 |
| I solemnly swear to leak sensitive information if my investigation seems to be hitting a brick wall |
There are questions about public statements. Questions about tweets. Questions about 2013 meetings. Questions about possible questions about Putin. Questions about Cohen. But the largest share of questions deal with the President's decision to fire the FBI director and Mueller buddy James Comey.
Pretty much every legal expert at this points agrees that there is no good reason for the President to talk to Mueller. Moreover, the leaking of these questions does nothing but reinforce the belief that there is no good reason for the President to talk to Mueller.
It begs the question. Did this leak actually come from the Mueller camp? Or was it a strategic leak from the President's own legal team to embarrass Special Counsel? Perhaps this is Rudy's doing?
211 comments:
1 – 200 of 211 Newer› Newest»Mr. President, please provide ten good reasons for firing my friend.
It appears that the leak came from someone or someones who wanted to give the President to get his supporters ammunition to mount a line of support for his refusal to take questions from the Muller investigation.
WTF does that say, Roger?
caliphate4vr said...
WTF does that say, Roger?
It says that if Roger was ever asked any questions by Mueller, either written or spoken, he would be locked up for life.
What a clusterfuck this "investigation" has turned out to be.
Since the questions were provided to Trump's lawyers, how do we know that Trump's camp didn't leak them?
We don't that was CH's point. Although I don't see where the leak necessarily helps Trump. It's pretty much goes over ground that was already covered.
It does however, gives an insight into Mueller's thinking.
1. He's pretty much abandoned the Russian collusion angle and is going hard on obstruction of justice.
2. The questions are pretty much designed to devine his intentions in firing Comey.
Because without intent, he doesn't have a case.
Comey shares how he'd prosecute Trump: 'You are obligated to tell the truth'
--Former FBI Director James Comey responded on Monday to President Donald Trump's multiple suggestions that he should be jailed and shared how he'd prosecute Trump.
--Comey doesn't think much of Trump's suggestions that he should get jail time for his handling of investigations into Hillary Clinton and the Trump campaign.
--If Comey were prosecuting Trump, he said he'd let him know that any failure to tell the truth would come at his own peril.
____________
Former FBI Director James Comey responded on Monday to President Donald Trump's multiple suggestions that he should be jailed and said the president he should submit to questioning by the special counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating Trump's possible collusion with Russia.
"It is hard in almost all investigations to imagine getting to that without some interaction with the subject," Comey said at an event presented by and reported on by the news website Axios. "But whether [Mueller] gets it or not, I hope he's free to get to the truth."
Comey's comments come after The New York Times published what it described as an outline of the 49 questions Mueller would ask Trump in a hypothetical interview.
Mueller wants to know what the president had in mind when he tweeted about Comey, the attorney general Jeff Sessions, and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, according to The Times.
"In a normal world, it would be very hard for the President of the United States not to submit to an interview in connection with an investigation that touches upon ... his conduct and that of people around him," Comey said. "In a normal world, the American people would find that very, very difficult to accept."
But after commenting on how proceedings would go in a normal world, Comey conceded that "we don't live in that world," citing norms being broken that "that disturb me greatly.
"On a regular basis, the president tweets that I should be in jail, and even I go, 'Eh,'" Comey said with a shrug, according to Axios.
--How Comey would prosecute Trump
Comey, a prosecutor himself, had some insight into how Mueller should investigate Trump.
According to Comey, Mueller should demand unlimited time for unlimited follow ups, even as the dragging investigation riles Trump on the regular.
Secondly, "I'd want to make sure there was a clear understanding on the part of the subject of the interview that, whether or not it was within the grand jury, still a false statement would be prosecutable," Comey said.
"Those would be the key things: open-ended as to time; open-ended as to subject; and a clear understanding that you are obligated to tell the truth, and failing to do so will be at your peril," he continued.
Trump has at times said he would submit to an interview, but in March laid out the conditions that he would only do so if Mueller could promise an end to the investigation within 60 days or limit himself to a narrow set of questions.
__________________
Give him none of that. Call him in for an interview with the understanding that he can bring legal counsel with him, or subpoena him and take him before a Grand Jury where he will be alone.
Get the questions out in public, have the political spin team address them before Trump ever answers, if ever, sure that would be to Trump's benefit. I think it's ideal in fact, given that the questions aren't going away regardless.
Personally, if I were compiling a big comprehensive list of questions, some of them would be purely to obscure my thinking. Those open-ended questions, "what did you think" etc, at best those are just soft-balls to wrap up loose ends. Any real question will be a pointed detail, that looks as innocuous as possible.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile and admits it.
Those open-ended questions, "what did you think" etc, at best those are just soft-balls to wrap up loose ends.
Far from being softball questions, the open-ended question are perjury traps.
No lawyer in his right mind would ever agree to an interview for his client under those circumstances.
The only question is will Trump follow their advise.
How can "what did you think" possibly be a perjury trap? You can't question what was in a person's mind. It's the most easy pitch you could possibly expect, just come off the cuff with the most self-serving, patriotic and law-abiding answer you can think of and no one can gain-say you.
I would expect that the interviewer hopes that the subject feels as you do, that those are tricky questions full of traps, because then he'd be busy trying to pick his angle and coming up with a story, distracted and unwary of the real danger.
Trump's lawyers will never willingly allow Trump to sit across from Mueller and answer questions directly, not any questions under any circumstances.
Leaking was meant to put Trump on the defensive. Now they're no longer a few unknown questions. They're a long list of serious questions that presumably trump doesn't want to answer.
WP has a point.
I am pretty sure that this sort of "what were you thinking when you did this or that" or "do you recall why you did this" types of questions dominated the final Hillary Clinton interview.
To WP's point. There are no specific questions that suggest anything new or anything specific that should jump up and scare anyone. Although I am quite certain that some will try to spin it that way.
For reference, the full list of questions. Four dozen of them.
Reading it over, I'm warming to the idea that a lot of them begin with a general question - some of those "what did you think" - followed by a specific questions. Someone getting into the mindset to be "creative" with the general one (especially a habitual bullshitter) won't likely be able to switch gears to answer the more specific factual questions. I wonder if they teach that in law school.
Anonymous wphamilton said...
How can "what did you think" possibly be a perjury trap?
quite easily.
mueller requests a follow up asking variations of the same questions, seeks discrepancies and charges trump with lying to the FBI.
as long as one remains cynical and never forgets that the goal is not to seek justice but to get trump, it's not hard to imagine.
i think that's how comey nailed martha stewart - asking her the same questions over and over in a nasty little game of gotcha.
I thought she "got" gotten because she was not innocent.
Your spinning machine has lost its wheels.
Michael Zeldin, a CNN legal analyst and former assistant to Robert Mueller, said Tuesday he believes President Trump leaked the list of nearly 50 questions the special counsel allegedly wants to ask Trump.
"I think these are notes taken by the recipients of a conversation with Mueller's office where he outlined broad topics and these guys wrote down questions that they thought these topics may raise," Zeldin said on CNN's "New Day."
"Because of the way these questions are written ... lawyers wouldn't write questions this way, in my estimation. Some of the grammar is not even proper," he continued. "So, I don't see this as a list of written questions that Mueller's office gave to the president. I think these are more notes that the White House has taken and then they have expanded upon the conversation to write out these as questions."
The trick begins with the answers that trigger new questions about past conversations and public statements
What the question show is Mueller has tiled the ground, applied Roundup and plowing again . Fallow investigation.
Your spinning machine has lost its wheels.
Yo Rog...
Did you actually read my post? I suggested that it could have been a strategic leak from the Trump team to embarrass special counsel.
"quite easily.
mueller requests a follow up asking variations of the same questions, seeks discrepancies"
Like this?
COP: "What did you think when little Alice stole the doll you were bringing home for your children?"
TRUMP: "I thought, 'I was glad for the little tyke to enjoy it, and considered it a gift'"
COP: "You LIE! Why then did you call the police chief and then file a lawsuit against Alice's mommy, if that's what you thought?"
TRUMP: "I changed my mind later".
COP: "Oh um ... never mind."
"Yo Rog...
Did you actually read my post? I suggested that it could have been a strategic leak "
If I may interject, Roger suggests that it's not just a leak but one that was fabricated by Trump's lawyers.
Will President Trump be afforded the same treatment as Hillary?
No recordings, no video, not under oath and so on.
Just wow. The black helicopter with tin hat wearing pilot have arrived
Best part of this bogus investigation
Current RCP polling has Trump down single digits and moving in the right direction. Besides Mueller, Korea, Iran, jobs, WHCD etc are only making this continue.
Todays Monmouth poll (Trump now only down 3) has a very interesting stat, in "swing counties" (last election decided either way by less than 10 points) Trump is now UP 9 !!! Reagan would be proud.
MAGA, and thanks to the resistance and deep state. It's coming home to roost.
If I may interject, Roger suggests that it's not just a leak but one that was fabricated by Trump's lawyers.
So we should expect the slow crawl from:
"wow, these are great questions that proves Mueller has something on Trump"
to
"these are not the real questions. Mueller has much more than this."
LOL Politicalwire.com has a LOT of good stuff about this that ChTruth doesn't want you to see.
DON'T go there. It could destroy several of your illusions.
You should expect people to begin to realize that the questions don't indicate what Mueller has or doesn't have, regardless of whether Mueller's team or Trump's team wrote the questions.
They are poorly written, but I took it as someone jotting it down as a kind of executive summary. Same questions, either way.
But if Trump's team made them up based on a more general conversation, and then leaked them as a list of questions, and then Trump throws a tantrum over it, well that's much better comedy. More so given that it could actually be true.
Blogger C.H. Truth said...the slow crawl from: "wow, these are great questions that proves Mueller has something on Trump"
Where exactly did you get that? For someone who castigates Roger "Did you actually read my post?", surely you don't mean anyone in this thread. The closest was myballs, "serious questions that presumably trump doesn't want to answer."
It could be that Trump's own lawyers leaked their version of the questions to try to scare Trump off from letting himself be interviewed. Why? Because they know how much trouble he has with the truth. (He has lied 3,000 times since he has been in office, the NYT reports.)
They are afraid Trump will foolishly try to represent himself. They may even try to get him to take the Fifth rather than run that risk.
WP...
My post suggests that these questions might have been leaked by the Trump campaign. Roger (who rarely actually reads anything before commenting) suggested that I was duped by thinking that they came from Mueller's team.
We obviously don't know who leaked this. But the fact it was the NY Times suggests that it may not be likely that they would accept something like this from the Trump Administration. At least not directly.
I read your comments. We pretty much agreed except that you always learn towards supporting the President.
Not directly is what I said.
To The 5 liberal stooges of CHT.
Happy May Day.
Trump should go al Hillary. Destroy, destroy , destroy.
ACID WASH, HAMMER TIME.
We pretty much agreed except that you always learn towards supporting the President.
My post wasn't really about the President, Rog.
It was about Mueller, questions, and who possibly leaked it.
Oddly, when I read the story from the Times (and a couple of other sources) there was no suggestion that it was leaked by anyone other than Mueller's team. Not that I think anyone read my blog post and got ideas, just that it was going to "eventually" become obvious that these questions are not exactly painting a picture of a President in "trouble" - so the motivation for leaking them might not be on the side of "special counsel".
CHT shows how kind he is when repeatedly explaining things to "Rog".
So we should expect the slow crawl from:
"wow, these are great questions that proves Mueller has something on Trump"
to
"these are not the real questions. Mueller has much more than this."
and then you get right to the part where the alky insists that the investigation continue ad infinitum because "resistance!!!11!" or some such fucktarded nonsense.
fucktarded nonsense."
The 5 liberal stooges of CHT do it at a Professional Level.
story from the Times (and a couple of other sources) there was no suggestion that it was leaked by anyone other than Mueller's team
You are one of 2 people in the country that concludes that!!!!!Very odd indeed.
Hi oPoor, I liked you and WP co raising the white flag on economic/ tax issues.
If Marlon Brando was still alive he would play the President in "The Trumpfather.
Moreover, the leaking of these questions does nothing but reinforce the belief that there is no good reason for the President to talk to Mueller.
You are trying to justify that the President should refuse to talk to Muller despite his 100% agreement on questioning.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
If Marlon Brando was still alive he would play the President in "The Trumpfather.
why did 0linsky get a nobel peace prize again, alky?
do you even remember? i sure don't, and i'm not even addicted to drugs and narcotics like you are.
can you believe that the president of south korea said trump deserves one? maybe george takei can play that guy in your trumpfather movie.
idiot.
I actually said by implication that the President's supporters released the questions here. It appears that the leak came from someone or someones who wanted to give the President to get his supporters ammunition to mount a line of support for his refusal to take questions from the Muller investigation.
I should have been more specific.
Moreover, the leaking of these questions does nothing but reinforce the belief that there is no good reason for the President to talk to Mueller.
that's because there is no good reason. this entire escapade was built on a pile of lies, leaks, and basically treason by senior FBI and intelligence officials. all because felonia milhous von pantsuit* couldn't win a rigged election.
trump won, fair and fucking square, alky. he doesn't owe mueller the fucking time of day let alone those perjury trap questions.
how many questions are on that list?
44?
he should tell mueller to go fuck himself...
...44 times.
* kurt schlichter.
I am not addicted to drugs or narcotics. I take Prograf and Lyrica. And vitamin supplements.
I'm not a hate filled racist like you are.
Your opinions are not supported by the evidence at this time. Go drink a PBR.
that's because there is no good reason. this entire escapade was built on a pile of lies, leaks, and basically treason by senior FBI and intelligence officials. all because felonia milhous von pantsuit* couldn't win a rigged election.
trump won, fair and fucking square, alky. he doesn't owe mueller the fucking time of day let alone those perjury trap questions.
Funny, how your not addicted ,bu, you take Schedule one Drugs. And your doc, took you off them.
Comey calls the President a mob boss and look who parroted it, the serial substance abuser.
So for Mueller to charge President Trump , Trump must talk with Mueller.
Lol, got nutt'n.
Mueller makes the Keystone Cops look competent.
Whether or not Trump won the election, fair and square, it doesn't mean he doesn't owe Mueller an interview. He owes it to the American people. After this last election, where the Democrats tried to rig it for Hillary, the Russians tried to rig it for whatever, and Trump tried to rig who the hell knows.
A patriotic American who was truly concerned about our democracy, and about the health of our nation, would have already talked with Mueller. He'd have been all in, telling Mueller everything he knows and volunteering whatever he thinks Mueller might have missed, to get to the bottom of it. Not fighting the process and degrading everyone involved with looking into the issue.
Whether or not Trump won the election"
See the 5 liberal stooges of CHT doubt everything.
I wonder if they would have thier heads so far up thier assas, IF Ted Cruz would have won.
it doesn't mean he doesn't owe Mueller an interview. " whiteflag
Really, under what part of the standing US Constitution does a Sitting US President, have to talk with anyone?
Lordie.
No he doesn't owe an interview. This is a manufactured investigation based on manufactured evidence to search for a nonexistent crime.
We know who the criminal deep state is:
Brennan
Clapper
Comey
Lynch
Rosenstein
Strzok
Page
And some wonder if Obama's and Holders names should be added to the list
Whew, off the deep end! I'm sure that you're sincere, and I wouldn't even argue with 2 or 3 of those, but criminal deep state??
Trump's position is in a sense a public servant. He works for us, and he owes us any help he can provide in Mueller's investigation. There is very little doubt that Russia tried to destabilize our election, and little doubt that they utilized illegal means. It's nuts to think we should just sweep it under the rug, and not make every effort to root out any US citizen who might have conspired with them.
Anything less than his full cooperation is an insult to America, and works against the interests of our nation.
The dnc destablized the election far more than the russians.
And im not off any deep end. We are seeing some serious criminal activity finally being exposed by the people i listed.
Do eight articles of impeachment have now been drawn up against Rosenstein.
Comey is out on his fiction novel tour bashing his former boss who has clear authority to fire him.
And not to be outdone, mueller is threatening a subpoena for trump in an investigation based on a phoney dossier and less than truthful fisa warrant.
This is like a bad Jack Ryan movie.
MB, this is going so well for the 5 liberal stooges of CHT.
WP, is going all Steele on US making up duties for the President that are not in the US Constitution.
This and the other flag wrapped bs of WP, is, in a word, Hil-lary'ous.
Anything less than his full cooperation is an insult to America, and works against the interests of our nation."
Pure stand up, go for the mic drop.
Wow you folks have lost all standards for your President. You don't think he needs to cooperate in investigating Russia's attack on our democracy. It's almost as if you think he's guilty, and would rather see democracy fall than be embarrassed by your misguided faith in this man.
That doctor you all trusted so much, is now saying that Trump dictated that phony heath report. You probably believe that Trump didn't send his thugs to steal the medical records. Why would he ... unless he was lying about it and wanted to destroy the evidence when Bornstein started talking.
I should be used to it by now, but I'm still amazed at the lengths people will go to delude themselves, as is necessary to continue denying that they've been conned. Pretending, against all evidence, that it's all about someone losing the 2016 election.
The lunatic fringe of the Republicans drafted an impeachment document for Rosenstein, so what? The lunatic fringe of the Democrats have done the same with Trump, and both of them mean exactly zip.
It's a transparent attempt by Trump's allies to hinder the investigation, and you applaud it. SMH at un-American Freedom Caucus.
You just changed what i said. We were discussing submitting to an interview. He has cooperated quite a bit thus far.
He is going to cooperate with the Muller investigation.
(CNN) - The special counsel's office wants two more months before it looks toward sentencing former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who has pleaded guilty to lying to investigators and is cooperating in the Russia probe.
wp you nailed it.
Wow you folks have lost all standards for your President. You don't think he needs to cooperate in investigating Russia's attack on our democracy. It's almost as if you think he's guilty, and would rather see democracy fall than be embarrassed by your misguided faith in this man.
That doctor you all trusted so much, is now saying that Trump dictated that phony heath report. You probably believe that Trump didn't send his thugs to steal the medical records. Why would he ... unless he was lying about it and wanted to destroy the evidence when Bornstein started talking.
I should be used to it by now, but I'm still amazed at the lengths people will go to delude themselves, as is necessary to continue denying that they've been conned. Pretending, against all evidence, that it's all about someone losing the 2016 election.
Democracy doesn't matter. Loyalty to the President is in danger here as well as across the world because he can be excused for anything.
Calm down fruitcakes.
If a guy (Mueller) is trying to knife a guy (Trump) in the back, it would be stupid to hand him (Mueller) the knife.
Trump's position is in a sense a public servant. He works for us, and he owes us any help he can provide in Mueller's investigation. There is very little doubt that Russia tried to destabilize our election, and little doubt that they utilized illegal means. It's nuts to think we should just sweep it under the rug, and not make every effort to root out any US citizen who might have conspired with them.
Actually Robert Mueller owes it to America to spend 100% of his time investigating the idea of Russian trying to destabilize our election.
While I am quite sure you will argue that his appointment allows him to investigate other issues "that arise"... a true patriot for the Country would be more concerned with investigating Russia and the election...than attempting some petty payback at Trump for firing his buddy James Comey.
Obviously we do agree to one thing. Trump should talk to Mueller all about what he knows about the Russian hacking and the Russian interference. He can probably cover all of that during a coffee break.
As far as what Robert Mueller wants to know about the President's decision making in his executive capacity... or why he might criticize the FBI or other people... there I agree with Rat. Trump should tell Mueller where to stick those questions.
He doesn't owe Mueller (or you or anyone else) an explanation as to why Comey was fired or why he criticizes Comey and McCabe. Those are not questions of law.
Actually Robert Mueller owes it to America to spend 100% of his time investigating the idea of Russian trying to destabilize our election.
No. Because if the President objected justice against the investigation the crime is a legitimate criminal act worthy of investigation.
If he fired Comey because he wanted to end the investigation into the Russian intervention in the election because he had agreed to suspend the sanctions initiated by Obama if he won the election.
A correction.
If he fired Comey because he wanted to end the investigation into the Russian intervention in the election because he had agreed to suspend the sanctions initiated by Obama if he won the election, he would have been guilty of collusion.
there I agree with Rat. Trump should tell Mueller where to stick those questions.
You're buying into the allegations that the FBI/DOJ are politically motivated to get the President.
Nonsense
Good Lord.
Nonsense my ass
Brennan
Clapper
Comey
Lynch
Rosenstein
Mccabe
Strzok
Page
What the hell do you think plan B was?
Anonymous wphamilton said...
Whether or not Trump won the election, fair and square, it doesn't mean he doesn't owe Mueller an interview. He owes it to the American people.
which brings us back to your newly set precedent.
with the election of each new president, a special counsel will be appointed on inauguration day. that special counsel will be charged with taking down the president. the special counsel will investigate - and hopefully destroy - every single individual the new president has ever known, encountered, met, had been involved with personally or professionally...since birth. this "investigation will have no boundaries, an unlimited budget and no end. and as a bonus the special counsels staff shall be stack with members who are registered voters with the party that stands in opposition to the president.
this shall be codified into law and will serve, above all else, to permanently, politically destabilize our representative republic.
He doesn't owe Mueller (or you or anyone else) an explanation as to why Comey was fired or why he criticizes Comey and McCabe.
what these idiots refuse to grasp is that trump was well within his constitutional executive authority to fire comey. period. end of story. to try and charge trump with obstruction of justice for exercising his executive authority is so fucking asinine even liberal alan dershowitz agrees.
what we're witnessing is a coup, because the left cannot accept the results of an election.
boo fucking hoo.
trump could, and perhaps should work with netanyahu to investigate 0linsky for the very real and US taxpayer funded meddling he conducted into the last israeli election. because that's the only actual election meddling we've witnessed over the past few years.
not some phony russia shit cooked up by jon podesta, robby mook and jennifer palmieri to explain a loss that was supposed to be a lock.
hey rog, our government is really working hard for you -
The National Institutes of Health is spending over $300,000 getting drunks to practice mindfulness meditation.
http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-spend-318876-mindfulness-drunks/
Insidiously and incrementally, we are in the process of normalizing violence against the elected president of the United States. If all this fails to delegitimize Trump, fails to destroy his health, or fails to lead to a 2018 midterm Democratic sweep and subsequent impeachment, expect even greater threats of violence. The Resistance and rabid anti-Trumpers have lost confidence in the constitutional framework of elections, and they’ve flouted the tradition by which the opposition allows the in-power party to present its case to the court of public opinion.
[...]
The danger to the country this time around is that the Left has so destroyed the old protocols of the opposition party that it will be hard to resurrect them when progressives return to power.
We are entering revolutionary times. The law is no longer equally applied. The media are the ministry of truth. The Democratic party is a revolutionary force. And it is all getting scary.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/trump-resistance-democratic-party-revolutionary-times/
so there you go, wp. i was only half kidding about the establishment of a new precedent to investigate, harass, and destroy every subsequent president. VDH is agreeing with me. so please, continue to insist upon trump cooperating with mueller lest he "insult America, and work against the interests of our nation."
in your rabid desire to destroy trump, you're willing, and eager, to destroy our nation in the process. i can now see where the 'by any means necessary' folks get their inspiration.
You're buying into the allegations that the FBI/DOJ are politically motivated to get the President.
only because those allegations are supported by a veritable mountain of evidence, alky.
President Trump
That fact has the 5 liberal stooges of CHT pissed off every day.
Butt, Treating the sitting President sets a dangerous legal president.
Thanks liberal Dems for your cowardly attacks.
we need a special counsel to investigate russian collusion with the enviro-whacko's:
WASHINGTON
A television crew from Russia’s largest state-backed network swooped into downtown Miami two days before New Year’s Eve, 2016, on a curious mission.
RT, the network formerly known as Russia Today, was there to provide global news coverage of one of five unremarkable rallies across Florida that day aimed at turning the public against the nearly completed, $3 billion Sabal Trail Pipeline designed to carry natural gas to the state from Alabama.
What the demonstrators didn’t know was that so-called Russian internet trolls had been busy for two weeks encouraging people to turn out for the protests with posts on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. They used phony, American-sounding identities -- names such as Steven Cook and Amalie Baldwin.
Russia’s hidden hand in the Florida pipeline protests was extensive, according to sources familiar with the operations. At least eight Russian accounts, most tied to the troll farm known as the Internet Research Agency, sent at least 16 social media messages excoriating the Sabal Trail pipeline or retweeting messages from one of its most prominent opponents, a frequent guest on RT. The tweets were sent to a total of more than 40,000 followers as well as anyone else who saw them via hashtags.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article210152439.html#cardLink=tallRow1_card1
the question for the blog is - how do we pin this on trump? anyone?
The lunatic fringe of the Democrats have done the same with Trump, and both of them mean exactly zip."white flag waiving WP
Mueller/Comey/Obama/Hillary/Lynch/Holder have bastardized the legal system.
Congrats
what these idiots refuse to grasp is that trump was well within his constitutional executive authority to fire comey. period. end of story. to try and charge trump with obstruction of justice for exercising his executive authority is so fucking asinine even liberal alan dershowitz agrees.
what we're witnessing is a coup, because the left cannot accept the results of an election."
Plan B, funded by Obama/Hillary with today's all in liberal media as water carriers.
Going back to the Obama administration in comparison with the Trump administration as an argument against the Muller investigation is not a valid argument. The actions of this President matter.
Rosenstein: in 2017, appointed by the President and confirmed by the was repeatedly praised by the President, McConnell, and the entire Republican leadership.
He swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. He has held up to his oath without any partisan bias.
If the President refuses to do a sit down discussion with Muller under oath.he will be subpoenaed to testify before the grand Jury. He will not have counsel during the questioning. If they choose to challenge the subpoena it could take six months to complete the judicial apealment process. Legal precedent has resulted in the President will be forced to appear in front of the grand Jury. Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon were both forced to testify.
If he refuses to testify or pleads the fifth amendment we could be facing the most serious Constitutional crisis in history.
Everyone knows that it is within his constitutional authority to fire Comey, but what you fail to grasp is that it isn't "period, end of story".
If that were true, then nothing the President ever did would be illegal, as long as it didn't violate a provision in the Constitution. People who stand on that "within his authority" argument are just rationalizing to themselves, or trying to fool such people, because they have to know that it's completely wrong as a matter of law (and as a matter of everything else we expect from our President).
If the Congress refuses to impeach and convict the President he will be in affect the dictator who will control the DOJ system as his own political tool to try and imprison his opposition leaders.
wp, some here don't or refuse to that the matter of law in regards to his termination of James Comey is relevant. It's not just his choice that matters.
The most corrupt administration evah!!!!!!!
Lobbyist helped arrange Scott Pruitt’s $100,000 trip to Morocco
The controversial trip by the Environmental Protection Agency administrator was partly arranged by a longtime friend and lobbyist who later won a $40,000-a-month contract to promote Morocco’s cultural and economic interests.
And KD will slip on his knee pads and slurp with loretta.....
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Going back to the Obama administration in comparison with the Trump administration as an argument against the Muller investigation is not a valid argument.
really? well, we know for an absolute fact that the 0linsky administration fucked with the israeli election and used my tax dollars to do it.
compare that to the wishful thinking and hopes and dreams of you resistance gals that trump was some how, some way, involved with russia to get elected.
one passes the giggle test. the other? not so much.
furthermore, who knows how many nefarious characters 0linsky was involved with in his attempts to keep netanyahu from being elected? iranian mullahs perhaps?
maybe that explains the pallets of cash air mailed to tehran in the dead of night.
People who stand on that "within his authority" argument are just rationalizing to themselves, or trying to fool such people, because they have to know that it's completely wrong as a matter of law (and as a matter of everything else we expect from our President).
well wp...
when faced with the choice of going with your "logic" vs. the logic of alan dershowitz, i regret to inform you that i'll have to side with dershowitz on this one.
call me crazy, i know. brilliant harvard legal scholar on the one hand vs. anonymous 'never trump' blog commenter on the other...
Plan B is working very well.
C9ngrats.
Everytime this President has a Victory, Plan B, Mueller, DNC, Comey, US Media announces something.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
—John Adams (1770)
Short synopsis of where Russia investigation is at:
• Mueller's questions for Trump leak to NYT - either he's incompetent or politically motivated
• Most of the questions involve obstruction, not collusion
• Mueller threatens sitting president with subpoena yet no statutory crime is under investigation
• Even if crime occurred a sitting president cannot be indicted according to the DOJ's own memoranda - he'd have to be impeached before he can be indicted
• The obstruction case is being made surrounding James Comey's firing - whose leak to media is why Mueller's investigation even exists
• Rod Rosenstein, now Mueller's boss, recommended Comey's firing. Both are key witnesses but Rosenstein has yet to be questioned.
•Comey has not attacked Rosenstein, Just Trump. He wrote a whole book and never hits the guy that recommended his firing?
• Mueller is looking for justification to impeach the president under the guise of a criminal investigation, where no crime is being investigated nor is there evidence that one occurred.
I hope this helps the liberal blog drama queens. Focus people.
"call me crazy, i know. brilliant harvard legal scholar on the one hand vs. anonymous 'never trump' blog commenter on the other..."
Cra cra.
really? well, we know for an absolute fact that the 0linsky administration fucked with the israeli election
The only fact is here is you are a douchenozzle....Pure allegation from the deep state right wing assholes. Never proved or confirmed...idiot...
Finally, the allegation that the money was spent to fund anti-Likud, anti-Netanyahu groups in Israel for the election is based on speculation. Yes, Obama sent money to OneVoice, a group that promoted a two-state solution. And yes that group partnered with a different group V15 that wanted Netanyahu defeated. But there is no paper trail that the money given to OneVoice was spent on an electoral ground game. It would be naive to ignore that OneVoice’s policy positions mesh well with V15’s voter mobilization, but that’s different from saying that American taxpayer dollars were spent by V15.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/25/blog-posting/blog-claims-us-funded-anti-netanyahu-election-effo/
Everytime this President has a Victory, Plan B, Mueller, DNC, Comey, US Media announces something.
speaking of which, how's that aging cum dumpster stormy doing this week?
think about the tough spot the dems find themselves in -
the mueller thing is essentially laughable, so democrats have to pivot to an old skank...
hillary has basically emptied the coffers of the DNC...
trump has north and south korea talking peace for the first time since the cease fire...
...and max scene would like kanye to shut the fuck up:
"Kanye West is a very creative young man. ... But we also think that sometimes West talks out of turn and perhaps he needs some assistance in helping him to formulate some of his thoughts. ... I think maybe he should think twice about politics — and maybe not have so much to say."
oh, and that WHCD? yeah, that went over like a fart in church.
The actions of this President matter."
Tax cuts, stock buybacks soar, investors reward, 457b funds rise.
I hope this helps the liberal blog drama queens. Focus people.
it's almost kind of sad watching the alky's impeachment dreams crumble right before his very eyes.
almost.
i'm so glad he has narcotics to carry him through this difficult time.
I hope this helps the liberal blog drama queens. Focus people.
Yeah, focus on how broken you and your side are....I don't see mueller as incompetent like you do...He has shown zero bias and his relentless search of facts is confirmed with the plea deals he has already gotten. My guess, there are more to come! Did you see trumps NY doctor came out and claimed the letter he signed for trump being the healthiest POTUS evah was written by trump. Color me mortified!!! CHUCKLE to annoy our injun....
speaking of which, how's that aging cum dumpster stormy doing this week?"
Very well, the 5 liberal stooges of CHT support her, bought ticket to see her strip and gap.
Anyone see the big news Apple announced it is buying back $100 million of stock? Thank you tax cuts!!!! Elite will be very happy while not a single job will be created by retiring that stock....Immensely funny!!!!
Very well, the 5 liberal stooges of CHT support her, bought ticket to see her strip and gap.
I'm sure it will be a better show than your wife and loretta's,,,,,
Where are the Liberal women?
At the the failed WHPC an unfunny woman body shamed a Conservative Female to her face.
Slutty Daniels a public professional whore is the face of #Resistwemuch.
"furthermore, who knows how many nefarious characters 0linsky was involved with in his attempts to keep netanyahu from being elected? iranian mullahs perhaps?"
Bingo.
Coincidence? I don't think so.
You forgot chuckle.
oPoor admitting you go to strip joints, so sad.
Sorry, got the Apple buyback wrong....It should read $100 BILLION.....That's a lot of tax cut and not a single job.....Sorry about the mistake....chuckle...
"i'm so glad he has narcotics to carry him through this difficult time."
He needs to share with WP.
White Flag waving liberals of CHT.
You all act as if stock buy backs are news to you. So little economic/finacial knowledge.
What is sad is you not having a job or a real hobby....idot..
"i'm so glad he has narcotics to carry him through this difficult time."
He needs to share with WP." Ette
Yep. WP is in bad shape, discarded the US Constitution.
T storms and Tornado watches next 36 hours. Calmest Tornado season so far in 70 years.
You all act as if stock buy backs are news to you.
No numbnutz.... Stock buy backs instead of jobs was what most intelligent financial experts predicted from the tax holiday's...You on the other hand are still looking for job 1 that has been created....maybe you should try to find one.. Chuckle Your expertise in finances are a major league joke....Idiot..
oPoor, I am 58. Semi-Retired in 2006.
I have private wealth in my 457b, 401k, Roth and regular IRA. My wife and I both have a Defined Benicia from KPERS.
Now that you have been provided the facts, let's see how they fuck with you.
Yes, 18 years ago my parents passed on a sizable inheritance to thier 6 children and established a Trust which lives on today.
What again was your inheritance from your parents? Oh yes, $ 0.00.
If that were true, then nothing the President ever did would be illegal, as long as it didn't violate a provision in the Constitution
Wouldn't that just be inconvenient...
Imaging the audacity of the very concept that if the President followed the law, that you couldn't still charge him with a crime?
U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
"Today, U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Chairman and Ranking Member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI), released a bipartisan report examining the U.S. State Department's grants to OneVoice—a non-governmental organization operating in Israel and the Palestinian Territories. The group received nearly $350,000 in grants from the U.S. State Department to support peace negotiations between Israelis and the Palestinian Authority over a 14-month grant period ending in November 2014. In December 2014, Israeli elections were called following the collapse of peace negotiations.
The Subcommittee's investigation concludes that OneVoice Israel complied with the terms of its State Department grants. Within days after the grant period ended, however, the group deployed the campaign infrastructure and resources created, in part, using U.S. grant funds to support a political campaign to defeat the incumbent Israeli government known as V15"
Since oPoor wants us to focus on Apple, let's educate the flag waiver.
Huffington Post;
"Apple, the world’s most valuable company, said Wednesday that it will spend $350 billion on development and create 20,000 jobs in the United States in the next five years, outlining for the first time how it will invest in the U.S. economy following the new tax law passed late last year.
Apple said it expects to pay $38 billion on its massive cash holdings overseas. The payment takes advantage of a one-time tax break for companies that bring back cash to the United States under the new tax law. So far, this is the largest payment of that kind, experts said.
“On the one hand, this is a record payment. On the other hand, it shows how successful they’ve been at gaming the system” around the world, said Edward Kleinbard, a law professor at the University of Southern California."
Ette just stomped a mud hole in oPoor.
"Ette just stomped a mud hole in oPoor."
Yep.
WP, Denny and little Marco must not have investments.
Imaging the audacity of the very concept that if the President followed the law, that you couldn't still charge him with a crime?
indeed. it's almost as if trump's executive authority is meaningless in the face of democrat desire for a "do-over."
"Blogger C.H. Truth said...Imaging the audacity of the very concept that if the President followed the law, that you couldn't still charge him with a crime?"
I guess you proved that SOME people can delude themselves into thinking that the President is above the law, as long as he doesn't violate some provision in the Constitution.
MOST people understand that most criminal statutes are not contained in the Constitution, and even the President is subject to them. But I have to hand it to you, you've proved that some people actually don't understand that and will admit to it in public.
"He needs to share with WP."
What a foolish thing to say. I'm probably the last person you'd expect to take medication of any kind, and in fact I refused painkillers when I broke my clavicle (twice in fact). Other than those injuries, I haven't even seen a doctor in 5 years.
And my investments are fine BTW, thank you for your concern.
WP, Denny and little Marco must not have investments.
What ever you say lezbo.....chuckle... Facts are foreign objects to you and the other kansan.....When in doubt, like trump, just make it up..... 100 BILLION of tax free overseas profits brought back and you still cannot point to a singe job that money created. Apples other claims are just that, hasn't happened yet....unlike you, I have patience to show what a huge asshole you are....Chuckle...Thanx again for showing you have nothing....
MOST people understand that most criminal statutes are not contained in the Constitution
It's that just some "internet lawyers" don't understand that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
And any law the challenges the inherent powers of the chief executive and Congress as specified in the Constitution violates the Constitution.
In other words, If Mullier tries to charge Trump with obstruction for exercising his legitimate constitutional powers to fire James Comey then he is challenging the Constitution itself.
Apple Q2 earnings call, $100 Billion share buy-back and 16% increase in share dividend. Our tax dollars at work.
The Subcommittee's investigation concludes that OneVoice Israel complied
You really should learn how to read loretta....they concluded with a big nothing...Yer an idiot..
The part loretta failed to post, no surprise here...
in part, using U.S. grant funds to support a political campaign to defeat the incumbent Israeli government known as V15. That use of government-funded resources for political purposes after the end of the grant period was permitted by the grant because the State Department failed to adequately guard against the risk that campaign resources could be repurposed in that manner or place limitations on the post-grant use of resources.
I've never seen a bigger fail in an attempt to construct a Constitutional argument.
"In other words, If Mullier tries to charge Trump with obstruction for exercising his legitimate constitutional powers to fire James Comey then he is challenging the Constitution itself."
You had to have made that up on your own, because not even Trump's lawyers wanting to confuse idiots with press statements would say that. "Challenging the Constitution itself" LOL
I am 58. Semi-Retired in 2006
I call that unemployed.....LOLOLOL!!!! No wonder why you spend you life wasting time here...there is obviously nothing to do in kansas other than watching the grass grow and super cells.....
Nope, you just showed us your low IQ snarkiness, low IQ Financial/economic and your far far left Socialism.
In what world did that money Apple earned become yours? (Aka:Our tax dollars at work"
WP, your fellow white flag waiver oPoor said only the Elite get a divided payout.
MOST people understand that most criminal statutes are not contained in the Constitution, and even the President is subject to them. But I have to hand it to you, you've proved that some people actually don't understand that and will admit to it in public.
well wp, here's the thing -
mueller has been chasing two issues:
1) collusion, which we know is not a crime.
and
2) obstruction of justice, which IS a crime but not one that trump has committed by firing comey.
so until mueller and you can come up with an actual crime, i think this thing dies a slow, agonizing and expen$ive death in terms of our tax dollars.
for chrissakes, mueller has been reduced to charging flynn with a process crime and subjecting him to financial ruin. that really doesn't illustrate much of a case of anything and is more indicative of just what joke this entire fiasco has become.
When in doubt, like trump, just make it up..... 100 BILLION of tax free overseas profits brought back "
Huffington Post:
Apple said it expects to pay $38 billion on its massive cash holdings overseas. The payment takes advantage of a one-time tax break for companies that bring back cash to the United States under the new tax law. So far, this is the largest payment of that kind, experts said."
38 million in tax payment to Federal Greed.
"CHT'S little Marco" Ette
Too funny.
You had to have made that up on your own, because not even Trump's lawyers wanting to confuse idiots with press statements would say that. "Challenging the Constitution itself" LOL
as opposed to your "show me the man and i'll find you the crime" satire?
right.
Apple said it expects to pay $38 billion on its massive cash holdings overseas
Hey genius....show us how that relates to the $100 billion stock buy back...I won't hold my breath because it does not....
38 million in tax payment to Federal Greed.
Expects to pay asshole which means maybe!!!!...you can't even get the basic facts correct....go burn a tree for jesus....And how many jobs will that 100 billion create????? Answer NONE!!!!
Its the tax portion of the repatriation. That is how it relates.
We don't call you dopie for nothing
Seems much of the Tester tirade against Jackson has a bunch of truth to it an it turns out the big liar was trump again...SHOCKING>>>
Sen. Johnny Isakson, the GOP chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, defended Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) on Tuesday, and said President Trump is wrong to say all of the allegations against his pick to lead the VA, Ronny Jackson, are wrong.
Responding to a CNN reporter at a rotary club meeting, Isakson pointed to a CNN report that he said verified some of the allegations made against Jackson that were included in a memo released by Tester last week. Trump has called for Tester, the ranking Democrat on the Veterans Affairs panel, to resign over the memo.
Isakson said the report, which involves allegations against Jackson made by Vice President Pence's physician, showed that Trump made a "false statement" when he said the allegations against Jackson were off-base.
"Fortunately last night, a story broke that made that a false statement," Isakson said. "Because part of the allegations made in one of the affidavits was verified. Where allegations that had been incorporated in some of the complaints against Adm. Jackson were validated in that. So it looks like there's a story that corroborates the fact that there were some of those allegations that were correct."
He is retarded.
That is how it relates.
Try again asshole....Point out how that $100 billion is part of the expected payment on their massive overseas holdings.......Your idiocy is showing ballz.....You can't, but I'll wait anyway....chuckle...
And you have been unemployed and on disability since 2006. Must really be boring to act this stupid for so long....chuckle..
"Anonymous Myballs said...Its the tax portion of the repatriation. That is how it relates. "
Yep, relates to Apple's $100 billion stock buyback.
So, we provide a huge tax windfall, company uses that to buy their own stock to inflate the stock price, and add a 16% dividend. Board of Directors are happy, CEO gets a bonus, their stock options sitting pretty, shareholders see the value of their holdings rise. Maybe there's nothing wrong with all of that, except that it's on the taxpayer dime.
$100 billion going into boosting stock prices is $100 billion not spent on jobs and business expansion. Surely that's not all that hard for people to understand.
"2) obstruction of justice, which IS a crime but not one that trump has committed by firing comey. "
Probably was a crime, at least one part of a larger campaign to obstruct justice, but Mueller is never going to prove it.
"so until mueller and you can come up with an actual crime, i think this thing dies a slow, agonizing and expen$ive death in terms of our tax dollars. "
We'll see what crimes he uncovers, in addition to the long list of felonies he's already charged.
Probably.
Fruitcakes say nope!
"Pelosi, Reid Call for All Leaders to Join in Affirming Fairness of our Democratic Process
October 17, 2016
“The basic functioning of our democracy relies on the simple principle that win or lose an election, both sides accept the result. After the most closely-contested presidential election in decades, we put our differences aside, accepted the result and worked with President Bush. Our system is designed to maintain faith in the process. It is essential that everyone acknowledges that the process is fair, even if all parties don’t like the result of a given election. That is why we have tremendous transparency built into the process, from the precinct level to Democratic and Republican secretaries of state. And that is why our system allows for recounts, according to applicable state laws.
“But amidst this election’s steady descent into new depths, something is missing: leadership from those who know better and who understand the severity of the threat posed by a major party nominee refusing to accept the results of a fair election.
“When a major party’s nominee riles up his supporters and repeats the lie that the election is ‘rigged,’ the failure of Speaker Ryan and Senator McConnell to affirm the fairness of our democratic process and condemn Donald Trump’s comments is complicity.
“There are always issues – long lines, broken voting machines, hanging chads. And in this election, there is the unprecedented factor of a hostile foreign government seeking to influence the outcome. But these issues notwithstanding, a simple, bipartisan statement of faith in the integrity of our elections will help calm the waters that Donald Trump appears determined to agitate.
“This issue is bigger than any of us and bigger than this election. This is about each of us doing our part to ensure the continued functioning of our democracy. At some point, the good of the country must outweigh the instinct for political self-preservation.”
https://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/pelosi-reid-call-for-all-leaders-to-join-in-affirming-fairness-of-our-democratic-process/
"Wrong, Rubio: Corporate tax reform and stock buybacks are great for workers
by Andrew Wilford
| April 30, 2018 05:07 PM
Workers who have for too long dealt with stagnant wages have seen some hope in the aftermath of a historic tax reform law. Yet Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., echoed the concerns of many when he suggested that corporations "bought back shares, a few gave out bonuses; there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/wrong-rubio-corporate-tax-reform-and-stock-buybacks-are-great-for-workers
Of course, anyone who owns a 401K, or other investments would know this.
Of course, anyone who owns a 401K, or other investments would know this.
And of course Marco and Apple are proving that corporations are not creating jobs with repatriated money, but making stock holders very happy with increased dividends and stock price...Good for all those rich dem's, but not a benefit to the workers just getting by....Too bad you have again been brainwashed with the trump BS again...Yes it probably helps my investments, but it ain't gonna change my lifestyle one iota....nor yours. Be proud, be Stupid, vote republican.....
You forgot chuckle, rolly polly.
You had to have made that up on your own, because not even Trump's lawyers wanting to confuse idiots with press statements would say that. "Challenging the Constitution itself" LOL
Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz on Monday said President Trump was within his rights as commander in chief when he fired former FBI director James Comey, and warned Democrats trying to take him down on obstruction of justice charges that they won't succeed.
"You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional power to fire Comey and his constitutional authority to tell the Justice Department who to investigate, who not to investigate. That's what Thomas Jefferson did, that's what Lincoln did, that's what Roosevelt did. We have precedents that clearly establish that," Dershowitz told Fox News' "Fox and Friends" Monday morning.
Don't you look like an ass WP? Next time maybe check things out before you run your mouth?
Apple has 285B to repatriate. So they will pay taxes, buy back stock, launch new capital investments and keep some in cash. All of those things. Its not either or.
Probably was a crime, at least one part of a larger campaign to obstruct justice, but Mueller is never going to prove it.
Yeah, if it wasn't for that sticky little thing called the constitution, Mueller could just arrest Trump without evidence, throw him in jail without trial, and then throw all those never-Trumpers a big party to celebrate.
Pity that we have due process, huh?
Don't you look like an ass WP?
No, because he didn't claim the idiotic "Challenging the Constitution itself" LOL
And btw, CH has quoted Dershowitz about a half dozen times already, and what you (and CH) fail to realize is that Dershowitz is refuting an argument that no one makes. He's just trying to influence idiots.
.Pity that we have due process, huh?
For you perhaps, since you rail against Mueller's use of due process so frequently.
I predict that Mueller won't ever prove obstruction of justice, but he'll probably tie Trump to other crimes, and I look forward to more of that due process. You'll be screaming to high heaven about it.
No, because he didn't claim the idiotic "Challenging the Constitution itself" LOL
I would point out that Dershowitz was in essence saying that same thing.
But that would just lead to an endlessly pointless argument with an ass who has dug his heels in and would automatically reject anything said without reason.
Pity that we have due process, huh?
old and busted: due process
new hotness: guilty until proven innocent
"No, because he didn't claim the idiotic "Challenging the Constitution itself" LOL"
Here comes the semantics game.
Dershowitz is arguing that the executive privilege of the President protects any and all decisions he makes regarding things that fall under his Constitutional authority from any legal scrutiny.
If his argument is not refuting anything you claim... then you by logic must agree with him.
and with regards to the ludicrous "And any law the challenges the inherent powers of the chief executive and Congress as specified in the Constitution violates the Constitution. ", it's not even in the same universe as what Dershowitz is saying.
ANY action taken by the President, if it violates a law, is a criminal act. Regardless of Constitutionally enumerated powers. It is, frankly, a really stupid argument.
If for one of a hundred examples, the President accepts a bribe for an executive order, he has committed a crime.
old and busted: due process
new hotness: guilty until proven innocent
With WP it's guilty anyway even if you are proven innocent.
Can't let go of those conspiracy theories dontcha know.
Besides due process is for idiots.
I predict that Mueller won't ever prove obstruction of justice, but he'll probably tie Trump to other crimes, and I look forward to more of that due process.
So it went from Mueller will prove that Trump conspired with Russia..
to Mueller will not prove conspiracy, but will nail him for obstruction...
to Mueller will not prove either conspiracy or obstruction, but will find some other crime to charge him with?
Yeah, if it wasn't for that sticky little thing called the constitution, Mueller could just arrest Trump without evidence, throw him in jail without trial, and then throw all those never-Trumpers a big party to celebrate.
don't laugh, but we'll get there someday as a nation. liberals have been pining for it since wilson. i just hope i'm in the ground before it arrives.
those che' and mao shirts you occasionally see really do mean something.
when things are a given there's no need to claim them.
That's not even what "executive privilege" means CH. Executive privilege cannot possibly apply, so I highly doubt that that's what Dershowitz is arguing.
Put simply, he says that firing Comey is not a crime. He's right, and literally no one has been suggesting that it is a crime. Too bad it doesn't address the argument that people actually make, that obstructing justice is a crime and that his act obstructed justice.
Don't you look like an ass WP?"
6 months too late, done deal.
Remember me? If Mueller's investigation moves outside of the election issues, I can replace Rod as supervisor!
The Executive of your company can not fire you.
So it went from Mueller will prove that Trump conspired with Russia..
Not from me it didn't. Nice straw man though.
to Mueller will not prove conspiracy, but will nail him for obstruction...
see above
to Mueller will not prove either conspiracy or obstruction, but will find some other crime to charge him with?
I expect to see some crimes alleged. Mueller may also ALLEGE obstruction, but will not prove it. As I've told you many times, with perfect consistency as far as I know.
obstructing justice"
Who was obstructed and from doing what,exactly?
So it went from Mueller will prove that Trump conspired with Russia..
Not from me it didn't. Nice straw man though.
to Mueller will not prove conspiracy, but will nail him for obstruction...
see above
to Mueller will not prove either conspiracy or obstruction, but will find some other crime to charge him with?
I expect to see some crimes alleged. Mueller may also ALLEGE obstruction, but will not prove it. As I've told you many times, with perfect consistency as far as I know.
This just in, WP JD., finds no:
Obstruction
Collusion
And can't prove any crimes
But the investigation must continue.
Here comes the semantics game.
Not semantics, just a moronic argument on his part.
Put simply, he says that firing Comey is not a crime. He's right, and literally no one has been suggesting that it is a crime.
Dershowitz doesn't just state that firing Comey is not a crime, Dershowitz suggest that any and all actions taken that fall under the constitutional authority of the President are legal 100% of the time. He also states that at the President, everyone (including Mueller, Sessions, Rosenstein, etc) answer to him and that he has the constitutional right to tell them not to prosecute Flynn or anyone else for that matter. He argues that you cannot be charged with obstruction when you have the ultimate authority to end any investigation you want and Pardon anyone you want.
I am pretty sure you disagree?
Put simply, he says that firing Comey is not a crime. He's right, and literally no one has been suggesting that it is a crime. Too bad it doesn't address the argument that people actually make, that obstructing justice is a crime and that his act obstructed justice.
oh, so the act of firing comey is not the crime, but the motivation behind the firing of comey IS the crime. the crime being obstruction of justice.
interesting.
so now we are down to prosecuting the president for thought crimes.
Dershowitz doesn't just state that firing Comey is not a crime, Dershowitz suggest that any and all actions taken that fall under the constitutional authority of the President are legal 100%
Here is what he said, which you apparently continue to misconstrue.
"Metaphysically, you can't have an act that is both constitutionally authorized... under Article II, and at the same time is criminal. You must have an illegal act," he added.
"And it would undercut the power of the president to start questioning why he pardoned, why he fired," Dershowitz concluded. "Once he did it and it's within his authority, you can't question it."
He is talking about the plenary powers of the President, which are explicitly assigned to him under the Constitution. Those are: Grant pardons, sign legislation, command the military, consult with Congress, diplomacy. If Dershowitz wants to include firing administrative employees as under the penumbra of that, who's to quibble?
What that does NOT mean, what you want it to mean, is that everything Trump does that is allowed under the Constitution is a plenary power.
And to address what he says directly, Dershowitz ASSUMES that you don't "have an illegal act" in Comey's firing. He takes that as a given, and argues correctly *from that given premise* that firing Comey is not a crime. Strike that a priori premise however and his argument does not apply.
so now we are down to prosecuting the president for thought crimes.
It's more like this:
If you are a Democrat and actually perform actions (such as housing classified data on a private server or destroying subpoenaed evidence) that are technically criminal... you can be cleared if someone can make the argument that there was no harm intended.
If you are a Republican and actually perform actions (such as firing the FBI director or provide a subordinate your opinion) that are technically 100% legal... you can be charged with a crime if someone can make the argument that you did it for nefarious reasons.
I think I've told you this before RRB, but obstruction of justice is not a thought crime. Yes, it requires "corrupt intent", like so many other laws that require intent, but that's nothing new and doesn't make any of those crimes "thought crimes".
Dershowitz ASSUMES that you don't "have an illegal act" in Comey's firing.
like i said, you're seeking the prosecution of trump based upon thought crimes.
Dershowitz ASSUMES that you don't "have an illegal act" in Comey's firing.
There is only one act in firing James Comey.
That would be firing James Comey.
Dershowitz doesn't assume anything that isn't already given.
Actually obstruction has a list of actual real life actions that are considered illegal under the statute. Thinks like perjury, witness tampering, destruction of evidence, etc...
Firing an FBI director is not on the list.
wp, you're full of shit. if trump's motivation(s) for firing comey are not a thought crime then exactly what kind of crime is it?
you're telling me the act is not the crime, yet the motivation, ergo the thought behind it is.
If you are a Republican you can be charged with a crime if someone can convincingly make the argument that you did it for the nefarious reason of obstructing justice.
FIFY
you can be charged with a crime if someone can make the argument that you did it for nefarious reasons.
but for a reason to be nefarious, doesn't it have to formulate in the mind of the offender as a nefarious 'thought' before the actual nefarious act?
So, CH, if Trump has General Mattis shoot Mueller in the head, that would not be a crime because Trump has the Constitutional authority to command the military.
Blogger C.H. Truth said...Actually obstruction has a list of actual real life actions that are considered illegal under the statute.
Another bogus pretend-argument. Unless you think that "impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede " is on your "list of actual real life actions".
wp, you're full of shit. if trump's motivation(s) for firing comey are not a thought crime then exactly what kind of crime is it?
His motivations are no kind of crime. His motivations while doing something can make that "something" into a crime.
Many crimes require a motive. They are not "thought crimes".
"you can be charged with a crime if someone can make the argument that you did it for nefarious reasons."
Yep that's the way it works with many crimes. If Trump has malice and planned it out before ordering General Mattis to shoot Mueller in the head, he could be charged with First Degree Murder. Or conspiracy of, more likely. If Trump was just being his usual sarcastic self and said Mattis just shoot the guy, not really meaning it, it might be involuntary manslaughter.
Although, according to CH and CS, it wouldn't be a crime at all since Trump has the Constitutional authority to command the military.
but for a reason to be nefarious, doesn't it have to formulate in the mind of the offender as a nefarious 'thought' before the actual nefarious act?
Yes, at least a thought formed. Likely it would take something a little more definite however.
So let me get this straight. The reason you thrash about so, with this "authority to fire Comey", is because in reality you DO believe that Trump probably wanted it to stop the Flynn investigation. So you make the argument that it CAN'T be illegal, no matter what.
Can you admit that much, that you think that was likely Trump's motivation?
Andrew C. McCarthy, a former US attorney and thus has considerably more command of the law than our "internet lawyer" has it exactly right.
Mueller’s Questions for Trump Show the Folly of Special-Counsel Appointments
I am assuming the authenticity of the questions that Special Counsel Robert Mueller reportedly wants to ask President Trump. The questions indicate that, after a year of his own investigation and two years of FBI investigation, the prosecutor lacks evidence of a crime. Yet he seeks to probe the chief executive’s motives and thought processes regarding exercises of presidential power that were lawful, regardless of one’s view of their wisdom.
If Bob Mueller wants that kind of control over the executive branch, he should run for president. Otherwise, he is an inferior executive official who has been given a limited license — ultimately, by the chief executive — to investigate crime. If he doesn’t have an obvious crime, he has no business inventing one, much less probing his superior’s judgment. He should stand down.
To emphasize the point. Mueller has no business inventing a crime and neither does anyone else.
The president’s threats, though vague, come at a time when he has been on the defensive after the disclosure of more than 40 questions that the special counsel would like him to answer. The questions touch on a variety of topics, including coordination with the Russians during the presidential campaign and actions Mr. Trump has taken as president and whether they were intended to derail the inquiry, undercutting the president’s repeated claims that the investigation is a “hoax.”
If the President is subpoenaed and is asked searching questions that are legitimately linked to a possible attempt to obstruct justice on his part, sitting there and yelling "Hoax!" and "Witch hunt!" will not work.
Well considering the same post is on two threads it is spamming.
Yep
Jane. WP and HB failed so can you succeed.
"obstructing justice"
Who was obstructed and for doing what,exactly?
Tax crypto currency. If you want to plug a tax leak.
Clearly we have lost WP.
Pres. Trump orders General Mathis to murder Muller.
Clearly we have lost WP.
So, CH, if Trump has General Mattis shoot Mueller in the head, that would not be a crime because Trump has the Constitutional authority to command the military."
UCMJ
ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders."
Post a Comment