When “Awfully Close” Is Just Awful: Nadler Raises Invalid Bribery Theory In Call For Barr Investigation

440px-U.S._Rep_Jerry_Nadler_(cropped)250px-Ford_PintoFifty years ago, Ford Motor Company started production on the Pinto, a car that was billed as the be-all, end-all for the automotive industry. The only problem was that the car seemed to burst into flames if it hit a mid- to large-sized squirrel. The Pinto’s combustibility did not stop its advocates from pushing its use until it finally was pulled from the roads.
     The Pinto came to mind this week with the reappearance of a poorly conceived product from the legal world: the Trump bribery theory. Various legal experts have insisted President Trump could be prosecuted or impeached under bribery laws, including for his dealings with Ukraine. I have written repeatedly that this theory was discredited by controlling case law, and I testified against its use as an article in the House impeachment hearing last year.  As Ralph Nader once said about the Chevrolet Corvair, this theory is “unsafe at any speed” on Capitol Hill. The decision to pull out this discredited theory of bribery is just the latest example of choosing combustibility over credibility in legal analysis.  The difference is that when unstable automotive products are exposed, they are taken off the road.  Unstable legal products just keep rolling along.
864px-Geoffrey_S._Berman
      Despite the support of the three other witnesses at the hearing, the House Judiciary Committee wisely declined to impeach on this facially invalid theory. Some of us thought that the bribery theory was discarded to the junkyard of bad ideas. Yet, late this week, it was back with a vengeance: After hearing the testimony of former U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman, House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) declared his committee will investigate whether Attorney General William Barr is guilty of bribery, for offering to move Berman from his post in New York to the Department of Justice’s Civil Division.
      The reappearance of the theory followed the implosion of an alternative criminal theory.
      Just a week ago, Barr was being accused of criminal obstruction in seeking to can Berman as the U.S. Attorney in New York’s Southern District, in order to influence investigations affecting Trump friends ranging from Rudy Giuliani to the late Jeffrey Epstein. It did not matter that these investigations have been aggressively pursued under Barr’s tenure.
     The problem is that, when Berman released his written statement to Congress, he did not allege this change was an effort to hamper any investigation. (Notably, on a committee known for leaking information from closed hearing, no such allegation was leaked and no member said that it was made). Instead, Berman said he told Barr that he not want to leave the Southern District of New York because he wanted to see “important investigations … through to completion” and “to help lead the Office through the COVID crisis and get the Office back to normal functioning.”
      Berman said Barr wanted to shift Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Jay Clayton into the Southern District position to accommodate Clayton’s desire to move back to New York. As Barr stated, he offered other positions to Berman that would have been effective promotions.
440px-William_Barr
      There still is no evidence of any effort to hamper Southern District investigations. To the contrary, the Epstein investigation has continued full bore with the extraordinary arrest of Epstein’s close associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Barr has pushed for Britain’s Prince Andrew to give evidence in that case. Barr’s DOJ has pushed to incarcerate Trump’s close friend, Roger Stone, and Barr reportedly opposed Trump’s decision to give presidential clemency to Stonein the form of a commutation. And Barr specifically asked the DOJ’s inspector general to monitor the Southern District office to prevent any interference in its investigations.
      That is when the bribery theory came sputtering back on to the road. Nader announced: “We don’t know yet if the attorney general’s conduct is criminal, but that kind of quid pro quo is awfully close to bribery.” It is not awfully close. Just awful.
      The suggestion is so wildly absurd that it defies belief — unless you have been following the legal analysis of the last three years. A leading proponent has been former prosecutor and Washington Post columnist Randall D. Eliason, who insisted that “allegations of a wrongful quid pro quo are really just another way of saying that there was a bribe … it’s bribery if a quid pro quo is sought with corrupt intent, if the president is not pursuing legitimate U.S. policy but instead is wrongfully demanding actions by Ukraine that would benefit him personally.” Eliason further endorsed the House report and assured that “The legal and factual analysis of bribery and honest services fraud in the House report is exactly right” and “outlines compelling evidence of federal criminal violations.”
      The theory was never “exactly” or even remotely right, as evidenced by the decision not to use it as a basis for impeachment. And yet, it’s back. Indeed, the greatest danger of the theory was not that it would ever pass muster in the federal court system but that it would be used (as here) in the political system to criminalize policy and legal disagreements.

      In my testimony, I went into historical and legal detail to explain why this theory was never credible.  While it was gleefully presented by papers like the Washington Post, it ignored case law that rejected precisely this type of limitless definition of the offense.  As I told the House Judiciary Committee, the Supreme Court has repeatedly narrowed the scope of the statutory definition of bribery, including distinctions with direct relevance to the current controversy in cases like McDonnell v. United States, where the Court overturned the conviction of former Virginia governor Robert McDonnell. Chief Justice John Roberts eviscerated what he called the “boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.” The Court explained the such “boundless interpretations” are inimical to constitutional rights because they deny citizens the notice of what acts are presumptively criminal: “[U]nder the Government’s interpretation, the term ‘official act’ is not defined ‘with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited,’ or ‘in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.’”  That is precisely what is being threatened if offering an alternative job to a subordinate in government would constituted bribery.

      I will not repeat the litany of cases rejecting this type of broad interpretation. However, the case law did not matter then and it does not matter now to those who believe that the criminal code is endless flexible to meet political agenda.
      It doesn’t even matter that the Supreme Court reaffirmed prior rejections of such broad interpretations in a recent unanimous ruling written by Justice Elena Kagan. In Kelly v. United States, the Supreme Court threw out the convictions in the “Bridgegate” case involving the controversial closing of lanes on the George Washington Bridge to create traffic problems for the mayor of Fort Lee, N.J., who refused to endorse then-Gov. Chris Christie.
      Yet, Nadler is suggesting that, by simply offering Berman alternative positions, Barr was offering a criminal bribe. Keep in mind that Barr’s offer also included the promise to fire Berman if he refused to vacate the position. Barr did not have to bribe Berman to remove him. Barr wanted Berman to remain in the administration but, in the end, the only certainty was that Berman would not be in his current position. Again, imagine if such a choice could be deemed criminal bribery because an offer of an alternative job can be construed as a quid pro quo. That is what the Court meant by the “boundless interpretation” of bribery.
      I have disagreed with Clayton’s nomination to the Southern District, and I also disagreed with the suggested substitution of an acting U.S. Attorney rather than the obviously qualified choice of Audrey Strauss from within the SDNY. However, none of that suggests a crime, let alone bribery. While Berman insisted he could have litigated his removal, he would have lost. While it is true that he was appointed by a court, he — like all U.S. Attorneys — serves at the pleasure of the president. Barr gave him various options, but remaining in his position was not one of those — which is why Barr would say confidently that Berman was stepping down … one way or the other.
      That is why the latest road-test of the bribery theory is a Pinto-like hazard given even the smallest collision with actual law.

 

135 thoughts on “When “Awfully Close” Is Just Awful: Nadler Raises Invalid Bribery Theory In Call For Barr Investigation”

  1. OT – TRUE CRIME/TERRORISM

    SUE CHINA

    China must be sued by all nations in the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.

    All nations in the UN must vote to override any and all vetoes.

    China must be sued in the U.S. under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.

    China committed a terrorist act by conducting wanton, unsafe virology with complete abandon and disregard for the welfare of all other nations in order to project an image of strength and global dominion.

    A perpetrator of DUI is subject to prosecution for combing two legal acts: Drinking and driving.

    China must be sued for combining two legal acts: Virology and providing for egress of viruses.

    1. China has a veto on the Security Council that can not be overridden. Same with the US, Russia, France, and UK.

      1. Amend the Charter by vote of all nations.

        How many nations will not vote to sue?

        How rational will they be proven to have been in voting to not sue China for the devastation of the “China Flu of 2020?”

        The value and worth of the UN will be manifest in that vote.

        America and the entire world are at an inflection point.

        No more prevarication.

        It’s time to separate the men from the boys.

        It’s time for all nations in the vaunted United Nations to act coherently and appropriately.

        It’s time to sue China and make it compensate and be penalized for its witting or unwitting decimation of all nations on this planet.

        Either the United Nations votes to override, amend and sue China or the United States exits the New York Headquarters Building, terminates its lease and ceases all funding.

        It’s the hard ball, stupid!

        1. The changes you want would require a change in the terms of a treaty signed by about 190 countries. Also there is no court that has jurisdiction. Also there is no evidence that there is anything different that the Chinese could have done to prevent it. And if China has to pay, that would cost them so much that their economy would crash, hampering the global recovery.

          1. You need affirmative action.

            You need the UN.

            We get that.

            America and Americans need neither.

            At this inflection point, either the United Nations votes to override, amend and sue China or the United States exits the New York Headquarters Building, terminates its lease and ceases all funding.

          2. No doubt you “interpret” the Constitution to mandate participation in the communist U.N.

            You couldn’t “interpret” that the president must be a “natural born citizen.”

            You couldn’t “interpret” that the 5th Amendment right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute providing Congress NO power to interfere in any way with the claim to or exercise of dominion over private property.

            You couldn’t “interpret” that the entire American welfare state is unconstitutional – that Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress only the power to tax for “…general Welfare…” not any form of individual welfare, charity or redistribution of wealth. And that the same Article denies Congress any power to regulate anything other than the value of money, the “flow” of commerce among States, nations and Indian tribes and land and naval Forces.

            Don’t “interpret” an American commitment to dance to the tune of global communists in the U.N., rule the U.N.

            You can’t grasp the scope and breadth of American freedom. You believe the Founders gave all the power to parasites, hyphenates, foreigners and global communists.

            Try reading the Constitution sometime.

            Try grasping “American exceptionalism.”

            1. There is no “American exceptionalism”. Maybe there was in the past but not anymore. The US is one country of many in this world, we are in no way inherently better then others. It is in our interested to work with the international community for the benefit of all. It we take a leadership role it should be one gained by earning the respect and trust of other nations.

              In other words, being a dick to other countries will hurt our own interests.

              1. Molly,

                If you wish to go kiss the UN’s, China’s, BLM Islamist, Antifa Fascist Azzes, in the US you’re free to do so, but involve the rest of us in you’re Insanity/Surrender to the rest of the world’s tyranny!

                Please move to where they are better then the USA!

                1. Oops typo:

                  Oky1 says:
                  July 12, 2020 at 10:25 PM

                  Molly,

                  If you wish to go kiss the UN’s, China’s, BLM Islamist, Antifa Fascist Azzes, in the US you’re free to do so, but please Do Not involve the rest of us in you’re Insanity/Surrender to the rest of the world’s tyranny!

                  Please move to where they are better then the USA!

              2. Since WW2 we’ve been anything but a dick. We rebuilt Germany and Japan and guaranteed the safety net for international commerce for the rest of the world. It is now time we looked after number one.

                1. We have made many mistakes in our past – but american exceptionalism did not start with WWII.

                  Few if any of us have problems looking at the failures of americia’s past history.
                  But a proper picture requires both the strenght’s and the flaws. Our Heros often have clay feet – but they are still hero’s and despite the flaws of the past we have much to be proud of.

                  Effective Self government was BORN with this country.

                  1. we, no. Perhaps, John, you might agree with me that effective self government was born in ANCIENT GREECE?

                    and the longest meeting representative body still in existence today, is the Icelandic Thing, which is going on a millennium, nearly

                    and before America there was a democratic experiment well underway in the SWISS CONFEDERATION

                    remember the guy who shot his apple off his kid’s head with an arrow? Wilhelm Tell, a Swiss man.

  2. SCOTUS’s overbreadth argument is interesting but the fundimental problem is that crimes are ACTS.

    It is the ACT that must be criminal. It is the ACT that must be corrupt. Intention is a separate element of a crime. We rarely hold people accountable when their ACTs are bad if you honestly beleive their intentions were not.
    But the converse is also true. You can not hold a person accountable for a legal act, just because you think they had bad intentions.

    This is precisely the nonsense we all loathed in communist countries.

    “Find me the man, and I will find you the crime”

    It is self evident the Left has decided that Trump and anyone who serves him effectively are evil and must go, nd they are willing to manufacture crimes to do so.

  3. The power of the President “…to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States,…” is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute, allowing for no debate.

    A simple juxtaposition of one man’s arbitrary reconfiguration of law with the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution of the United States; is the following position the type of political expropriation of law and fundamental

    law that Professor Turley is admonishing against?
    _______________________________________

    “The House should do it [impeach] again, given Trump’s corrupt commutation of Roger Stone’s sentence.”

    – CommitToHonestDiscussion
    _______________________

    Article 2, Section 2

    The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

    1. The pardon is valid, but the president can still be impeached over it if needed. It would be an extreme case, but quite possible. A good example is if the president straight up took a monetary bribe to pardon someone.

        1. I don’t think Congress was going to impeach Clinton in the few hours between the Rich pardon and Bush inauguration.

  4. Right on cue Turley comes running to the defence of the indefensible. There seems to be no laws or norms that Trump or Barr can twist to their advantage that Turley would not run over broken glass for. He should not worry, Trump has a list a mile long of pardons, and I’m sure Barr is on it. And the Trump family, and his staff, and his lawyers, {except Cohen of course} most likely to be the longest list on record of get out of jail cards. And you can be sure he has a special Sharpie for his own pardon, to be put in a glass case at his golf course that you would have to pay a extra fee to see it.

    1. You speak the truth, FishWings. Thank goodness that the wingnutz on here are obviously geriatric and loosing relevance by the day.

      I feel bad for Young, George, and especially Squeaky. I hope they’re sheltering in place, wearing masks, and using sanitary practices (handwashg and/or sanitizer).

      Bless their shriveled and pessimistic hearts. They are in my thoughts and prayers.

      (if I only beLIEved in god)

      1. Your beleif that someone else has bad intentions – does not make their actions a crime.

        If all that is necescary to jail someone is to claim bad intentions – the right would have locked the left up long ago.

        It is patently obvious you have bad intentions.

  5. Off topic. We need a Second Amendment topic on the right to bear arms. And on the Ninth Amendment Right to privacy. A St. Louis prosecutor needs to be removed from office for requesting a warrant which was granted by a lame duck judge to seize the weapons owned by the McCloskeys on their private home on Portland Place. The mob had broken through a private gate and intruded on a private street. A mob should break into the prosecutors home and office tonight after both are locked down.
    This is America.

    1. Start with Mueller et al. for appointing a special counsel in the complete absence of a crime. Appointing a special fisherman is nowhere to be found in law or fundamental law. In reality, America is too far gone, as was the case in 1860 when a zealot and tyrant backed into office with a mere 38.9% of the vote (Hitler had 37.3%) and expropriated the government for a “higher purpose,” winning reelection in 1864 by “fixing” the vote through the liberal application of brute military force, ultimately nullifying, and improperly and illegitimately “modifying” the Constitution and the nation, which requires corrective action to this day.

      America is in a condition of hysteria, incoherence, chaos, anarchy and rebellion.

      President Abraham Lincoln seized power, neutralized the legislative and judicial branches and ruled by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Union.”

      President Donald Trump must now seize power, neutralize the legislative and judicial branches and rule by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Republic.”

  6. “Berman said Barr wanted to shift Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Jay Clayton into the Southern District position to accommodate Clayton’s desire to move back to New York.”

    Really? You fire guy just because someone else wants to move to another city and needs a job? If this statement is true then it shows a massive perversion of priorities by the AG. If it is not true then that is even worse. Either way this stinks to high heaven and not matter how you look at it it shows how off the deep end the AG is and those who defend him.

  7. 3 years of investigation, and nothing to show for it. Well for 3 years we were safe and they couldn’t pass any legislation that would hurt us.

    1. We just need to re-take the House, and then people like the baggy pants Jerald ‘Nadless Nadler get pushed into the background where they belong. Republicans will be the adults, will the ‘Nadless one sits in the back with his dozen box of Krispy Kreme donuts.

  8. Was not ‘ bribery ‘ at the root of one of the impeachment accusations?

    After millions of $$$ and many years in litigation, ultimately the Corvair was deemed to be no more ‘ unsafe ‘ than any other car on the road at the time . . .

  9. Spoiled children in positions of power, angry that a new kid moved into their neighborhood, is really shaking it up and is more popular than they are. This best describes the democrats in congress and their allies in the media. Is it any surprise that Nadler and his majority keep coming up with these illegal legal theories, continuing to beat a horse long since dead? Step back and picture the democrat leaders on a national, state and local level: Biden, Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff, Waters, AOC, Cuomo, Di Blasio, Newsom, Frey (Minneapolis), Wheeler (Portland), Lightfoot (Chicago), Young (Baltimore), Durkin (Seattle), and let us not forget Gardner, the prosecutor in Saint Louis and so many others like her. This list of democrat superstars, basking in the daily praise of the main stream media, CNN and MSNBC only scratches the surface. Isn’t it amazing that there is not a patriot among them; instead, it is a group of people who spit on the country that gave them opportunities and wealth by supporting Black Lives Matter and endorsing the Marxist tactic of defunding the police. The shameful behavior of these people is influencing our young. Saturday, a fairly large group of teenagers, mostly white and middle class in appearance, held a protest rally, carrying “Black Lives Matter” signs. Their goals– “defunding the Austin Police Department, demilitarizing law enforcement and removing police from schools.” I wonder if any of their parents have told them (or even know) that the chief fund raiser for BLM is a convicted terrorist or that one of the three founding members executed a state patrol officer when he stopped her for a broken tail light?

    1. Honest, who’s ‘more popular than ‘who’..?? Trump’s popularity has totally cratered. Yet like most Trumpers you’re still stuck at that fleeting post-impeachment moment before the pandemic.

          1. absurd x– I got the polling data from Gallup which I’ve always heard has a history of leaning left. The most recent poll (May to June) showed 25% approval and 71% disapproval. If the sample is weighted to democrats as much of the other polling apparently is, the real number may be closer to what you say.

        1. mespo– after my buying trip yesterday, today I tried to Goya salsa. It’s really good stuff and comes in mild and hot. I want to thank the dimwits calling for a boycott for turning us on to the brand.

      1. BLM are scum. Seth apologizes and welcomes the scum. He wants them to loot his own house perhaps? Or does he volunteer his taxes to pay?
        Oh wait– maybe he doesnt even pay any taxes! Always the type who are eager to spend more.

        But, one way or another, get ready to pay your share of the reparations Seth. I’m not parting with mine.

      1. Anonymous– I did misspeak, possibly because of my confusion or the heat. According to the founders, Assata Sakur, the executioner of the highway patrol officer, was and continues to be their “inspiration.” I hate it when I make a mistake. Not to justify the mistake, I do think the overall thrust was accurate. BLM is a criminal organization, bent on the destruction of our country and killing our police officers. It is rotten to the core. Here is a picture of one of the BLM followers guarding what was painted on a Palo Alto street: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/07/08/artists-block-street-to-guard-new-black-lives-matter-in-palo-alto

        1. It is patently illegal for BLM to deface public streets with graffitti. They should all be arrested in the act.

          Where is law and order? If I put my own political scrawlings on the street in paint outside my office, I would be arrested in ten minutes time.

          This is a blatantly unconstitutional moment, A DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION,
          for white people and other law abiding citizens in the USA who don’t have the same special privileges that BLM suddenly has!

          WHO VOTED BLM OUR NEW ARISTOCRATS?

  10. NB, Nadler has been in elected office since 1977 and has never practiced law. Remember the character Jerome Meldnick in Bonfire of the Vanities, the superior court judge whose experience in law offices consisted of a couple of summers in his uncle’s firm? He’s a variant of Meldnick. He hasn’t worked in a law office in any capacity in nearly 50 years. Just who you want in charge of the House Judiciary Committee.

  11. The firing of Berman wasn’t to impede investigations, it was to invigorate investigations that Berman had crippled.
    Maxwell was one. She was arrested the next week.
    Biden was another. The Ukraine investigator submitted Biden information in 2018.

    The power of a prosecutor is half who they prosecute, and half who they don’t prosecute.

    1. LOL that you imply there’s a Biden investigation in SDNY.
      Nor do you provide any information that Berman “crippled” the Maxwell investigation. In fact, it would be impossible for her to be arrested so soon after had the investigation been “crippled,” and you’re confusing nearness in time with causality.

      Barr did not cite any valid reason to fire Berman.
      Berman’s refusal to resign was the reason that his position was inherited by Audrey Strauss rather than Carpenito, when Strauss was already familiar with the cases, making for a smoother transition.
      We already know that Barr lied when he announced that Berman was “stepping down” (when Berman hadn’t agreed to resign), and Berman’s opening statement suggests that Barr was proposing a wrongful quid pro quo to get Berman to leave. None of us knows what Berman added during the closed hearing last week. Carpenito also alleged that Barr had made it sound like Berman was stepping down willingly. Unsurprisingly, Turley can’t bring himself to eve mention Barr’s dishonesty. Barr needs to be questioned about this under oath.

  12. (music to tune of Sam Stone)
    Dog Stone…came home!
    I o his house and familee!
    After serving with the dorks in DC!
    When Rog took to squeling…
    He got an empty feeling…
    And traded all the laxatives he had.

  13. Nice legal analysis, but so what. The Soviets and Nazi Germany had a wonderful system of laws. So do PRC and North Korea. Their systems of political persecution have made it to the US. This is a about political power, pure and simple, and the use of legal process to persecute political opponents. Nadler is just the latest example. He and his ilk need to be stopped before they destroy our country.

  14. Remember that Nadler bought his office based on the promise he would impeach Trump. He came through once, he could do it again.

    1. The House should do it again, given Trump’s corrupt commutation of Roger Stone’s sentence. Notice how Trump’s choice of commutation rather than a pardon further protects Trump, as it enables Stone to plead the 5th rather than testify as a witness about Trump’s lies to Mueller re: what Trump knew prior to the Wikileaks release. Stone lied to Congress and engaged in witness intimidation to protect Trump, obstructing investigation, and Trump corruptly rewarded Stone’s criminal acts. But that’s all hunky dory to Trump supporters, whatever is best for Dear Leader.

      1. A simple juxtaposition of one man’s arbitrary reconfiguration of law with the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution of the United States.
        _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

        “The House should do it [impeach] again, given Trump’s corrupt commutation of Roger Stone’s sentence.”

        – CommitToHonestDiscussion
        _______________________

        Article 2, Section 2

        The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

        1. So you’re saying that was not a “commitment to honest discussion?”

          (insert smiley face here)

      2. Well if Trump wins you can give it another try

        Next time, no more Mr Nice Guy.

        Democrats are raising the stakes with their apology and facilitating of civil insurrection, and law abiding Americans will see the bet and raise it.

        In for a penny, in for a pound.

        You can still jump ship to the right side Commit. Nobody will know if you vote for law and order come November, over the insanity you have been apologizing for. Nobody will know. You can keep on pretending to be a Dem cheerleader, but ask yourself, how long before the new majority of looters will wait before they come take your scalp, too?

        1. Oh I like this, Kurtz. Harken back to the savages. Proclaim the coming race war as if slavery, Jim Crow, indigenous genocide, red lining, the war on drugs, voter suppression, etc. weren’t already a war on race.

          Don’t worry it’s really hard to notice this is what you’re doing. Bahahahahahaha.

          1. Bug, that was long before we were born.

            I want to survive the one that’s coming while Im alive!

            What happened centuries ago, whatever historical beefs, do not justify a war on me and my kind now.

            We have a right to live!

            And if you don’t see a possible race war in these conflicts, then, you must not have read the homework I gave you by Carl Rowan on the Wapoo website, from almost 2 decades ago, when he (a black man) wrote, “The Coming Race War”!

            Now, let me be clear. I am white. If there is a race war,. I want whites to win.
            There is absolutely nothing that will change my mind.

            I don’t WANT a race war, but it seems, BLM DOES, and the Democrat leadership, is kissing butt and encouraging them so much, it seems to me they do! Surely these white compradors like Pelosi think they will get to ride the tide of it to even more power, but nobodies like me will get the boot.

            White compradors– a fancy word for traitors. Like that crazy white lady in Seattle Council, who wants to fire all the white cops!
            Wow, what better way to kick it off, then get rid of all the white cops, huh? DUH!

            If you are white– maybe you are or maybe not– if you are, then you better wake and smell the coffee. I guess now you can change your gender, they say, but you still cant change race!
            If you’re white, then you are a target NOW.

            Think Im exagerrating>? Well, how’s this for proof. ASHEVILLE NC VOTES TO GIVE BLACKS REPARATIONS.. see link below

            now i ask you, who pays for that? It has to be white folks ,right? because, racist!

            So if I am forced to give them the fruit of my labor, which they receive with no work? what do you call that?

            I CALL IT SLAVERY.
            BLACK REPARATIONS = WHITE ENSLAVEMENT

            And I am willing to go full NAT TURNER to stop it. Me and millions of other “crackers.” We won’t submit. Will you?
            Or are you a black guy Bug? In which case, hey, I got it. You want yo money!

            https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/us/reparations-asheville-nc.html

    2. I am going to vote for the best candidate to most likely bring up the constant and increasing use of violations of the Oaths of Office in the Senate and the Representatives such as violating the support and defend the Constitution against all enemies citing up through taking the oath for purposes of deception

      With the exception of a several 4 to 7 perhaps as little as a few 2-3 that will rid us of the vast majority of our problems starting with Comrade Benita Pelosillyni and Comrade Schumuckleyputz. including all the socialist and their foreign ideology.

      Just how many times do we have to endure these who take an oath to our Constitutional system and Constitutional Republic only by the end of the oath to come out as ‘enemies domestic?.

      When it gets to the point their leaders arrange for them to not take the required oath as a method of evasion enough is enough.

    3. A reminder that although Trump lies and claims that Stone was unfairly prosecuted, Barr has publicly stated the opposite:
      “Well, as you know, the Stone case was prosecuted while I was attorney general. And I supported it. I think it was established, he was convicted of obstructing Congress and witness tampering. And I thought that was a righteous prosecution. And I was happy that he was convicted.”

      And here’s what Barr said about this situation under oath in his confirmation hearings:
      Sen. 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.”

      In exchange for Stone not incriminating him, Trump commuted Stone’s sentence prior to Stone serving any time, and that’s a crime too.

        1. Are you incapable of determining that I haven’t said or implied anything about Clapper?
          Or are you just desperate to change the topic, and this is you tactic?

          1. Thanks for the projection. As always, an education.

            When you can explain why prosecutorial discretion demands that Stone be in the docket and not Clapper (among God knows how many others), get back to us.

            1. I have no responsibility to substantiate — much less tutor you on — a claim I haven’t made.

                1. You’re welcome. I’m happy to evade your effort to pull me into discussing Clapper rather than my OP. Discuss him with someone else, like your friend Mespo.

          2. The topic is Clapper openly called for insurrection among federal employees on twitter.

            And a certain number responded to his call for conspiracy to overthrow the United States

            Clapper, should be clapped in irons and given a due process trial and punished to the fullest extent of the law.

            it’s time for CIA honchos to get their wings clipped!

      1. “In exchange for Stone not incriminating him, Trump commuted Stone’s sentence prior to Stone serving any time”

        Of what crime did Stone have information which could be used to incriminate Trump?

        1. Start with lying multiple times while under penalty of perjury in several of Trump’s written responses to questions from the SCO investigation.

          1. Start with lying multiple times while under penalty of perjury in several of Trump’s written responses to questions from the SCO investigation.
            __________________________________________________________________________________
            If trump lied to Mueller what has that got to do with Roger Stone?

            1. Your question was “Of what crime did Stone have information which could be used to incriminate Trump?” Stone had information about Trump’s perjury in response to questions from Mueller about Stone and others, but you’re not sure what that has to do with Stone? SMH.

              1. “Your question was “Of what crime did Stone have information which could be used to incriminate Trump?” Stone had information about Trump’s perjury in response to questions from Mueller about Stone and others”
                He did ? How so ? I do not specifically recall Mueller questions about Stone.
                Trump did not have alot to do with Stone.

                If you are going to claim someone committed perjury – be specific.
                You are making a very serious allegation – you are claiming that another person is an immoral liar and a criminal.
                Such charges must be substantiated or it is YOUR integrity that is devalued.

                Some precisely what statement of Trumps was perjury and how is it that Stone would have been able to establish that ?

                Finally – in all of this – where is the underlying crime ?

                We already know that as of mid January – long before Mueller was appointed that the FBI insvestigation had lost its justification. ‘

                The fundimental question is not – did somebody lie to Mueller, but why was Mueller investigating at all ?

                As to Stone – before he testified to congress Mueller had already established that Stone had no contact with Wikileaks, and that Stone’s purported source – Credico, himself had little contact with wikileaks and regardless was not relaying information from wikileaks to Stone or Visa versa, and finally and most importantly that the time line does not work – There is no situation is which Stone had actual foreknowledge of anything.

                All of this was established BEFORE Stone testified to congress.

                Of all the people in this Saga – Stone, Papadolis, Manafort, Page, Cohen – only Cohen had a relationship with Trump before the campaign.

                You are alleging a conspiracy between people who never knew each other before – yet have all according to you risk a lifetime in jail to protect Trump

                They have not only all engaged in this great conspiracy – but they have executed spycraft that the KGB could not manage left no clues, no threads that Mueller, the FBI, and all the press in the world could not catch hold of, and in the end all you were left with os this ludicrous presumption that they all were bound by a code of Omerta that even the mafia does not stick to.

                No one Rolled on Trump – except the one person who had the longest relationship with him – Cohen – and despite the obvious animous that Cohen developed for Trump – he still gave the prosecutors NOTHING because he had nothing to give.

                For this idiocy of yours to be true – Manafort, Stone, Papadoulis, Pafe, and Flynn and several others – all have to be traitors to the country, despicable and untrustworthy – while at the same time all so trusting of Trump that they would spend a fortune on legal bills and risk long jail sentences to protect Trump ?

                Look at Manafort ? He is a political operative – is there anyone sane who does not beleive he would have ratted Trump out in a second to avoid Jail and the confiscation of his wealth ? Yet, you want us all to beleive that Manafort has risked everything for a pardon that may never come and will not get him back the time he has spent in jail or the millions the government has taken from him ?

                Why is it that those on the left have never been able to grasp the obvjious – none of this garbage ever made sense in the first place

                1. The fundimental question is not – did somebody lie to Mueller, but why was Mueller investigating at all ?
                  _______________________________________________________________________________

                  The FBI investigation was dead. To quote Strzok on the Russia investigation at the time Mueller was appointed “there is no there there”
                  Mueller was appointed by Trump’s new acting AG to take the investigation away from the FBI and turn the dead FBI investigation into into a long drawn out distraction.

                  Trump explained the lengthening of the Russia investigation to Lester Holt a couple days after Comey was fired and just before Mueller’s appointment was announced:

                  https://youtu.be/5Wvuw_Zmubg?t=110

                  1. The most damning part of the Horowitz report is his finding that Cross Fire Hurricane fell below the legal threshold to continue after the primary sub source for the Steele Report was interviewed.

                    That means that there was no reasonable suspicion to investigate.
                    Without reasonable suspicion – continuing the investigation is a violation of the civil right of those involved.
                    it is also a violation of long standing DOJ and FBI policy.

                    We tend to forget that Starr as an example had to go to court to get 3 judges to approve every part of his investigation.

                    Government in the US may not investigate private parties just because it feels like it.

                    The argument that Barr made for dropping the Flynn persecution applies to the entire Mueller debacle.

                    On January 4, Flynn was cleared by the FBI – they were required to Drop the Flynn investigation.
                    Shortly there after the Steele Dossier was thoroughly discredited when the FBI interviewed its primary sub source.

                    At that moment XFH ENDED – there remained no credible allegation of criminal conduct for the government to investigate.

                    Rosenstein was asked about this under oath in the senate and admitted that he was aware of that by August 2017.

                    If that was so, he was obligated to shut Mueller down at that time.

                    But the question is why was he not aware of that BEFORE appointing Mueller ?

                    There is not an ignorance excuse for violating peoples civil rights.

                    Further Mueller and his team could not be ignorant of this. They are proud of the number of warrants and subpeona’s they issued.

                    But they are REQUIRED to have probable cause – a much higher standard than reasonable suspicion for each of those.

                    How could they have probable cause in May when they did not have reasonable suspicion in January and nothing had changed.

                    This was a witch hunt from the start.

                    Many of us grasp that Flynn was innocent and setup.
                    But the same thing is true of Stone. Papadoulis and the rest of them.

                    1. We tend to forget that Starr as an example had to go to court to get 3 judges to approve every part of his investigation.
                      _____________________________________________________________
                      Mueller has to get the trump DOJ to approve every part of his investigation
                      _________________________________________________________________
                      How could they have probable cause in May when they did not have reasonable suspicion in January and nothing had changed.

                      ________________________________________________________________

                      You are correct Mueller did not have probable cause or good evidence.
                      What Mueller did have is the cooperation of Flynn, Papadopoulos and Stone.

                      Mueller did not need valid evidence because he had the defendants either putting up an ineffectual defense and/or just plain outright copping to unbelievable charges that contradicted the valid evidence.
                      _____________________________________________________________________
                      Many of us grasp that Flynn was innocent and setup.
                      ________________________________________________________________
                      That is what it is designed to look like but that story is very fishy.

                      The FBI very clearly stated that they believed Flynn did not lie. That means there is no possibility of a case against Flynn. Flynn claims that his lawyers and the prosecution did not tell him that the FBI agents believed he was not lying. Flynn claims they led him to believe that the FBI agents were saying they believed he was lying. That is an extremely serious charge that Flynn is making against all the lawyers that were involved in this case. You would think Flynn would welcome the opportunity to tell his story to the court and have the lawyers put in a position to have to explain their lying to the court.

                      Why is Flynn still working to help the DOJ sweep this case under the rug? Why has Flynn been always working to help the prosecutors? The FBI cleared Flynn and that includes a thorough investigation of any FARA violations. The FBI looked at all the same evidence that Mueller had and the FBI said there was no crime. The only way Flynn gets convicted is by Flynn assisting the DOJ. There is no other explanation that fits the evidence.

                    2. “Mueller has to get the trump DOJ to approve every part of his investigation”
                      No, they had to approve every expansion of the investigation.

                      Regardless, that would be the same DOJ that already knew there was no reasonsable suspicion to continue XFH.

                      No one as of this data has reveal any knew information that would restore reasonable suspicion to be able to continue.

                      The FISA court has already invalidated the last to FISA warrants on Page.

                      It is time to see Mueller’s warrant applications – if they have no more foundation than the Page warrant – they too are invalid.
                      And we know they do not.

                    3. No Mueller did not have the cooperation of these people.

                      He threatened them – that is coercion not cooperation.

                      He may do so – if he has a valid investigation, and a basis for the threat.
                      He had neither.

                    4. “The most damning part of the Horowitz report is his finding that Cross Fire Hurricane fell below the legal threshold to continue after the primary sub source for the Steele Report was interviewed”

                      The OIG report says that the FBI became aware of the Steele report 6 weeks after Cross Fire Hurricane started. and that It had nothing to do with the predication for Cross Fire Hurricane.

                    5. “The OIG report says that the FBI became aware of the Steele report 6 weeks after Cross Fire Hurricane started. and that It had nothing to do with the predication for Cross Fire Hurricane.”

                      All correct. But the OIG report also found that the original predication for the investigation had been invalidated by the time the Steele dossier became available. The OIG found that without the steel report XFH would have had to end in the fall of 2016.

                      The Steel Report sustained it until mid January. There was nothing new before or after mid january.

                      You seem to be under the delusion that once an allegation is made you can investigate for ever.

                      You can not. If the allegations are disproven or their credibility is diminished sufficiently as a result of investigation, then the investigation must come to an end.

                    6. No Mueller did not have the cooperation of these people.
                      He threatened them – that is coercion not cooperation.
                      ____________________________________________________

                      That is the story that is fed to and believed by gullible people like you.

                      The simple fact is the story is not supported by the evidence.
                      Any competent lawyer could have gotten Flynn, Popodoupolos or Stone off
                      You yourself have pointed out numerous ways these cases should have fallen apart but they didn’t because the defendants didn’t pursue the obvious defenses.

                2. “President Donald Trump discussed upcoming WikiLeaks document dumps with his former longtime advisor Roger Stone, according to former Trump 2016 campaign deputy Rick Gates. The revelatory allegation came during Tuesday afternoon testimony during Stone’s ongoing trial in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) on five counts of lying to federal investigators, and one count each of obstruction of an official proceeding and witness tampering….

                  During his testimony, Gates said he was in a car with then-candidate Trump while the latter was engaged in a phone call with Stone about those upcoming Wikileaks disclosures. According to a substantially-redacted page from the Mueller Report, Gates was in a Suburban with Trump on the way to New York City’s LaGuardia Airport sometime during “the late summer of 2016.”

                  Federal prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky, a former member of Mueller’s team, asked Gates what happened after Trump got off the line with Stone.

                  Gates replied: “He indicated more information would be coming.”

                  If true, Gates testimony is a direct contradiction of Trump’s written testimony provided to Mueller in late 2018.

                  Mueller asked Trump several questions about Trump’s communications with Stone and Stone’s knowledge regarding “forthcoming releases of information” from Wikileaks.

                  In response to that series of questions, Trump wrote:

                  “I spoke by telephone with Roger Stone from time to time during the campaign. I have no recollection of the specifics of any conversations I had with Mr. Stone between June 1, 2016 and November 8, 2016. I do not recall discussing WikiLeaks with him, nor do I recall being aware of Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks with individuals associated with my campaign, although I was aware that WikiLeaks was the subject of media reporting and campaign-related discussion at the time.”

                  1. You seem to fixate on Wikileaks as if there is an established crime there.

                    There not only is not – but there can not be.

                    The crime was hacking the DNC – unless you can connect Stone and Trump BEFORE THE FACT, to that you have nothing.

                    This is also why the entire prosecution of Stone is a vile fraud. Almost every claim against him – if true, and most are false, would not be a crime.

                    The NYT and Wapo print leaked classified information all the time – no one prosecuted them. No one would prosecute a reader who speculated on what they might publish.
                    No one would prosecute someone who actually privately emailed a journalist about what they might publish in the future.

                    You seem to have redefined crime as anything that damaged Clinton in the election.

                    Should NBC be prosecuted for releasing the access hollywood tape on Trump ?
                    That was true, embarrasing and cost him votes. How is that different from the DNC emails ? Also true, embarrasing and cost her votes.

                    What if some people in HFA interacted with NBC to get NBC to publish the tape – that would not be a crime either.

                    Turley seems to be able to see strained warping of the law – when the target is Barr, but can not grasp that it is no different when bogus legal claims are made against Stone.

                  2. Directly addressing the facts alleged.

                    Mueller established that Stone had no direct contact with Wikileaks or Assange.

                    Stone had no foreknowledge of anything Wikileaks was preparing to publish.

                    Given that fact – the entire rest of all your citations is meaningless.

                    How is it relevant that Trump may or may not have discussed with Stone things that Stone had no way of knowing.

                    Further the actual fact is that all substantive communications – whether with stone or trump occured AFTER the wikileaks material was published.

                    I do not know if the testimony you claim is as you claim it. But if it contradicts known facts – then the testimony is actual perjury.

                  3. I will note that HRC “did not recall” over 250 times in her FBI interview – are you going to prosecute her.

              2. Are you talking about Trump’s statement that he had “no recollection of the specifics of any conversations [he] had with Mr. Stone between June 1, 2016 and November 8, 2016.” was perjury? Are you claiming that Roger Stone had the evidence that could prove that Trump did recall the specifics of some call?

                That is every bit as silly as your belief that Flynn was lying despite the fact that the FBI agents involved are on the record saying they believed he was not lying.

                Maybe Mueller should be charged with lying to Congress because Mueller has testified that he could not recall what he and Trump discussed on their oval office meeting the day before Mueller was appointed as a Special Counsel.

                1. Unless the FBI agents told Flynn he was being interviewed as part of an investigation and that he was subject to 18 USC 1001 and that the had the proper clearances and need to know regarding the Kislyak call then there can be no charges.

                  18 USC 1001 does not make lying to the FBI a crime, it makes lying to someone in the government during an investigation a crime.

                  Flynn was NSA – he lies to people all the time about Classified information – and as has already been established the Kislyak call is automatically highly classified.

                  The reason that the FBI setup Flynn is that the moment they cleared him they were obligated to tell him about XFH. And the moment they did Flynn was going to start investigating XFH and They would be obligated not to lie to him.

                  1. Unless the FBI agents told Flynn he was being interviewed as part of an investigation and that he was subject to 18 USC 1001 and that the had the proper clearances and need to know regarding the Kislyak call then there can be no charges.
                    _______________________________________________________________
                    There can be no sec. 1001 charges when the FBI agents who conducted the interview say that they had the impression that he was not lying.

                    The only way charges are possible in that case is if Flynn and his lawyers and the prosecutors all contradict the FBI agents assessment and tell the court that Flynn did lie in that interview.

                2. There are several “perjuries” Mueller could have been charged with.

                  But there are two problems – we have different standards for those favored by democrats who do not get prosecuted for serious lies under oath.

                  Mueller’s marbles are slipping and no one wants to prosecute someone for failing mental faculties.

                  Mueller had little to do with the investigation bearing his name. It was clear from his testimony that he had no idea what was going on.
                  He did not write the Mueller report,
                  He did not write the OpEd on stone.

                  The left should let Mueller go home in peace and quit hiding behind old men with declining mental health

                  1. Mueller’s marbles are slipping and no one wants to prosecute someone for failing mental faculties.
                    _______________________________________________________________________

                    You are so gullible.
                    _______________________________________________________________________
                    Mueller had little to do with the investigation bearing his name. It was clear from his testimony that he had no idea what was going on.
                    _______________________________________________________________________
                    If you weren’t so gullible what would be clear is that Mueller was asked many questions that he could not answer truthfully but he managed to make it so they never will be answered. Senility was a brilliant strategy.

            2. This all started with lots of lying – by the FBI, by the Obama administration.

              If we are going to hold people accountable for lying lets start there.

              Clapper lied under oath multiple times before this all started.

              Throughout the House impeachment numerous people lied under oath.

              McCabe and Comey lied under oath in the house and senate investigations.

              While none of these should have been criminalized, ALL were more significant than the alleged lies that are being prosecuted.

              Even the illegitimate investigation of the house and Mueller were not harmed by Stones failure to recall exculpatory evidence.

              No matter what Flynn told the FBI – there was no legitimate investigation – i.e. it was NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.
              Further – whether the NSA mislead Strzok or not, he had done nothing wrong. And FBI agents are not entitled to quiz National Security Advisors on classified matters to satisfy their curiousity.

          2. The first requirement for a perjury or obstruction is a legitimate investigation.

            You do not have that.

            I found Thomas’s concurrance on denying the house Trump’s tax returns spot on.

            Government may not subpeona, investigagte, indict, and prostecute people because it wants to.

            A criminal investigation requires probable cause of a crime.

            Congress has no power to investigate private citizens.

            The executive no power to investigate where there is no crime.

            Stone is a political provacateur. We often find that dirty and disturbing – it is not a crime.

            Specifically regarding Stone – after being grilled by Mueller for 70hrs, he testified to congress. He failed to recall excluplatory evidence.
            His lawyers requested transcripts of his testimony – witness as allowed to correct errors in their testimony – and it is a requirement that them be allowed to do so to charge them with perjury. Subsequently Stone was tried before a kangaroo kourt by jurrors and judge with self evident bias and a politically motivated prosequitor. Stone is near certain to win a reversal.

            And you want to fixate on Stone ?

      2. “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

        – William Casey, CIA Director

  15. The democrat party is out of gas, their ideologies have failed and their bench is empty. I expect more such pitiful acts from the party that has become the detritus of the American heart and soul.

    1. I agree. Sanctuary cities are illegal. Marijuana is illegal. Destroying federal park statues is illegal. Rioting and looting is illegal. Protecting one’s home from possible invasion is legal, but not in the eyes of the left.

    2. Are you a parrot for the DNC? No laws have been skirted 🙄 Donald J. Trump will have four more years as America is exhausted from the game playing and destruction from the left…along with their useful idiot rioters, looters, murderers. Democrats are leaving that party in droves. Ya’ll are crazy!

    3. Can you say Joe Biden, Hunter Biden (crackhead), the Biden family, corruption Ukraine and China, and Hillary Clinton and 30,000 e-mails which FBI Director Comey stated contained classified material, and that Hillary destroyed evidence and obstructed justice – and you communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) say Roger Stone was guilty?

      Barack Obama and Congress passed Obamacare which is irrefutably unconstitutional and clearly violated Article 1, Section 8, and the so-called Commerce clause.

      “Skirting the law?” Read the Constitution. The president must be a “natural born citizen.” Obama knows himself that his candidacy not only “skirted the law” but violated the Constitution – he was the son of a foreign citizen.

      Do you have a brain?

      The worst part is that you lie to yourself.

    4. That would have been Obama.

      Thus far all the illegality that has been uncovered has been that of Trumps enemies.

      Often uncovered by investigations of Trump.

      Political biases have clouded the judgement of those on the left.

      What is being proposed is a Soviet Star Chamber.
      Those did not end well/

Leave a Reply