Below is my column in the Hill on claims by former Deputy Special Counsel Andrew Weissmann that the recent pardons by President Donald Trump reinforce a possible obstruction of justice case against him. We have previously discussed how Weissmann has proven critics correct in their description of his animosity and bias toward Trump. For my part, his book and recent statements reinforce the view of an abusive prosecutor, particularly in his untethered view of obstruction. Indeed, Weissmann seems intent on making the best case for Trump to grant himself a self-pardon. He is calling for prosecutors to use grand juries to pursue Trump and others in an unrelenting campaign based on unfounded legal theories.
Here is the column:
In the debate over pardons, some Democrats seem to be making the case for Donald Trump and against themselves. Consider Andrew Weissmann. After the recent pardons, he declared that Trump effectively proved the case for an obstruction charge against himself and called on prosecutors to summon those who were pardoned into grand juries with the threat of later perjury charges. It was unfounded and dubious. It was also vintage Weissmann, who made the case against himself as someone who shows bias against Trump that overwhelms all other considerations.
If Trump wants a rationale to pardon himself, he can look no further than Weissmann, who was appointed as a top aide to special counsel Robert Mueller. Trump and numerous Republicans denounced him as a donor to Barack Obama, and he was said to have attended the election night party for Hilliary Clinton in 2016. My objection was not to his affiliations but to his history, which included extreme interpretations that were ultimately rejected by courts. Weissmann was responsible for the overextension of an obstruction provision in a jury instruction that led the Supreme Court to reverse the conviction in the Arthur Andersen case in 2005.
Weissmann is now a MSNBC analyst who teaches at a New York University. After he left the office of the special counsel, he fulfilled every account of someone with uncontrolled bias against Trump, including his book that attacks prosecutors for refusing to take on his extreme views. Weissmann called on prosecutors to refuse to assist John Durham in his investigation and, after the pardon of Roger Stone, called for Stone in a grand jury.
Even staunch critics of Trump like former prosecutor Randall Eliason described Weissmann’s book as a “betrayal of Mueller” that “trashed” his colleagues and threw them “under a bus for not agreeing with him.” He added that Weissmann’s “dishing may sell a lot of books” but he “himself violated the norms about how prosecutors should behave.”
After leaving the Special Counsel’s office, Weissmann seemed intent on proving critics correct in saying that he was a uniquely poor choice by Mueller to serve as his deputy. Now, Weissmann is openly voicing the extreme interpretations that have led many of us to criticize his tenure at the Justice DepartmentNow Weissmann voices the kind of extreme interpretations that led many of us to criticize his tenure with the Justice Department. His most recent column is illustrative. Many of us called out the recent pardons by Trump, ranging from corrupt former members of Congress to the father of Jared Kushner. However, Weissmann insists that the pardon of figures tied to the special counsel investigation is evidence of obstruction.
But these individuals were not pardoned to stop them from testifying or, with the case of Michael Flynn, from working with prosecutors, nor were they pardoned before they were tried and convicted. Former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, for instance, served time in prison before he was released due concerns of the coronavirus. Former campaign aide George Papadopoulos and attorney Alex Van Der Zwaan served sentences. Flynn was convicted and should have been sentenced years earlier if not for a series of bizarre actions by the federal judge who heard his case.
Trump did not pardon his lawyer, Michael Cohen, when Cohen angled for his pardon. Instead, Cohen worked with Mueller, testified against Trump, and was sent to prison. That is a curious pattern for obstruction. Wait until everyone testifies and most are sent to prison before they are pardoned. It did not seem to have been obstruction that Bill Clinton notably pardoned his own friend and business partner in the Whitewater scandal.
Weissmann insists that, when Trump is out of office, there is no barrier to indict him for obstruction and have all these figures appear before grand juries. The problem is the same one Weissmann faced for his disastrous role in the prosecution of Andersen. Weissmann simply misunderstands criminal obstruction. Indeed, he may have the longest learning curve in legal history on this issue. Indeed, he may have the longest learning curve in legal history on this question. Not even an unanimous rejection of his views by the Supreme Court for the case of Andersen seems to register with him, particularly when the law stands in the way of pursuing Trump.
I testified in the impeachment hearing on the flaws with this obstruction theory. Mueller himself did not find a case for an obstruction charge. He listed the alleged acts of obstruction discussed in the media but did not find the critical element of intent to support the charge. That was also the point that former Attorney General William Barr tried to make in his press conference on the summary of the special counsel investigation. Despite different ideas of obstruction, there was no doubt that it would take intent to prosecute. Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — who appointed Mueller and was widely praised by Democrats for his independence — also said under oath last year that there was no evidence of obstruction.
None of this matters to Weissmann, who comes across as a legal Captain Ahab, so blinded by rage that he would lay waste to the criminal code to nab his white whale. This same kind of rage could be cited by Trump for a controversial pardon of himself. I believe a president can pardon himself but should not do so. Even if someone had standing to challenge that, the Constitution is silent on any such limitation on the pardon power. That is the same reason I believe a president can be indicted in office. Yet, while constitutional, I still view self-pardons as a misuse of the power.
There are solid arguments on both sides of this debate, which has gone on for decades. From my view, the main obstacle is political rather than constitutional, but Weissmann and others are now working to remove that barrier. These critics demand prosecutions of Trump and his associates with the same blind fury as Captain Ahab, who said, “From heart of hell I stab at thee. For the sake of hate I spit my last breath at thee. Ye damned whale.” Their long-standing rage could be the long-sought rationale for the president.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.
“his untethered view of obstruction”
Is it worse than Turley’s untethered view of pardon?
I welcome Trump pardoning himself. There are many good reasons for him not to do so, of course– but as the article says, overzealous nutters like Weissman are the good reason that he should.
Saloth Sar
If he does, it will be tested in court.
He’s used to prosecuting mobsters and doesn’t see a lot of difference here!
Say to him, ‘This is what the LORD says: Have you not murdered a man and seized his property?’ Then say to him, ‘This is what the LORD says: In the place where dogs licked up Naboth’s blood, dogs will lick up your blood–yes, yours!'”
1 kings 21:19
Saloth Sar
That quote is about King Ahab btw
SS
i really enjoyed Gregory Peck’s depiction of Ahab and I have many times posted this wonderful clip
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tW0iQ2QuC0
Saloth Sar
If Turley is going to criticize Weissmann for his statements, he should either quote what Weissmann said or link to it, so we can see what he said. I looked it up, and here are a couple of examples:
https://www.npr.org/2020/12/24/950101975/mueller-investigations-lead-prosecutor-on-trumps-pardons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLZSTpazGi4
Turley says “Many of us called out the recent pardons by Trump, ranging from corrupt former members of Congress to the father of Jared Kushner.” Yet he’s chosen not to write a column about them. He is also silent here about Trump’s pardoning war criminals, wealthy donors, and others.
Turley says that Flynn, Stone, Manafort, Papadopoulos, and Van Der Zwaan “were not pardoned to stop them from testifying or … from working with prosecutors,” notes that Cohen wasn’t pardoned, and concludes “That is a curious pattern for obstruction.” It’s not a curious pattern at all. Trump pardoned those who remained silent — either refusing to cooperate or claiming that they would cooperate but then balking at true cooperation on key information — to protect Trump. Note that Trump didn’t pardon Gates either, who cooperated. After Manafort was pardoned, Turley tweeted “I have been writing for two years about Manafort’s obvious pardon strategy. It just paid off. However, Manafort ranks as one of the least compelling candidates for pardon. He makes Marc Rich look like a pious, repentant petitioner.” Yet he pretends here that Manafort wasn’t angling for a pardon by refusing to cooperate.
As Jeffrey Silberman already noted, Turley’s claim that “Weissmann called on prosecutors to refuse to assist John Durham in his investigation” is also false, and once again, Turley is oddly silent that Weissmann’s column was co-written with NYU law professor Ryan Goodman.
+10
Elvis Bug
+10
+10
There is nothing to “cooperate” in regard to. There were no crimes to cover up, you lying P. O. S.
Weissmann would do well to consider the final score: Whale 1 – Ahab 0
It’s ironic that Turley gripes about the “relentless prosecution” of Trump said he’s some sort of victim. If that’s his take on the issue. He should have been just as critical of the same type of treatment republicans gave to Hillary Clinton. Even after finding nothing, after literally years of one investigation after another Turley suddenly thinks such treatment is…excessive because it’s….Trump?
Here’s a big clue. There’s nothing special about Trump. He currently enjoys a certain level of protection his office provides, but as Turley has mentioned repeatedly. Once he leaves office prosecutors have every right to pursue a case against him. He’s not above the law, even after leaving office. To portray Trump as a victim of some zealous agenda ignores the fact that Mueller’s report still applies to Trump’s obstruction of Justice.
Turley wants to distract from the fact that no law says prosecutors must be nice because trump is some sort of victim. He’s not. Trump’s own legal problems are self inflicted. That’s not being a victim, that’s being an incompetent leader who relied too much on the privilage of the office. Now he has to face the music.
+10
Turley thoroughly documented the huge quantity of evidence consistent with Hillary having committed several major email felonies. Every single FBI person investigating her was a DNC troll and person suffering from TDS, period, full stop, including the then-FBI Chief Comey.
The only persons who debate or argue the above statement are DNC trolls and TDS victims themselves.
The only major politician disliked more than Trump is Hillary, at least that was the case on election day 2016. The DNC corruptly stealing the nomination from Bernie Sanders and giving it to Hillary caused Trump to become President. I voted for Bernie on election day, though I would never have voted for him this time because his positions changed; also the fact that he acted like a dog and benevolently supported war monger Hillary after she screwed him just confirms what a weak, spineless person he is.
I dislike Trump; he’s a self-centered whore mongering fool. Pardoning those Blackwater mass-murderers make me want to puke, as do his military expenditures and Israel-first position. The fact that Trump claimed he was against military excursions followed by his hiring extreme war monger John Bolton confirms what a lying liar is Trump.
Trohar, “Turley thoroughly documented the huge quantity of evidence consistent with Hillary having committed several major email felonies” If that were true where were the charges? Methinks you are full of crap. No crimes were committed by Hillary Clinton. That is why there were so many investigations of her. Republicans WANTED to find a crime to hang around her neck. A years long witch-hunt that apparently never produced a single conviction.
Weissmann is a rabid out of control former prosecutor with shear hate for Trump and others. Threw out his career he has been out of control who used the full weight of the Gov’t to go after people and companies who could not afford to withstand such weight. He and his team withheld evidence refer to Enron case, Stone and other cases. He has bankrupt companies and caused severe damage to many such as Arthur Anderson staff, making people to plead guilty when they were not. His radical views and trials have been over turned by the Courts.
His shear hatred of Trump and others drives Weissmann to make foolish and radical statements. It would be only fitting that some how Durham go after Weissmann for his actions and it would be nice and justice to see Weismann behind bars, doing hard time, he would be a hit/popular amongst the inmates.
Currency, it’s not hate or hatred. It’s simply dealing with the unacceptable behavior that everyone wants it to be normal. Trump brings these problems on himself thru his stupidity and incompetence. When he’s called out on it or is targeted for investigation he cries foul and claims he’s a poor victim of evil democrats or zealous prosecutors. He’s no victim. He’s just an incompetent scoundrel who believes his position makes him immune and unaccountable from his own stupidity and incompetence. It’s just that simple.
His enablers are just as guilty of getting on the victim wagon just because their past actions are now being exposed to accountability.
It’s simply dealing with the unacceptable behavior that everyone wants it to be normal.
What everyone are you talking about? 70+ million Americans voted to reelect President Trump.
He’s just an incompetent scoundrel who believes his position makes him immune and unaccountable from his own stupidity and incompetence.
The facts and evidence uncovered over the last 4 years proves some incompetent scoundrels laid a trap as an insurance policy against a potential Trump presidency. To date, most everyone involved in that effort have proven immune and unaccountable for their stupidity and incompetence. I would argue those 70+ million voters and the red wave that followed reflected what behavior voters found unacceptable. They rejected the new normal the Left has dragged the Democratic party to. It’s just that simple.
Olly, “ What everyone are you talking about? 70+ million Americans voted to reelect President Trump.”
70 million find Trump’s behavior acceptable. But Turley thinks democrats adopting Trump’s own rhetoric and actions is not. 70 million Trump supporters should have no problem accepting that kind of Trump behavior from democrats. In fact they would have trouble dealing with the massive cognitive dissonance that would ensue.
There was no “new normal”. What trump supporters couldn’t handle is the level of change occurring and their inability to adapt to it. From same sex marriage to accessible healthcare. It’s about fear of not being the dominant culture of the 50’s.
Trump just exploited that longing nostalgia of racism and bigotry that many of his supporters enjoyed. Unfortunately Trump is too incompetent and foolish to fully realize their short lived dream.
70 million find Trump’s behavior acceptable.
Behavior is only relevant as reflected in governance. Had President Trump’s behavior been reflected in unconstitutional governance, Democrats wouldn’t have needed to abandon their traditional policy positions. Instead, Democrats have been forced to adopt the policies of the radical left in their party. They’ve projected onto President Trump and his base behaviors that the new Democratic party actually exhibit. Actual racism and bigotry are the norm in the new Democratic party and that’s one reason the 2020 election was a red, not a blue wave.
Turley: “Mueller himself did not find a case for an obstruction charge. He listed the alleged acts of obstruction discussed in the media but did not find the critical element of intent to support the charge.“
Do you think that the refusal of Trump to testify before the Special Counsel had something to do with Mueller’s inability to find sufficient evidence of intent to obstruct? As well as the fact that Mueller did not believe it was constitutional to indict Trump as president! Mueller obviously wanted the Impeachment to make a determination of obstruction of justice.
Turley, won’t you tell your readers the whole story, not half the story?
+10
Elvis Bug
I have said it before, Turley uses the “Bill Barr summary” only write that reinforces the one side of opinion, not fact.
Totally.
Elvis Bug
No worries, Jeffrey.
John Durham will uncover everything to do with the Russiagate canard.
Weissman is keenly aware of that reality. Which is why he’s already yelping like a scalded dog.
BTW, did you know that Mueller and Weissman’s team of “crack” prosecutors dropped their case against the Russians they had indicted?
You’re a classic example of a putz, Jeffrey.
Rhodes, Barr said recently that the Durham investigation is down to looking at improper behavior by FBI agents. Your hope for a bombshell will die like the guaranteed Trump victory and the threats over the last 2 years by Olly and others about the supposed devastating coming Durham Report. Like that Trump victory …….
In your dreams.
The DOJ dropped the case because they decided that the trade off of having to allow discovery involving classified information wasn’t worth it since those indicted Russians were safely in Russia and wouldn’t ever serve time.
Did Comey, Hillary Clinton, and a host of other Democrats testifying under Oath that they did not recall, had no recollection, or have no knowledge of a multitude of events not serve the same purpose as Trump not testifying?
At least Trump exercised his Fifth Amendment Rights whereas the other bunch LIED under Oath with no legal protection for that conduct beyond the lack of prosecutorial dedication.
How do you think Weismann would have conducted himself had he been the Prosecutor going after those figures (assuming he could set aside his open and slavish dedication to the Democrat Elite)?
Use Professor Turley’s Honest Man standard when you reply.
Trump did not invoke the 5th Amendment. He refused to be questioned in person, the SCO decided not to pursue it with a subpoena (anticipating that it would take years for it to be resolved in court), Trump agreed to answer written questions, but many of his answers were that he did not recall and for many of the questions, he simply left them blank:
https://apnews.com/article/98f22511be924ced895ce5c0bfedfe37
President Trump was never required to be interviewed under oath. So there was never a refusal. Some person in the SC office forgot to issue a subpoena.
One doesn’t have to be subpoenaed to refuse. They asked him to sit for an interview and negotiated with his lawyers about it, but he ultimately refused the request. No one forgot to issue a subpoena. They explicitly chose not to issue one because they expected that he’d fight it and that it would take too long to be resolved in the courts, preventing the investigation from concluding. Mueller testified about this.
“Intent to obstruct” isn’t a thing. The element in question is “corrupt intent” And that is what would be impossible to establish in the case of a man who knew he had committed no crime and was faced with an illegitimate effort to overturn the 2016 election. He was elected and had a duty to resist a coup.
Meanwhile the left can’t understand why Trump won’t concede. They have announced that, after Jan 20, it’s open season on Trump, his family, and anyone who even dares to openly support him. I have personally been doxxed because of a relatively innocuous letter to the editor of my local paper calling out Judge Sullivan’s bias in the Flynn case. It is now clear that the judiciary has neither the will nor ability to discipline itself as in the famously inept response to Judge Sullivan’s overreach. Yes, self-pardon is normally a bad idea, but are these normal times? These are the same people who impeached a president without grounds for impeachment just because they could. These are the same people who unanimously opposed Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to replace RBG, who was, herself, confirmed with a bipartisan 96-3 vote 20 years previously. The law has become the Wild Wild West. The refusal to investigate the blatant, brazen theft of the election by the FBI and the refusal of the judiciary to even so much as hear cases just confirms that Trump and his supporters cannot hope for any kind of equitable treatment under the law after Jan. 20. This is why people like me can’t sleep at night. I didn’t vote for Biden but I don’t hate the guy. He’s a corrupt American in the good old Chicago style. He doesn’t want to defund the police and I don’t believe that Biden himself wants to destroy this country and hand what’s left of us over to globalist slavery. I don’t think Biden himself has any desire to persecute Trump after Jan 20 although I may be wrong. But Biden’s star is fading fast. The question is not whether Trump should pardon himself. The question is whether it will do any good.
Reminiscent of memories of my great grandmother repeatedly saying “…why don’t they just leave that poor man alone?” in the days right before Nixon’s resignation.
I hear you…, you have a lot invested in the archetype of Trump and it’s always hard to see these sorts of archetypes deconstruct, inevitably. I coached high school basketball for 10 years and jr. high kids for another 5yrs, the toughest conversations were basically around two sides of the same coin, how to navigate losing. And how to navigate winning. Each challenge the human psyche in seemingly unique ways that while seemingly on the opposite ends of the spectrum from each other are really closely related. It boils down to not being able to separate the win or the loss from the idea that it defines your own core exiistence…
Trump hit a lot of hot buttons for some people, what with his ‘build the wall’ and ‘drain the swamp’ rhetoric for sure. And he masterfully touched into a huge fear of the white population: that the coming voting demographics will soon make the idea of white suppremacy less realistic and/or probable. But he’s basically the same grifter and demogogue he’s always been…, and he lost. He hates that he lost because he defines himself more harshly than most people do. But the facts are these: in two presidentilal elections he lost the popular vote, decisively, each time. He won the electoral college in one of the two elections and lost it in the second election by more than he won it by in the first election. And as Mr. Krebs has pointed out before being fired by the president he was appointed by >> this election was fair and the the reason we can know that is by the paper trail of ballots. They match the results. On top of that, short of tangible evidence of hordes of illegal votes, there is nothing to base a challenge of this year’s election on. If such evidence did indeed exist, it would surely have been trotted out by now in a way that could withstand scrutiny…, and that, clearly, has not happened.
So while I do feel sorry for you in respect to what it’s going to take to accept the reality of this election, I know it will be an easier road to travel once the sheer incompetence of the trump administration is cleared from Washington. Part of the reason Trump ellicits such a strong defensive response is his incompetence and ineptitude for governing writ large. If forced his supporters to selectively recognize reality at totally amped and energetic levels…, but bottom line, Trump was, and is, a truly awful president. He’s just bad at the job. And his legal troubles were caused not by his being victimized, they’ve been created by his own direct and often short sighted actions. He’ll be better off not being president, certainly the country will be better off as well because in a functional way Trump is exiting office while leaving behind 3 girantic crisises: we’re mired in the worst response to Covid of any industrialized country in the world, we’re in an economic depression, and there just was a gigantic hack of government information by the Russians with literally no response from the executive branch of the U.S. government…
And a lot of folks in this country are hungry in a way they haven’t been in a century. It’s really simple stuff once the emotionalism of the situation can be set aside to whatever degree it can be. So here’s sending you the best wishes in the navigation of this transition. Ultimately it will prove exttremely positive for the country to step away from the divisive character that is Trump.
Elvis Bug
+10
Congratulations are in order for a highly selective relating of the facts of the Mueller investigation, Professor! As always!!
Elvis Bug
and the difference between these people and the lawyers pursuing election fraud is what? Weissmann’s actions are no less objectionable and cast the entire legal system into disrepute
The difference is conjecture (Weissmann) v. hard evidence (election fraud team)
Turley: “ Weissmann called on prosecutors to refuse to assist John Durham in his investigation.”
Not true. Weismann called on prosecutors to delay assisting Durham until AFTER the imminent election for fear that Barr would release the Durham report BEFORE the election as an October Surprise.
Turley: “ Weissmann insists that the pardon of figures tied to the special counsel investigation is evidence of obstruction. But these individuals were not pardoned to stop them from testifying or, with the case of Michael Flynn, from working with prosecutors, nor were they pardoned before they were tried and convicted.”
Total BS. Turley knows full well that Trump dangled these pardons to his conspirators in order to persuade them not to cooperate with Mueller, and Mueller acknowledged that they did not fully cooperate which accounted for their lengthy sentences.
I am very disheartened by Turley’s false narratives on behalf of Trumpism and his serving the interests of his employer Fox News.
Would Weismann have any reluctance to announce the outcome of any Investigation he was running were there an election in the. offing and it would be bad news for a Republican Candidate for office?
The guy is a sleaze ball of the worst kind….himself depriving others of their Civil Rights under Color of Law….in some countries that is a mortal sin and is treated as such.
You’re an idiot. There was nothing to hide, so there was no reason to discourage cooperaton with Mueller.
The article is very long. Snakes in the grass need little description.
Let’s face the fact that the legal profession can not discipline itself. Guys like Weissmann should be in front of a Grand Jury that would have the power to take his license and even put him in prison – for life. Same with the guys who prosecuted Flynn. Withholding evidence that would exonerate a defendant should be a prison sentence with hard labor attached.
Of course we first need to end sovereign immunity for people elected, appointed and employed by the government. In a Republic the only sovereign is the PEOPLE. You know, as in “We the People.”
I could not agree more. And how crooked do federal judges have to be to accept evidence from the FBI when it refuses to record its interviews? If I were on the bench, I would tell them to stuff their notes up their arses. If you destroy the best evidence in order to submit less reliable evidence then the necessary presumption is that you are doing so to commit perjury.
They didn’t destroy evidence.
I’m sure that you have the same conclusion about cops who fail to record their interactions and then kill someone, that their intent is to commit murder.
PS https://www.factcheck.org/2019/04/what-the-mueller-report-says-about-obstruction/
PS? Should be BS!!!
More trivial BS from Turley while his leader is fomenting revolution in the streets, and much of it wrong. Let’s just say that Trump’s personal attorney should be telling him to resign and have Pence pardon him.
Too bad you couldn’t actually dispute anything Turley said.
hull, not the first time Turley has misrepresented the Mueller Report – he does that every time he mentions it – but I don’t care enough about Truley’s “Look a squirrel!” columns to quote. Read for your yourself on Mueller’s obstruction of justice findings.
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/04/what-the-mueller-report-says-about-obstruction/
Friday, it is astonishing that an academic like Turley would talk in layman’s terms regarding the conclusions of the Mueller report. As a lawyer, he appreciates the fine distinctions made therein, but inexplicably he sums up the findings by stating in several articles by parroting the Trump lie, namely, “no collusion,” when in fact that was NOT the conclusion of the Mueller Report. Reprehensible.
Indeed Jeffrey, and he knows better or he should be canned from GW Law School. Mueller specifically said in his Congressional testimony that “collusion” is not a legal term and therefore not what he was looking for (Turley knows that). He said nothing about icollusion though the facts both he and the GOP majority Senate Intel Comm Report describe are certainly collusion. Continuing the Big Lie that there was none makes Turley part of the team, not a fair minded observer of events and legal issues.
Far more collusion and well documented….between Hillary Clinton, the DNC, the FBI, and the Russians than anything done by Trump or his campaign.
How much money was spent in a covert manner to hire foreign agents to obtain Russian Disinfornation for the Smear Campaign?
But…..the Left refuses to discuss reality which is their Achilles Heel…..for when you lie to yourself. nothing good comes of it
Ralph, you ask “How much money was spent in a covert manner to hire foreign agents to obtain Russian Disinfornation for the Smear Campaign?”
Depends on what you mean by “covert.” If “covert” is interpreted as something like “was not publicly identified as a campaign expenditure,” my impression is that $0 was spent in a covert manner. If I’m wrong about that, or if you’re interpreting “covert” in some other way, I’d be happy for you to specify what you mean by “covert” and to learn how much was spent in a covert manner. Do you have evidence that some non-zero amount was spent covertly? If so, please present it.
Please also present the evidence for your claim “Far more collusion and well documented….between Hillary Clinton, the DNC, the FBI, and the Russians than anything done by Trump or his campaign,” thanks.
On foreign soil Obama murdered in cold blood two Muslim American citizens via drone strike (Anwar Al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son by the same name). Soon after then-FBI Chief and your demi-god Mueller told Obama, “Go ahead and do the same on American soil if you like.”
You must be so proud!
That has nothing to do with obstruction of justice.
A rally by any other name is still a rally. And wait until you see the numbers. Now, let’s just hope the terrorist agitators do not show up to cause trouble. (fat chance)
Like the terrorist suicide bomber in Tennessee? Trump still hasn’t said anything about it.