBI investigation, tremendous resources, and a willing to use some extremely aggressive tactics in going after those who were targeted.
To claim that the OSC was sonehow handicapped by a lack of cooperation from some of those targeted is a pretty weak excuse.
Uh TIAX5: you might want to look into Nixon’s impeachment. Someone can obstruct justice by interfering with an investigation, regardless of whether they could be prosecuted for an underlying crime.
Neuroleptic Nutchacha says…..bsbsbsbs Nixon bsbsbsbs Clinton
So why did you abandon the Russians screed?
I was looking forward to Trump providing us authentic Russian vodka for some Moscow Mule Vodka Drinks
Ingredients…
1 1/2 ounces vodka
1/2 ounce fresh lime juice
4 ounces ginger beer (cold)
lime slice
https://www.yummly.com/recipe/Moscow-Mule-Vodka-Drink-968425
Uh TIAX5: you might want to look into Nixon’s impeachment. Someone can obstruct justice by interfering with an investigation, regardless of whether they could be prosecuted for an underlying crime.
Nutchacha, there was no doubt at the time that there was an underlying crime. Your problem, which you won’t acknowledge is that there is no equivalent in this matter to Gordon Liddy and his crew. Well, except for Andrew McCabe and the FBI, but they weren’t working for Trump.
DSS, add to that the idea of intent. Let’s not forget there were multiple possible reasons for the actions mentioned by Mueller and all of the reasons likely were good reasons and not obstructive in nature. After all Trump didn’t use executive priviledge to stop White House employees from being interviewed and he releasaed all the documents. That is very transparent. No hammers, no bleach and no lies. No videos were blamed and no one put into jail as an excuse.
The blowhard said, “The notion you can ‘obstruct justice’ when there is no underlying crime is…innovative.”
Listen up, Blowhard. Trump successfully obstructed his way out of an underlying crime being alleged against him and his campaign.
The notion that successful obstruction of justice is not obstruction of justice is . . . “Republican”–until a Democrat does it.
Contribute by The L4D–Republicans Are Genetically Corrupt–Project
” Trump successfully obstructed his way out of an underlying crime being alleged against him and his campaign.”
Did Trump use a hammer and bleach?
No. He abused the pardon power to tamper with witnesses, evidence and to suborn perjury. You simple minded buffoon. you.
Contributed by The L4D–Allan Has No Time To Think–Project
Who used the metaphorical hammer and bleach?
Trump was completely transparent and did nothing wrong. I don’t expect Diane to get anything right in her present drugged up state.
Laid out very clear
lol you are hilarious and poorly informed. on many levels
Putin is not a communist and he didnt collude anyways
Nixon was engaged in negotiations with communist party officials to put an end to our intervention in Vietnam and he negotiated with Zhou Enliai as the Premier of China in 1972. DIPLOMACY is a good exercise even with enemies. In the past Democrats usually were champions of that and today Jimmy Carter is much ignored advocate of diplomacy with hostiles as well.
But there is another alleged story people may not have heard. I am not sure I believe all of it, but it’s a good story, anyways
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/06/nixon-vietnam-candidate-conspired-with-foreign-power-win-election-215461
I suppose one might consider that the 1973 Paris accords did not technically involve the NV officials but only US RVN and the Viet Cong, which of course was the guerilla force aided and operated by North VN essentially. A distinction without much of a difference.
Mr. Kurtz,
Both the South Vietnamese government and the Viet Cong were marginalized in the negotiations that led to the Paris “Peace” Accords. Kissinger was actually conducting “exrtracurricular”, private negotiations with Le Doc Tho ( sp?).
The primary actors in the negotiations were the U.S. and North Vietnam; neither the South Vietnamese government nor the VC had a heck of a lot of say about the outcome of the finalized agreement between Kissinger and his N.Vietnamese counterpart.It was shoved down Thieu’s throat, but with private assurances from Nixon that the U.S. would still help defend S. Vietnam if there was a serious threat/ offensive undertaken by the N. Vietnamese.
natacha:
Carve this above your door: “There can be no predicate crime for obstruction when the President acts in accordance with Article II powers regardless of his intention.” So if he fires the FBI Director for the color of his tie, his incompetence or because he might get to the bottom of why the POTUS also fired the WH janitor there is no obstruction of justice.
Witness tampering, evidence tampering and subornation of perjury are not Article II powers of the President.
The pardon power is an Article II power of the President. But abusing the pardon power for the sake of tampering with witnesses, evidence and suborning perjury is still not an Article II power of the President.
If corrupt purpose applies to the pardon power, then corrupt purpose applies to the power to hire and fire as well.
Contributed by The L4D–I’ve Read The Muller Report And You Haven’t–Project
Is destroying a hard drive subpoenaed by Congress evidence tampering?
“The pardon power is an Article II power of the President. But abusing the pardon power for the sake of tampering with witnesses, evidence and suborning perjury is still not an Article II power of the President.”
****************
And that’s why Bill Clinton is in jail right now for pardoning Marc Rich who made large financial gifts to the entire DNC and Hillary in particular. Is your entire world about your theories?
Refresh my memory: Did Clinton pardon Rich before or after Republicans impeached Clinton for lying about a consensual sex act?
Or is there some other reason that the Republicans didn’t impeach Clinton for abusing the pardon power?
Is your entire defense of Trump what-about-Clinton-isms?
Contributed by The L4D–I’m On To You All–Project
If that was the actual reason and not a pose, it would have prevented him from making a judgment on all elements of the case. Aside from decisions on prosecution, he could have made recommendations to Congress.
He didn’t because he couldn’t and not look ridiculous in the process. So, instead, he’s resorted to a series of PR moves to give the Democrats in Congress & c. cover.
So much time and money wasted. We need to change our focus:
https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1123920069199839234
“Neocons/Neolibs & MSM all sing from the same songsheet: War war war!!! Trump never gets positive media unless he’s threatening war/carrying out military action. Today, Venezuela. Tomorrow, Iran? Cuba? Who’s next? No wonder NK won’t give up their nukes. https://tulsi.to/support“
Damn good observation. They are always against Trump unless he’s saber rattling. Strict operant conditioning coming from the oligarchy
Trump job approval rating exceeds Obama Barack Obama’s job-approval rating of 44 percent in Gallup polling at the same point in his presidency
https://news.gallup.com/poll/203207/trump-job-approval-weekly.aspx
lolz
We know why Barr stumbled over Kamala Harris’ question.
Barr has already stated that he means to investigate how the Russian investigation started. I also think it is critical to determine why the only person, Hillary Clinton, proven to have actually used false information obtained from Russian spies to influence the election was not investigated when its purpose was Russian interference.
As soon as he made that statement, all the players in this hoax began to get nervous, starting with Comey, who frantically started giving interviews and Tweeting.
This is how they are going to spin this. People abused government authority to smear a political opponent. They dragged this on for 2 years, misleading voters into thinking Trump was a Russian Manchurian candidate. When that story fell apart, they were in danger of having their abuses exposed. So now the story will be that Trump will direct Barr to investigate those behind this hoax, and they will claim it is some sort of obstruction.
How dare you investigate us for wrongdoing! You’re just supposed to sit there and take our coup attempt as well as our efforts to defraud voters!
So how does Barr answer the question? He obviously would have discussed that he needs to investigate whether the spying was warranted. He’s on record saying so. But was such a discussion a suggestion from others, or agreement with his position?
I find it laughably ironic that the Democrats are already saying that Trump won’t accept the results of the 2020 election. Democrats still haven’t accepted the result of the 2016 election, and spent 2 years trying to unseat him by any means possible instead of accepting that he’s president and working with him.
I find your devotion to a fat, lying narcissist who brags about assaulting women to be laughable sometimes, but pathetic most of the time. Talk about not accepting the results of the 2020 election: Hillary Clinton WON by 3 million votes. The key precincts that swayed the election were targeted by Russians who were given sensitive polling information by the Trump campaign. The American people have been denied their choice for President. And, please stop calling people who oppose Trump “Democrats”. MOST Americans did not vote for him and have continually disapproved of him by historic proportions. You keep repeating the Faux News talking point that investigating Trump and his crimes are a “coup” or an attempt to “unseat” him. He doesn’t belong in the White House. He belongs in Federal prison. The American people aren’t going to stand idly by in the face of evidence that a Communist dictator directed a social media misinformation campaign to favor the minority candidate and not investigate. THAT was the result of the midterm election.
OLD FAT WHITE GUYS OBSERVE: A MILLION SCREECHING HARRIDANS LIKE NATCH WANT YOUR STUFF! behind them stand the “entitlements” crowds with their begging bowls athirsty for your taxes!
VOTE REPUBLICAN 2020– if old white guys turn out in lockstep then we can defeat the screechers and keep our stuff!
Nutchacha sez Talk about not accepting the results of the 2020 election: Hillary Clinton WON by 3 million votes
Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome (NMS)
A potentially fatal symptom complex sometimes referred to as Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome (NMS) has been reported in association with antipsychotic drugs. Clinical manifestations of NMS are hyperpyrexia, muscle rigidity, altered mental status (including catatonic signs) and evidence of autonomic instability (irregular pulse or blood pressure, tachycardia, diaphoresis, and cardiac dysrhythmias).
– Rxlist.com
I find your devotion to a fat, lying narcissist who brags about assaulting women to be laughable sometimes, but pathetic most of the time.”
*************
I never like Bill Clinton as “Father of the Year” either.
https://images.app.goo.gl/5dR1GSd7W25i1xg38
Give that there have been several hundred virtually identical comments from Natacha, I will be circulating this petition.
Karen, Honey, please. If we wanted Faux News’s spin on things, we’d watch Faux News, so you can save time by not bothering to repeat the daily slop it serves. The bottom line here is: Barr is a proven liar who promised to help Trump if he would nominate him to be AG. Please keep your nomenclature correct. “WE”, meaning the majority of Americans, are not Faux News disciples. WE: 1. did not vote for Trump; 2. consistently disapprove of his performance; 3. want him gone; and 4. voted for the largest turnover in the House since Watergate. The Senate would have gone Democratic, too, but for Republican gerrymandering. The only voters who were mislead were those in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc. who were targeted by Russians who used key polling information provided by the Trump campaign in a social media disinformation campaign. Those are proven, but inconvenient facts.
Barr has no credibility nor integrity, and is clearly there to carry out whatever Trump wants him to do, so naturally, since it has been a Faux News talking point that the origins of the investigation are a “hoax” cooked up by Hillary Clinton, starting an “investigation” is what he’ll do. No one ever said Fatty is the Manchurian Candidate. What WE do know is that 1. Russians helped sway voters by using insider polling information provided to them by the Trump campaign to put out disinformation in key precincts; Trump’s campaign manager was in on the deal; 2. Trump was trying to do a Moscow hotel deal, which would have required Putin’s approval, and he lied about it; 3. Trump continues to deny the truth about Russian interference because it proves his “victory” was fake; 3. Trump refuses to take any steps to prevent or stop ongoing Russian interference; 4. He defers to Putin, even siding with him and against American intelligence, as proven in Helskinki; WE, meaning most Americans, are shocked that an American President would defer to a Communist dictator; 5. Trump has taken steps Putin wants him to do, including helping to disrupt the EU, talking about pulling out of NATO; 6. Trump and his children refused to sit for depositions. Mueller did not have all the necessary facts. The reason they wouldn’t sit is obvious to everyone who isn’t a Faux News disciple.
Trump DID obstruct justice. Read the Mueller report. The facts are spelled out. No spin necessary. Barr will not prosecute, despite the oath he took, because he promised to help Trump. The American people were denied their choice for President. WE, the American people, are the ones defrauded.
You had a 32 month long investigation run by partisan Democrats (Weissman, Sztrok). You didn’t get what you wanted. Because what you want is based on lies you tell yourself.
get this. Even Sztroke was baffled by all the garbage being spun out by CIA leakers. Shameful politicized CIA that even the Trump hater Sztroke thought they went too far!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rheault
sorry wrong link
https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/06/peter-strzok-cia-leaks-email/
More citation of irrelevant facts. How long the investigation took is irrelevant to the fact that the Trumps refused to be interviewed or sit for depositions, or the fact that Trump did obstruct justice. What I and most Americans want is the complete truth. What “lies” are most Americans telling themselves? I believe Dan Coats when he unequivocally testified that Russians did help Trump by using key polling information provided by the Trump campaign.
Now, Trump is trying to stop Mueller and McGhan from testifying. Why do you suppose that is, if Trump has nothing to hide?
“More citation of irrelevant facts.”
Natacha, Honey, you are very confused.
“Karen, Honey, please. If we wanted Faux News’s spin on things, we’d watch”
Natacha, Honey we all know where we can look for fabricated cr-p. Natacha, Honey, it runs from your mouth.
https://images.app.goo.gl/5dR1GSd7W25i1xg38
“Barr got caught up with the meaning of “suggest”…..Just like the seasoned former prosecutor she is, Harris pounced on his answer. This is why both compound and vague questions are generally barred in actual cross examination.”
No offense Turley, but how is a witness supposed to answer a compound and vague question? The answer is he’s not. Nor is it indicative of a “seasoned prosecutor”, at least at ethical one, in search of substantive information, as opposed to political clap-trap, to ask a compound vague question.
You underestimate the intelligence of the average viewer, who could see Harris pathetic attempts to suggest that Barr’s legitimate investigations are a White House dirty tricks maneuver. By now, most people have come to realize that the dirty tricks involved the sordid affair behind this Russia farce.
Harris appears to be an imbecile both politically and legally. If Trump is to be beaten, he will be beaten by someone who distinguishes themselves on substantive issue other than this farce.
Jonathan Turley, who is almost never wrong, says: “What makes the request even more curious is the omission of the more obvious question. Why did Mueller not reach a decision? As I wrote on the day that Barr released his summary of the Mueller report to Congress, it is perfectly incomprehensible that Mueller did not reach a conclusion. After reading his report, his reasons for refusing are even more inscrutable.”
Yet on pages 1-2 of Volume II of the Report sets forth the reasons why the Special Counsel did not make a prosecutorial decision, and why he chose not to say what the decision would have been had he made it. The primary reason is the OLC opinion. The Special Counsel’s position may be wrong, and it may be contrary to instructions given to him by the AG or DAG, but there’s nothing “incomprehensible” or “inscrutable” about it. On pages 1-2 of Volume II, the Report states:
“First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.” Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.
* * *
Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct “constitutes a federal offense.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.
The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor’s accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President’s term, OLC reasoned, “it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment’s] secrecy,” and if an indictment became public, “[t]he stigma and opprobrium” could imperil the President’s ability to govern.” Although a prosecutor’s internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report’s public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining “that the person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense.” Justice Manual § 9-27.220.”
Jt conveniently forgets that Barr testified that he didn’t know what Mueller thought of his 4 page letter when Mueller had expressed his opinion in a letter and phone calls. Most people would consider that a lie.
The phone calls clearly demonstrated Mueller had no problem with Barr’s letter. Barr even asked him to review the summary but Mueller didn’t refused perhaps providing Mueller with a political way to complain after the fact.
Sure, of Allan believes the recounting of the phone call by our proven liar AG. Why someone would believe him is for them to explain.
The phone call repeated by Barr sounds credible especially since others were in the room at the time. I will wait to hear what Mueller has to say but I don’t even think the MSM is denying Barr’s response. In any event Mueller wsa asked to review the summary and refused. Mueller’s bad.
Anon, you don’t even bother to judge credibility. You just pick and choose from a list of things that could look bad for the other side whether true or false and most of those things have been proven false.
Barr declined to release the notes of the others in the room to the senate as requested by Blumenthal.
Obviously Mueller didn’t expect Barr to spin his report as he assumed he was honest and professional. Mueller’s bad.
With so many witnesses it would be foolish for Barr to lie. Both Mueller and Barr are well aquainted with one another and maybe when an investigation is done to find out the wrongs committed by some of the leadershi at the FBI and Intelligence agencies we will find out that Mueller wasn’t as straight as some thought him to be. We have to always keep in mind Weissman who was in the loop for a long time.
So says Barr, who, as bettykath points out, is a LIAR.
Natacha, Honey, there were witnesses to the call. I think even Mueller will confirm that what Barr said was essentially correct.
OK, Honey?
What YOU think about what Robert Mueller will say is a nothing burger. Barr has proven that he is a liar. He probably never dreamed that Mueller’s letter to him would see the light of day. The truth will eventually prevail.
“What YOU think about what Robert Mueller”
Natacha, Honey, seldom do you say anything worthwhile.
Allan needs to think more and speak (comment) less.
Natacha, Honey, here is something for you to think about when you have those dreams about Mueller. You could be framed (as demonstrated below) for those thoughts and sent to jail.
MUELLER’S MINIONS HELP MOBSTER WHITEY BULGER ELIMINATE MOB COMPETITORS
The Boston Globe noted Robert Mueller’s connection with the Whitey Bulger case in an article entitled, “One Lingering Question for FBI Director Robert Mueller.” The Globe said this:
“[Mike] Albano [former Parole Board Member who was threatened by two F.B.I. agents for considering parole for the men imprisoned for a crime they did not commit] was appalled that, later that same year, Mueller was appointed FBI director, because it was Mueller, first as an assistant US attorney then as the acting U.S. attorney in Boston, who wrote letters to the parole and pardons board throughout the 1980s opposing clemency for the four men framed by FBI lies. Of course, Mueller was also in that position while Whitey Bulger was helping the FBI cart off his criminal competitors even as he buried bodies in
shallow graves along the Neponset…”
[https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/1970/01/19/one-lingering-question-for-fbi-director- robert-mueller/613uW0MR7czurRn7M4BG2J/story.html]
Mueller was the head of the Criminal Division as Assistant U.S. Attorney, then as Acting U.S. Attorney. I could not find any explanation online by Mueller as to why he insisted on keeping the defendants in prison that FBI agents—in the pocket of Whitey Bulger— had framed for a murder they did not commit. Make no mistake: these were not honorable people he had incarcerated. But it was part of a pattern that eventually became quite clear that Mueller was more concerned with convicting and putting people in jail he disliked, even if they were innocent of the charges, than he was with ferreting out the truth.
I found no explanation as to why he did not bear any responsibility for the $100 million paid to the defendants who were framed by FBI agents under his control. The Boston Globe said, “Thanks to the FBI’s corruption, taxpayers got stuck with the $100 million bill for compensating the framed men, two of whom, Greco and Tameleo, died in prison.”
[https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/1970/01/19/one-lingering-question-for-fbi-director-robert- mueller/613uW0MR7czurRn7M4BG2J/amp.html]
Allan to Natacha: “…seldom do you say anything worthwhile.”
Right back atcha Allan. My god you’re a bore.
Natacha, Honey, you and whatever other names you like to use keep yourself so busy playing with each other that anything else is a bore. Do you dream about Mueller raiding your bedroom chamber? Intimidation?
I took out a part of the boring stuff so you could have that added tinge of excitement tonight in your bedchamber. “harass or destroy them whenever he wished.” seems to be repeated again in more recent history and you are problably waiting for your doors to be broken open before the sun rises. You probably have waited your entire life for such an illegal and shall we say inappropriate search.
MUELLER’S ILLEGAL RAID ON CONGRESSIONAL OFFICES
… However, FBI Director Mueller seemed determined to throw over 200 years of Constitutional restraints to the wind so he could let Congress know he was the unstoppable government bully who could potentially waltz into our offices whenever he wished. In the case of Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat of Louisiana, Mueller was willing to risk a reversal of a slam dunk criminal case just to send a message to the rest of Congress: you don’t mess with the Zohan, if the Zohan is Bob Mueller.
That Congressman Jefferson was guilty of something did not surprise most observers when, amidst swirling allegations, $90,000 in cold hard cash was found in his freezer. As we understood it, the FBI had a witness who was wired and basically got Jefferson on tape taking money. They had mountains of indisputable evidence to prove their case. They had gotten an entirely appropriate warrant to search his home and had even more mountains of evidence to nail the lid on his coffin, figuratively speaking.
The FBI certainly did not need to conduct an unsupervised search of a Congressman’s office to put their unbeatable case at risk. Apparently, the risk was worth it to Mueller so he could show the Members of Congress who could harass or destroy them whenever he wished. Apparently, the FBI knew just the right federal judge who would disregard the Constitution and allow Mueller’s minions to do their dirty work. [http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/22/jefferson/index.html]
I read the Application for Warrant and the accompanying Affidavit for Warrant to raid Jefferson’s office, as I did so many times as a felony judge. I could not believe they would risk such a high-profile case just to try to intimidate Members of Congress. In the opinion of this former prosecutor, felony judge and Appellate Court Chief Justice, they could have gotten a conviction based on what they had already spelled out in the very lengthy affidavit.
The official attorneys representing the House, knowing my background, allowed me to sit in on the extremely heated discussions between attorneys for the House, DOJ attorneys, and, to my recollection, an attorney from the Bush White House, after Jefferson’s office was raided. The FBI had gathered up virtually every kind of record, computerized or otherwise, and carted them off. I was not aware of the times that the DOJ and House attorneys, with the Speaker’s permission, had cooperated over the years. No Congressman is above the law nor is any above having search warrants issued against them which is why Jefferson’s home was searched without protest. However, when the material is in a Congressional office, there is a critical and centuries’ old balance of power that must be preserved.
The Mueller FBI spokespeople along with the DOJ choir assured everyone that everything was fine. They were going to have some of the DOJ’s attorneys review all the material and give back anything that was privileged and unlawful for the DOJ to see. Then they would make sure none of the DOJ attorneys who participated in the review of materials (that were privileged from the DOJ’s viewing) would be allowed to be prosecutors in Jefferson’s case. If you find that kind of thinking terribly flawed and constitutionally appalling, you would be in agreement with the former Speakers of the House, the Vice President at the time, and ultimately, the final decisions of our federal appellate court system. They found the search to be illegal and inappropriate. Fortunately for the DOJ, they did not throw the entire case out. In retrospect, we did not know at the time what a farce a DOJ “firewall” would have been. Now we do!
Allan often fails…to supply links, to put things in quotes… He just fails.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-03/exposed-naked-truth-about-robert-mueller
It’s hopeless with pea brains like yours. You can find the stuff for me. I am used to having secretaries so you are making me feel at home though you are not of the quality I am used to. These quotes are on many different blogs though I don’t know if it is at WaPo or the NYSlimes.
Along with looking up the address you should read it.
Allan — This isn’t the first time that you’ve tried to pass things off as your own.
It’s pretty basic. If one posts something that isn’t one’s own??
The rule is to use those little things called quotation marks.
Otherwise you’re just another scumbag plagiarist.
Allan — This isn’t the first time that you’ve tried to pass things off as your own.
It’s pretty basic. If one posts something that isn’t one’s own??
The rule is to use those little things called quotation marks.
Otherwise you’re just another scumbag plagiarist.
“This isn’t the first time that you’ve tried to pass things off as your own.”
Dummy, that is why I put elipses to show that the section I quoted started in the middle of what was written not at the beginning. I don’t take credit for anyone els’s writing nor do I have to.
I do not need to utilize your conventions as you and the other leftists have proven themselves to be totally dishonest. I am letting you do the work of looking up the citations not me.
The plaigerists are the sewer dwellers such as you. It is quite clear to me what I am writing and what is someone else’s work.
As I told Natacha, Honey, “I took out a part of the boring stuff so you could have that added tinge of excitement tonight in your bedchamber.” which makes it quite evident I am copying from a larger piece, but apparently you are too stupid to grasp that fact.
Common sense tells us that POTUSes can and have sent word down to AUSAs about how charges should be brought or dropped. Regardless of the supposed formalities.
One notable example came from Pentagon papers, when Nixon got the Saigon AUSA to drop charges against Colonel Robert Rheault for the alleged murder of a South Vietnamese spy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rheault
That made the cover of Time, and it was part of the setup for the movie Apocalypse Now.
While I have been critical of Comey, he was absolutely right in his objections to the inquiries from Trump.
Because, in your mind, the legal profession and the permanent government have their prerogatives. Trouble is, that’s a fiction, and an unjustified one. The last three years have demonstrated that.
(Of course, BO had no need to ask for anything. McCabe, Sztrok, and others were quite willing to act as extensions of the Democratic Party).
Just because reality does not conform to ideals in every or even most instances, does not mean that ideals should be abandoned. Sins are the most common example of this. The ideal that the FBI should be independent is not a bad ideal in itself. That it is sometimes or perhaps frequently ignored, for bad or even for good, does not mean that an independent federal police force is a bad ideal.
Yeah, and there are no republicans in the fbi. Just ask the New York office where Giuliani got the tip on the Comey October surprise, at least partly announced by Comey because he feared it being leaked by Hillary haters there.
I know teenagers with more sense than the regulars on this board.
Very shallow reasoning.
All roads lead to Obama.
—-
DNI James Clapper said in a July 2018 interview on CNN:
“If it weren’t for President Obama, we might not have done the intelligence community assessment that we did that set off a whole sequence of events which are still unfolding today, notably, special counsel Mueller’s investigation.”
As we follow the evidence trail and connect the dots, we find corroborated linkages to bits of information substantiating that President Obama not only could have easily made the decisions, but maybe even directed the operations.
Clapper’s comment is not the only indicator to believe the Obama administration decision making process involved President Obama personally. We have evidence and can show records of the “Deputies Meetings” convened to manage the Russia cyber crisis exist based on Washington Post reporting from June 2017 that confirms who was in these meetings: Susan “Rice, Haines and Lisa Monaco convened meetings in the White House Situation Room, which would later be referred to as “Deputies Meetings”. These meetings were initially attended by:
Director John Brennan, Central Intelligence Agency
Director James Clapper, Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Director James Comey, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Attorney General Loretta Lynch, United States Department of Justice
As time passed, another Cabinet member joined the Deputies Meetings: Vice President Joe Biden.”
As we follow the evidence trail and connect the dots, we find corroborated linkages to bits of information substantiating that President Obama not only could have easily made the decisions, but maybe even directed the operations.
https://humanevents.com/2019/05/05/politicized-intelligence-agencies/
“Barr looked evasive and uncomfortable,”
Harris is not a bad prosecutor. Barr wanted a definition of the word. He wanted specifics.
No, he wanted time to figure out how to evade the question.
Betty, you are looking for an answer whose question you probably didn’t understand. Did you note how many different synonyms to the word were mentioned? All of them have slightly different meanings. Don’t confuse a desire for clarity with evasion. That is what can happen when one has preconceived notions.I think Professor Turley sometimes lets his personal beliefs get in the way.
“What makes the request even more curious is the omission of the more obvious question. Why did Mueller not reach a decision? As I wrote on the day that Barr released his summary of the Mueller report to Congress, it is perfectly incomprehensible that Mueller did not reach a conclusion. After reading his report, his reasons for refusing are even more inscrutable.”
The reasons for not making a traditional “binary” prosecution/declination decision are stated in the Introduction to Volume II of the Mueller Report. They are not “inscrutable.” The Special Counsel’s Office “accepted OLC’s legal conclusion [that a sitting President cannot be indicted] for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction.” The Report goes on to argue that it would therefore be unfair to state a conclusion that the President committed a crime when, because of the OLC policy, there can be no indictment, and the President would have no forum in which to clear himself.
I must be missing something, but I’m darned if I can see what.
This is separate from the question of whether Mueller was correct in the way he handled the OLC policy, whether in fact he was instructed to ignore it by Barr and/or Rosenstein, and if so why he did not follow those instructions.
Trump did collude with the Russians.
Factless.
Doesn’t know the difference between opinion and fact.
How did Trump collude with Russians?
Bill, Anon will never deal in anything more than generalizations and copying something that doesn’t answer the question.
Anon, Anonymous, Peter Shill, et al are not here to debate, reason, have a meeting of the mind, etc. They are here to troll
Trolls will be trolls.
In two online studies (total N = 1215), respondents completed personality inventories and a survey of their Internet commenting styles. Overall, strong positive associations emerged among online comment-ing frequency, trolling enjoyment, and troll identity, pointing to a common construct underlying the measures. Both studies revealed similar patterns of relations between trolling and the Dark Tetrad of personality: trolling correlated positively with sadism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, using both enjoyment ratings and identity scores. Of all personality measures, sadism showed the most robust associations with trolling and, importantly, the relationship was specific to trolling behavior. Enjoyment of other online activities, such as chatting and debating, was unrelated to sadism. Thus cyber-trolling appears to be an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism.
Buckels, E. E., et al. Trolls just want to have fun. Personality and Individual Differences (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.016
“Anon, Anonymous, Peter Shill, et al are not here to debate, reason, have a meeting of the mind, etc.”
In Anon’s case I think he might be unable to do any of the above.
I can only suspect that Trump did. There seems to be no evidence that he personally was involved except his very public request for the Russians to hack Clinton’s computer, which they did. His campaign was certainly conspiring with the Russians when you consider the many meetings by campaign personnel with Russians and Manafort’s conviction of providing campaign polls, etc. with the Russians.
” except his very public request for the Russians to hack Clinton’s computer,”
That was sarcasm something some people cannot understand.
https://raymcgovern.com/2019/02/14/evidence-mounts-dnc-emails-got-to-wikileaks-via-a-leak-not-a-hack/
please read this and observe it comes from a green party voting sometime israel critic. by memory you are one of the big israel detractors here. So maybe you will take that as part of mcgovern’s bona fides that he is not reluctant to criticize israelis. not habitually but when the shoe fits.
it was a leak not a hack. the whole narrative hinging on it being a leak is erroneous. the technological facts make the notion that it was a hack almost totally impossible. it’s a simple thing but people who don’t understand basic things like “download speeds” seem to have a hard time with this.
Anon lies brazenly. That’s what David Brock told him to do.t
This article & your opinion appears to lack the context within all this happened. Who was the one person that knew Trump did not collude with Russia? Trump. Now add that he knew they were being surveiled in November 2016, when Admiral Rogers went to Trump Tower. Then Clapper & Brennan go to Obama to get Rogers fired. Trump & his campaign staff experienced a sort of trauma. LEGAL ABUSE SYNDROME. Knowing your innocent & having the full force & power of government coming down on you, attempting to entrap you, no person on earth wouldn’t react in a similar way.
It’s clear to most Americans by now that the abuse of power that the Democrats are conducting against Trump is only the opening volley of shots that they intend to eventually inflict on every American Citizen who questions and rejects their goals and declines to follow their orders. What Democrats will do to one American, they will do to all. That’s the nature of the lust for absolute power. That style of desensitization is how the acquisition of absolute power works. Of course Trump is not doing what they hoped for and expected. This is new territory for an American President. Trump is in the fight of his life, the likes of which the United States has never seen. The Demoocrats screams of terror are from finding themselves faced with someone who is actually fighting back to win for the country, not save his political career. Since Democrats are world class cowards, their only option is to use as much scorched earth policy of deception as possible to generate as much mass hysteria as possible to distract from their own machinations. As the Democrats intentions and their absolute contempt for and rejection of the American Constitutional and legally values that are the foundation of this country become clearer every day, the exposures of their true nature drives them even more suicidally toward their goal of the destruction of those pillars of American life. Democrats are in hysterical overdrive to throw up a wall of protection from the consequences of the 2016 election which rejected and stalled their domination plans, the truth of their open and notorious illegal efforts to violate American Citizens Constitutional Rights by nullifying that election and removing the legitimately elected President and replaceing him with one of THEIR own choosing and the repercussions from the ire of the American People who understand this and will render their own Report in 2020.
Dawn, see Whitewater, Clinton Impeachment.
Maybe ease up on the drama queen routine.
Dawn, Honey, MOST Americans voted Democratic in the last election because, like 2016, MOST Americans are against Trump. The midterms were a referendum on Trump that produced the largest change in the House since Watergate. MOST Americans do not want a POTUS who is deferential to a Communist dictator, who openly disagrees with American Intelligence and whose campaign funnels key polling information to Russians so they can conduct a social media campaign against his opponent. Trump was NOT “legitimately elected”. THAT is the point you, Faux News and Trump refuse to acknowledge. If Trump were a patriot worthy of the title POTUS, he would take steps against Russia so that it and other like-minded countries would know never to mess with our free elections again. He won’t even acknowledge Russian help, much less do anything to stop it.
Did you read the Mueller report? Did you hear Dan Coates’s testimony on Russian interference? The pillars of America are under threat by Russia because Trump needed their help to “win the victory”. He was trying to borrow money from Russians and work a hotel deal that would require Putin’s approval. I doubt that he has abandoned that goal. The only hysteria and deception are fomented by Faux News and Rush.