So the question as to why General Flynn may have felt compelled to lie about his contacts with the Russians appears to be answered by allegations (past and current) that he was in violation of the so called "Logan Act", which is a two century old law that has never once been prosecuted.
 |
| Insiders say frustrated Mueller getting desperate |
Let's be clear. Nobody has been prosecuted for violating the Logan Act, and even if you considered it a real law (which it arguably is not anymore) it certainly would not apply to a transition team. If it did, then every transition team in recent history would have been in violation. The fact that people suffer from the sickness of Trump Derangement Syndrome, does not justify tossing aside all political and legal norms, in the pursuit of getting back at him for winning the election.
Moreover, if Mueller is actually using possible Logan law violations as his justification for his current investigation into Trump's transition team political actions, then it would be (short of a separate authorization from the Justice Department) well outside of the special counsel's legal scope. It would not be considered something uncovered as a normal part of his investigation into pre-election Russian interference, it would not involve any real 20th century criminal activity, and it could not be justified by any standards put in place for Mueller's special counsel.
The Trump incoming administration undermining the Obama outgoing administration is not a violation of any law. The only reason there were any problems to begin with, was because a lame duck Obama administration was going out of it's way (against all historical norms) to make it as difficult as they could on the incoming Administration. The Obama team was making a giant bitch move. Nothing more, nothing less.
Let's be perfectly clear here folks. If Mueller either threatens or attempts to charge someone with violations of the Logan Act, then he should be fired on the spot, the investigation should be put to rest, and blanket pardons should be issued to everyone involved. Then a special counsel should be ordered to investigate whether or not the previous Administration and current Special Counsel violated constitutional rights by using a dead law to justify spying on and harassing political opponents.
119 comments:
I don't pay much attention to the Logan Act talk. It's all speculation because no one knows what Meuller actually has from the Flynn plea bargain. It looks to me like the speculation plays into Meuller's hand since he can use the threat as leverage if it's at all believable. That's perfectly legal and normal procedure; the prosecutor can lie to suspects, threaten them with charges they know won't stick and have no intention of taking to court. It's wrong, but legal.
The speculation mostly hinges around the discussion of the sanctions over Russia's election interference. That discussion could be just part of the usual feeling-out process of executive transition. Or alternatively it could be the logical proceeding of a quid-pro-quo agreement already in place regarding said interference. Or, perhaps, the application of political leverage that Russia has over Trump and/or his associates. There are a lot of "could be's" in all of that, and Mueller's investigation is drilling down into them. Presumably he has more information, from Flynn's deal and other sources, than we do.
I think it's a mistake to assume that any of these possibilities are in fact true until we know everything that the investigation has uncovered. It's one reason that I hold a strong opinion, a widely unpopular one, that because of the political component of special investigations every detail of them should be open to the public. If that makes it more difficult to intimidate witnesses or trap the guilty, so be it. The public interest trumps the convenience of the prosecutor. In my opinion.
The "dead" law is still on the books. Two people were indicted for allegedly violating it. Nothing came of the indictments, but that does not necessarily mean nothing could.
But what has been said about the Logan act? Nothing, so far as we know.
Lying to the FBI, on the other hand...
Well for one thing James there is a considerable body of legal opinion that says the law is unconstitutional.
Which is one of the reasons why there is reluctance to prosecute under the law.
The other reason it is problematic for Mueller is that members of the transition team are in the twilight zone between private citizens and public officials.
No member of the transition team has ever been prosecuted and it's generally accepted that incoming presidents so make contact with foreign governments.
If the Obama administration used to Logan act a pretext to spy on the incoming Trump administration then it is one of the most grievous abuse of power in the history of the republic.
It makes Watergate look like child's play.
WP...
You argue that it's perfectly legal for a special prosecutor to lie to someone in order to sort of trick them into a plea.
I would argue that it's perfectly legal (and justifiable) for the President to grant a pardon if that turns out to be the case.
The reality here WP, is that you keep making speculative assumptions about this whole affair. By definition, speculation and assumption is not the same thing as real evidence... they are little more than the second cousin twice removed from real evidence.
Based on what is on the legal document, Flynn's own statement, and what is being leaked to the media... Flynn was neither part of, or knows anything about Trump colluding with the Russians. The closest report provided to that degree, was from a discredited ABC reporter who has now been fully embarrassed and suspended for four weeks due to his erroneous report.
By all accounts, Flynn's information is entirely about the post election transition team. Evidence suggests at this point that Mueller is investigation the political actions of an incoming Administration as if they are criminal. I am not sure why (other than pure hatred of Trump, and a willingness to break the system to get back at him for winning)... you would not see a problem with that?
You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional power.
-Alan Derchowicz (sp?)
balls - There is growing speculation that an obstruction case is exactly what Mueller is moving towards. Of course, he cannot really issue an indictment against a sitting President (but one supposes he could try) and a report recommending impeachment over obstruction to Congress will probably fall on deaf ears...
But more to come on that... I have a post in the works.
The reality here WP, is that you keep making speculative assumptions about this whole affair.
You're missing the point. Everything you say about "that it's perfectly legal (and justifiable) for the President to grant a pardon" involves speculative assumptions. It's not "perfectly legal" in ALL situations - at the very least it could be a "perfectly legal" action which could be a component of Obstruction of Justice, or another criminal act for that matter. It it were proven, for example, that Marc Rich had bribed President Clinton in exchange for his pardon, would you argue still that his pardon was "perfectly legal"? Or would you argue that this "perfectly legal" pardon was evidence of the crime of bribery?
YOU are making the assumption, not I. You are assuming, time and again, that there is no crime to investigate, and that a pardon (for example) or a firing (for another example) is "perfectly legal". I on the other hand, am making NO ASSUMPTION of that matter. I am telling you that IF a certain condition exists, THEN the action is evidence against Trump. It is a conditional CH, not an assumption. You know the difference, and should honestly acknowledge it.
Based on what is on the legal document, Flynn's own statement, and what is being leaked to the media... Flynn was neither part of, or knows anything about Trump colluding with the Russians.
LOL you make much of Flynn's own statement. Frankly, who cares? Flynn's own statement, his public statement that he released to the Press, has no legal bearing, is not part of the Plea Deal, and exists solely for Flynn's attempt to politically mitigate his situation. It has no bearing whatsoever on any of this, and even less bearing on Mueller's investigation of Trump.
I've been ignoring that, but when you keep repeating it as if it were salient facts I eventually have to object.
I am also surprised that you put so much stock into "what is leaked to the press". To date, very little has been "leaked to the Press" that actually showed Mueller's hand. Someone's being questioned, someone is being indicted. That's what's wrong with the whole shebang - we, and pertinently specifically you - do not know what facts Mueller has nor where his investigation is going. You cannot logically draw any conclusions from what is leaked to the press.
Logically. Flynn DOES have some information about Collusion and/or obstruction, as otherwise he would not likely have the plea deal with a reduced crime and sentencing.
"here is growing speculation that an obstruction case is exactly what Mueller is moving towards. Of course, he cannot really issue an indictment against a sitting President (but one supposes he could try) and a report recommending impeachment over obstruction to Congress will probably fall on deaf ears..."
Trump cannot be charged with objection of justice. He's the the chief law enforcement officer for the federal government.. I've been way ahead of you on this.. I've read on it, and the truth is, even if Muller can present a case with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, it will never go to trial. That is what Trump's lawyer says.
The only solution is impeachment, because the standard is "high crimes and misdemeanors. We all know that the House of Representatives can determine what is a "high crime and misdemeanor"
________________
The "President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution's Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case," Dowd claims.
Keep reading 379 words
Dowd says he drafted this weekend's Trump tweet that many thought strengthened the case for obstruction: The tweet suggested Trump knew Flynn had lied to the FBI when he was fired, raising new questions about the later firing of FBI Director James Comey.
Trump’s lawyer: the president can’t obstruct justice. 13 legal experts: yes, he can.
Asha Rangappa, former FBI Agent and senior lecturer, Yale Law School
The days of crazy King George III ended with the Battle of Yorktown in 1781. We now have a nation of laws, not men. While the president is the head of the executive branch, there are provisions in the Constitution that constrain the president's ability to interfere with investigations or shut them down (or start them) at will.
For one thing, Article II, which outlines the president's powers, requires that he "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." This means that his official actions taken with regard to the administration of justice must be made in good faith. In addition, the Fifth and 14th Amendments require that he ensure that all persons enjoy "equal protection of the laws."
In short, the president is not above the law, and can indeed be guilty of obstructing justice.
https://www.vox.com/2017/12/4/16733422/fbi-deal-trump-flynn-russia-comey
The bottom line, I think that even the Republicans will reach a conclusion that he's is a danger to the country and the Constitution, and put country over party. Most reporters, say that most of the Republicans in congress are very upset. There is also the Gallup approval is 33%. In hard political terms, he would be an impossible problem and they would lose both the house and the Senate.
If Flynn had do much, he would have immunity. But instead, Muller's star witness is an admitted liar.
And his other star witness is a low level unpaid nobody.
wp, there is one other point. If it could be showed that he's issuing the pardons are aid to a foreign nation, ie Russia, he is in violation of the Constitution.
What Roger wants to do is make a legitimate exercise of presidential power as criminal and/or impeachable act.
Doesn't work that way.
Peter Shane, law professor, Ohio State University
It's nonsense. A president's constitutional role does not include a prerogative to act corruptly. A president who "corruptly" obstructs or impedes "the due and proper administration of the law" commits a crime. It is worth noting that — although impeachment proceedings are civil, not criminal in nature — articles of impeachment voted against both Nixon and [Bill] Clinton charged obstruction of justice as a violation of the president's constitutional obligation to take care that laws are faithfully executed.
This investigation is pretty much over.
I believe that Trump is a clear and present danger to the United States. His lawyer's claim could lead us to a Constitutional crisis.
The Vice President is a true conservative, nor is he fucking crazy, Trump is in dementia and on top of that he's dangerous in every way an open mind can look at it. It's not because he's a Republican, it is because as I said, is dangerous.
Lisa Kern Griffin, law professor, Duke University
A president can be guilty of obstruction of justice — look no further than the Articles of Impeachment against both Nixon and Clinton. There is, of course, a question about whether the sitting president can be criminally indicted, but that is a separate constitutional issue.
That the president has the power to do something does not inherently render it lawful, if he does it for an improper purpose. Imagine that you have a box full of documents that belong to you. You would ordinarily be within your rights to shred those documents if you choose to do so — shredding them alone is not a crime. But if you exercise your control over your own records in order to impede a criminal investigation, now it may be unlawful obstruction.
The president is the head of the executive branch, but he is not above the law. If he had a corrupt motive — political or personal — when he interfered with the investigation, then his intervention constitutes obstruction.
Translation from Roger: I hate him therefore he should be impeach.
CH said he is working on a new post. If it's on Obstruction of Justice, he will claim the President cannot be charged because of Article II
HE needs to be removed from the office, yes.
I am not usually like this, politics is politics, this is a lot more important. He's threat to the country.
Yes you are.
Roger, take a deep breath. Now , fuck off, you're nutz.
he will claim the President cannot be charged because of Article II
One of the President's lawyers today came out with that claim, so yeh we'll see a riff on that. Probably some semantics based on impeachment vs criminal charges.
President can be impeached for any criminal act that the Congress deems to be serious enough. Once impeached and convicted, technically he might also be charged in a criminal court - but at that point, who really cares.
Lisa Kern Griffin, law professor, Duke University...
That the president has the power to do something does not inherently render it lawful, if he does it for an improper purpose.
Exactly the same thing I've been saying here for months, which CH somehow reads as "making assumptions" and "making up law". Roger's quote of the Duke Law Professor puts it in a nutshell.
Wouldn't it be nice to be able to get past the weird notion that nothing the President does within his authority can be an impeachable offence?
Who decides what is improper.
The president of the United States that's who.
That's why I provided a legal challenge by a highly qualified lawyer to make it clear.
That the president has the power to do something does not inherently render it lawful, if he does it for an improper purpose. Imagine that you have a box full of documents that belong to you. You would ordinarily be within your rights to shred those documents if you choose to do so — shredding them alone is not a crime. But if you exercise your control over your own records in order to impede a criminal investigation, now it may be unlawful obstruction.
The president is the head of the executive branch, but he is not above the law. If he had a corrupt motive — political or personal — when he interfered with the investigation, then his intervention constitutes obstruction.
If Clinton had used this argument, well we would see CH making up assumptions that are not based on the facts.
“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,” Dershowitz said during an interview with Fox News.
“We have precedents that clearly establish that.” …
“There’s never been a case in history where a president has been charged with obstruction of justice for merely exercising his constitutional authority. That would cause a constitutional crisis in the United States,” Dershowitz said, hoping Special Counsel Robert Mueller understands that.
“And Sen. Feinstein simply doesn’t know what she’s talking about when she says it’s obstruction of justice to do what a president is completely authorized to do under the Constitution.”
In the battle of appeals to authority I think I'll take Dershowitz over an obscure law professor any day of the week.
It it were proven, for example, that Marc Rich had bribed President Clinton in exchange for his pardon, would you argue still that his pardon was "perfectly legal"?
I stated "specifically" that if it was found out that Flynn was tricked into a plea because of trickery and dishonestly by prosecutors... and yes, I acknowledge that they are allowed to do so...
That it would be perfectly legal (and justifiable) for the President to pardon him.
What would Clinton taking a bribe have to do with my statement?
The crime there is taking the bribe (where there is no constitutional power involved) not the pardon.
What Griffin is saying is the pardon itself is a crime and that is not the case.
You are assuming, time and again, that there is no crime to investigate, and that a pardon (for example) or a firing (for another example) is "perfectly legal". I on the other hand, am making NO ASSUMPTION of that matter.
How am I assuming?
The fact that there is no known evidence of election collusion between the Russians and Donald Trump is not an assumption. That was the sworn statement of James Comey just a few months ago, under oath, in front of a congressional hearing. Comey suggested UNDER OATH that Trump was not under investigation, and that he told Trump that multiple times. Comey also testified UNDER OATH that neither Trump or anyone in his administration has done anything to obstruct his investigation.
There is literally NOTHING about the indictments of Manafort or the Plea from Flynn that changes that.
The only thing those events provide is opportunity for people (such as yourself) to make assumptions and speculations... and in many cases, make wild assumptions and speculations that simply don't fit the situation.
Commonsense said...
Who decides what is improper.
The president of the United States that's who.
December 4, 2017 at 1:40 PM
The Constitution divides the power into three branches.
The Congress writes the law.
The President enforces the law and does not interpret the law. Nixon lost that on that.
ARTICLE III
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgment as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.
In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives
It this was true Barack Obama would have been impeached in his first term.
No administration has lied to and stonewalled Congress like the Obama administration.
Not even Nixon's.
Roger -
We've all been through this. The President does have the right to fire the FBI director. The FBI director serves at the pleasure of the President.
Of course anything that is done with criminal intent, that serves a criminal purpose can be considered criminal. Owning and firing a gun is perfectly legal. Unless you aim it at someone and commit murder.
But the President fired James Comey for just cause. He had a letter or recommendation from Comey's direct superior. There were documented problems. James Comey was not a trusted public servant in the eyes of many, and for that reason was not the right person to lead the FBI. His firing was completely justified.
Furthermore Comey claimed UNDER OATH that Trump was not under investigation, and that neither Trump or anyone in his Administration impeded or obstructed the investigation he was conducting.
Those are just facts. Like it or not, the FACTS matter more than speculation, assumption, and opinion.
Furthermore, Mueller can write any report he wants. Congress is under no obligation to follow the recommendations. Ken Starr wrote a report that suggested Bill Clinton committed 19 indictable offenses that all qualified for impeachment. He remained President.
As a practical political and legal matter... when you have so called legal experts who disagree on something (such as whether the firing of the FBI director is or isn't possible obstruction) then the fact that there are many many experts (such as Dershowitz) who claim he has the constitutional right to fire anyone for any reason...
that creates what is known as "reasonable doubt" in any criminal proceeding (which impeachment would technically be).
You have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Presidency does not provide the occupant with constitutional authority to fire employees AND you have to then prove that there was no "reasonable reason" to fire Comey... that the only "reasonable" assumption would be corrupt illegal obstruction.
good luck.
If Clinton had used this argument, well we would see CH making up assumptions that are not based on the facts.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
clinton DID use that argument, alky.
computers and handheld devices were smashed with fucking hammers, for chrissakes.
Furthermore, Mueller can write any report he wants. Congress is under no obligation to follow the recommendations. Ken Starr wrote a report that suggested Bill Clinton committed 19 indictable offenses that all qualified for impeachment. He remained President.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
and that's really where we are with this "investigation" today...
limbaugh made an excellent point this afternoon: mueller is no longer looking for a criminal offense to charge trump; he's left to looking for an impeachable offense.
big difference.
Most reporters, say that most of the Republicans in congress are very upset.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
and of course, "most reporters," like say, brian ross, are to be believed.
Rat...
Considering Mueller put together a staff of Hillary supporters (who obviously hate Trump enough to pass mean notes about him during home room)... and considering how he is bullying around acting like a bull in a china shop... his credibility from conservatives is next to nothing.
He would need the mother of all smoking guns to convince a GOP House to bring impeachment charges. Even with a smoking gun, the Clinton precedent suggests that there is little chance you could actually get 66 Senators to vote for a Trump removal.
That's Mueller's rub. As it pertains to Donald Trump, Mueller is effectively powerless. Impeachment is out of his control... and likely out of reach.
CH: "We've all been through this. The President does have the right to fire the FBI director. The FBI director serves at the pleasure of the President."
Of course. The question is why he did it. The director of the FBI should follow the evidence to where it leads. Trump with his admission of knowing about the lie by Flynn, his firing of Comey is objection of justice.
"But the President fired James Comey for just cause." This is again one of your famous assumptions. If he fired him because he wanted the Director to cease an investigation, that might lead to the President is objection of justice. The tweet revealed his motive.
He would need the mother of all smoking guns to convince a GOP House to bring impeachment charges. Even with a smoking gun, the Clinton precedent suggests that there is little chance you could actually get 66 Senators to vote for a Trump removal.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i'm shocked and dismayed that you would dare to disagree with the king of political pontifications - the alky.
i mean, he's trotted out every irrelevant nixon/watergate talking point there is, and he even went so far as to note -
"The bottom line, I think that even the Republicans will reach a conclusion that he's is a danger to the country and the Constitution, and put country over party.
Most reporters, say that most of the Republicans in congress are very upset.
There is also the Gallup approval is 33%.
In hard political terms, he would be an impossible problem and they would lose both the house and the Senate."
so there you have it. you expect me to believe YOU over the political prowess of the sage of mahogany ridge?
shirley you jest...
;->
This is the biggest falsehood I have seen.
Considering Mueller put together a staff of Hillary supporters (who obviously hate Trump enough to pass mean notes about him during home room)... and considering how he is bullying around acting like a bull in a china shop... his credibility from conservatives is next to nothing.
His staff not biased, it's professional and no one is claiming this is a and I have to say, Trumpism Stage Four.
This is again one of your famous assumptions.
It's not an assumption, Roger. It's a fact.
I took multiple seminars and training on how to properly fire someone, since I used to be in a position that often times required me to do so.
Trump crossed the Ts and dotted the Is on the Comey firing. What he did was a textbook proper firing with documented reasoning.
HB, your two prediction over there last year of "a crashing Dow" epic fail.
Dow crashed to a close of 24,290.
Not HB's 17,000...
Of course. The question is why he did it.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
so his political enemies get to decide, long after the fact, whether comey's firing was legit or not?
THIS is where you choose to make your stand on this issue?
"The director of the FBI should follow the evidence to where it leads."
even if it takes both of trump's terms. right.
". If he fired him because he wanted the Director to cease an investigation, that might lead to the President is objection of justice. "
so...
after comey had already told trump he WAS NOT the subject of an investigation, and testified under oath as such, trump decided to fire him for good measure, like, just in fucking case, and he did it with malice and extreme prejudice which constitutes obstruction of justice.
is that the occupy democrats meme of the day, alky?
it sure sounds like it. it's THAT absurd.
His staff not biased,
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo...
Roger -
I think we can all safely assume that Mueller want's to bring down Trump. Let's even assume that it's his personal opinion right now that Trump firing his buddy James was wrong, was done with bad intent, and deserves retribution.
His authority as Special Counsel (just as it was with Ken Starr) is to offer a report that offers his recommendations.
A report that can be completely 100% legally ignored by Congress if they do not agree with his reasoning.
Given his blatant partisanship, his open hostility towards the Trump administration, as well as the manner in which he has a history of bullying people with charges...
Why should Republicans simply go along with his opinion?
Furthermore, his Report will be given to the Deputy Attorney General. It is not a matter of public record. It can only be released by the Department of Justice.
Alky, Lordie, a loyal staffer on the Execute Trump witch hunt gang, got fired the other day, his crime openly Hating on 45, see the crime was he did it in public and got caught.
His staff not biased
Wow? Really? 90% of them were heavy Clinton donors, and one has already had to be reassigned for making anti-Trump statements on line.
Why should Republicans simply go along with his opinion?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
roger is delusional enough to think that if mueller can just drag this out to the 2018 mid-terms, democrats win and trump is impeached.
"Furthermore, his Report will be given to the Deputy Attorney General. It is not a matter of public record. It can only be released by the Department of Justice."
mueller's report leaks within an hour of it being submitted to the DOJ. count on it.
mueller's report leaks within an hour of it being submitted to the DOJ. count on it.
Then Trump will order the AG to create a special counsel to investigate the illegal leaks of the Mueller probe. Put every reporter behind bars till they fess up, and charge every leaker to the fullest extent of the law.
If Mueller is responsible (or knew) about the leaking, then he can rot in jail!
Wouldn't that be special?
Democrats have a Christmas Present with a big bow.
Shut down US Government for DACA.
Please, please,please, do it. STAND UP.
FBI agent Peter Strzok was one of two FBI agents who interviewed Flynn, which took place on Jan. 24, at the White House, said several sources. The other FBI special agent, who interviewed Flynn, is described by sources as a field supervisor in the “Russian Squad, at the FBI’s Washington Field Office,” according to a former intelligence official, with knowledge of the interview.
Strzok was removed from his role in the Special Counsel’s Office after it was discovered he had made disparaging comments about President Trump in text messages between him and his alleged lover FBI attorney Lisa Page, according to the New York Times and Washington Post, which first reported the stories. Strzok is also under investigation by the Department of Justice Inspector General for his role in Hillary Clinton’s email server and the ongoing investigation into Russia’s election meddling. On Saturday, the House Intelligence Committee’s Chairman Devin Nunes chided the Justice Department and the FBI for not disclosing why Strzok had been removed from the Special Counsel three months ago, according to a statement given by the Chairman.
The former U.S. intelligence official told this reporter, “with the recent revelation that Strzok was removed from the Special Counsel investigation for making anti-Trump text messages it seems likely that the accuracy and veracity of the 302 of Flynn’s interview as a whole should be reviewed and called into question.”
“The most logical thing to happen would be to call the other FBI Special Agent present during Flynn’s interview before the Grand Jury to recount his version,” the former intelligence official added.
The former official also said that “Strzok’s allegiance to (Deputy Director Andrew) McCabe was unwavering and very well known.”
https://saraacarter.com/2017/12/04/fbi-supervisor-removed-from-special-counsels-office-had-interviewed-michael-flynn/
nope. no bias. none. none at all.
one of the great ironies of this shitshow is that the FBI is corrupt from the director's office all the way down to the custodial staff and the fucking parking attendants. at some point the FBI needs to be investigated, vetted, and GUTTED. we'd be better off with no bureau at all than one that's dirtier than the gambino crime family or medellin cartel.
The Supreme Court has given President Donald Trump the go-ahead to implement the newest version of his travel ban policy in its entirety.
Lower court rulings had exempted from the travel restrictions foreigners with "bona fide" family or business or educational ties to the United States, but the justices issued a stay Monday that allows Trump to carry out the new policy even on those with U.S. connections, at least for now.
the only problem with trump ordering the AG to investigate the leaks is that the AG is jeff sessions. trump needs a guy like ted cruz as his AG. with cruz, EVERYBODY from the clinton crime family foundation to the FBI to ron rosenstein himself (who i'm convinced is a big part of the problem) to james comey get investigated and subsequently imprisoned.
no one fears sessions or the AG's office. and they should, particularly in our current corrupt political climate.
You actually believe this assumption?
I think we can all safely assume that Mueller want's to bring down Trump.
I don't know how to respond without calling you insane. I'm going to the gym, and let you create more total bull shit assumptions.
You have been swept up into a cult. You find a way to make "logical" assumptions because anything that is not good news about Trump. I thought so when you started spouting the "Fake News" objections to the links I sent you. But today, you ha have confirmed my suspicions. You need take off blind hatred of anyone who dares to think your President is wrong.
"The fact that there is no known evidence of election collusion between the Russians and Donald Trump is not an assumption. "
Another of your assumptions, evidently based on the flawed reasoning that since Comey told Trump that he was not "personally" subject to any open investigation, there could be no such evidence.
There could be any amount of evidence without Trump being under an active investigation at that time. There obviously IS an investigation now, and Trump's involvement is almost certainly part of it. There was enough factual evidence to warrant the investigation. The only way to make your "fact" work is to assume that our intelligence agencies are lying, Congress was lying, and Trump's own Justice Department was lying. As opposed to your denial that Comey could have been stretching the truth to keep his job.
Ussc 7-2 trump wins
no one fears sessions or the AG's office.
Nor do his employees who session tosses under the bus every time Trump tweets about the DOJ or FBI incompetence...Gee, doesn't that adage of the fish stinks from the head down apply here????? Dayum you guys are jokes.....
His Travel band stands!!!!
eat a pistol d0pie.
Wow? Really? 90% of them were heavy Clinton donors,
Wow, so what does that mean only 10% of the FBI can be trusted in your eyes and only trump donors are unbiased?????...WTF does heavy mean? Over 200 lbs? You really need help, CH.....
What would Clinton taking a bribe have to do with my statement?
His pardon of Rich was "perfectly legal". Trump's pardon of anyone for federal crimes would be "perfectly legal".
If Clinton pardoned Rich for a payoff, that would be illegal. If Trump pardoned anyone to keep them quiet in an investigation, that would be illegal.
In either case, a "perfectly legal pardon" is part of a crime. "Perfectly legal" pardons don't mean that they aren't part of a crime. Any part of a crime is evidence of a crime. Whether or not it is evidence depends on the context. The context is whether it was done with criminal intent.
I can give you a different example if that isn't clear enough.
Rat hole posted brilliantly....
eat a pistol d0pie.
Eat a bag of trumps shit, rat hole.....Oh you already have....asshole...tasty for idiots like you....
Who a person donated to does not speak to bias. A person could donate to either party and yet be completely unbiased and professional.
That's why we don't base employment decisions on who you voted for.
FBI employees donating to the party of their choice does not mean that the FBI donated to a particular party. Their individual donations are free speech, their own business, an exercise of a constitutional right for which they cannot be required justify to the government, nor to you for that matter.
Why do I have to explain this?
Delray Beach, Fla. — Debbie Wesson Gibson was in her attic hauling out boxes of Christmas decorations last week when she noticed a storage bin she said she had forgotten about. Inside was a scrapbook from her senior year of high school, and taped to a page titled “Those Who Inspire” was a graduation card.
“Happy graduation Debbie,” it read in slanted cursive handwriting. “I wanted to give you this card myself. I know that you’ll be a success in anything you do. Roy.”
The inscription, Gibson said, was written by Roy Moore, the Alabama Republican nominee for U.S. Senate who in recent days has repeatedly denied the accounts of five women who told The Washington Post that he pursued them when they were teenagers and he was an assistant district attorney in his 30s. Since those allegations were published last month, four more women have come forward to allege that Moore made unwanted sexual advances. The accounts in The Post included those of Leigh Corfman, who said she was 14 when Moore touched her sexually, and Gibson, who said that she publicly dated Moore when she was 17 and he was 34, a relationship she said she “wore like a badge of honor” until she began reevaluating it in light of the accounts of other women, and now, Moore’s own denials.
Shortly after the allegations first surfaced, Moore said in a radio interview with Sean Hannity that he did not know Corfman, but that he remembered Gibson as well as Gloria Thacker Deason, who had told The Post that she dated Moore when she was 18. He called each one “a good girl,” and said that he did not remember dating them.
But at two campaign events in recent days, Moore has backtracked.
At a Nov. 27 campaign event in the north Alabama town of Henagar, Moore said, “The allegations are completely false. They are malicious. Specifically, I do not know any of these women.”
At a Nov. 29 rally at a church in the south Alabama town of Theodore, Moore said, “Let me state once again: I do not know any of these women, did not date any of these women and have not engaged in any sexual misconduct with anyone.”
Gibson said that after finding the scrapbook, she was not sure whether to make it public given the threats she received after publication of the original story. Then she heard what Moore said last week, she said, and contacted The Post.
“He called me a liar,” said Gibson, who says she not only openly dated Moore when she was 17 but later joined him in passing out fliers during his campaign for circuit court judge in 1982 and exchanged Christmas cards with him over the years. “Roy Moore made an egregious mistake to attack that one thing — my integrity.”
The Moore campaign did not respond to numerous requests for comment for this story.
Two of the other women named in The Post article have also pushed back in recent days against Moore.
In an open letter to Moore published on the Alabama news site Al.com after Moore’s Nov. 27 speech, Corfman wrote that “I am done being silent.”
“You sent out your spokesman to call me a liar. Day after day. Finally, last night, you did the dirty work yourself . . .” she wrote. “What you did to me when I was 14-years old should be revolting to every person of good morals. But now you are attacking my honesty and integrity. Where does your immorality end?”
In a statement to The Post after Moore’s Nov. 29 speech, Paula Cobia, a lawyer for Deason, recounted Deason’s vivid memories of dating Moore, from specific restaurants she says they frequented, to the velvet-collared dress Deason says she wore when she says Moore took her to a social function at a Ramada Inn. Cobia said,
“No matter what lies Roy Moore may choose to tell now,” Cobia said, “the truth was the first thing out of his mouth when it came to remembering Gloria.”
Who a person donated to does not speak to bias.
Of course they are WP.....without such bias, CH has no argument to support his preconceived opinion that the FBI is a clinton apologist ... Sad, if you ask me...
Given your gross treatment toward woman, this is a subject your have zero ground to stand on.
Omg stupid, according to the WP, people regularly contribute to causes they oppose.
Wp , opie belives in you, so keep going.
WP....
This is really logically simple.
As it pertains to you and I debating this issue... the fact is simple. We have no known evidence of collusion.
We know Manafort has been charged with old unrelated crimes
We know Gates has been charged with old unrelated crimes
We know Flynn has plead guilty to making false statements
We know Flynn supposedly has information that he was asked to reach out to the Russians (and others) during the transition.
What do you know that the rest of us don't?
WP...
In your example, the bribe is actually what would make the arrangement illegal.
What would be illegal about pardoning someone because you felt he was entrapped by prosecutors?
ROFLMAFO
The lawyers on the team are a bunch of Clinton sluts, another assumption by you know who. http://www.businessinsider.com/lawyers-robert-mueller-hired-for-the-trump-russia-investigation-2017-6/#michael-dreeben-1
Michael Dreeben
Michael Dreeben
Reuters/Jonathan Ernst
Dreeben, the deputy solicitor general overseeing the Department of Justice's criminal docket, is widely regarded as one of the top criminal law experts in the federal government. He is working for Mueller on the investigation part-time as he juggles the DOJ's criminal appellate cases.
Dreeben is best known for having argued more than 100 cases before the Supreme Court — a feat that fewer than 10 other attorneys have accomplished in the court's history. Peers say his hiring reveals how seriously Mueller is taking the investigation, and how wide-ranging it ultimately could be.
Andrew Weissmann
Andrew Weissmann
Associated Press/Pat Sullivan
Weissmann joined Mueller's team after taking a leave of absence from his current job leading the DOJ's criminal fraud unit. He formerly served as general counsel to the FBI under Mueller's leadership.
Weissman also headed up the Enron Task Force between 2002 and 2005, for which he oversaw the prosecutions of 34 people connected to the collapsed energy company, including chairman Kenneth Lay and CEO Jeffrey Skilling.
He spent 15 years as a federal prosecutor in the eastern district of New York, where he specialized in prosecuting mafia members and bosses from the Colombo, Gambino, and Genovese families.
Jeannie Rhee
Jeannie Rhee
Twitter/@MCCA_law
Rhee is one of several attorneys to resign from the WilmerHale law firm to join Mueller's investigation.
She also has two years of DOJ experience, serving as deputy assistant attorney general under former Attorney General Eric Holder. She advised Holder and Obama administration officials on criminal law issues, as well as criminal procedure and executive issues, according to her biography on WilmerHale's website.
As many critics of Mueller's investigation have pointed out, Rhee represented Hillary Clinton in a 2015 lawsuit that sought access to her private emails. She also represented the Clinton Foundation in a 2015 racketeering lawsuit.
Rhee is also one of the members of Mueller's team under scrutiny for her political donations, and has doled out more than $16,000 to Democrats since 2008, CNN reported. She maxed out her donations both in 2015 and 2016 to Clinton's presidential campaign, giving a total of $5,400.
Blogger C.H. Truth said...In your example, the bribe is actually what would make the arrangement illegal.
Yes, the arrangement illegal. The arrangement is the payoff AND the pardon.
Payoff not illegal. Pardon not illegal. Payoff and pardon, illegal. It is the corrupt intent that makes it illegal.
Pardon to obstruct, illegal. The corrupt intent makes it illegal.
Aaron Zebley
Aaron Zebley
Associated Press/Jeff Chiu
Zebley is a longtime FBI staffer who spent years in the counterterrorism division as a special agent before becoming the agency’s chief of staff under Mueller's leadership.
Between FBI stints, Zebley served as assistant US attorney in the national security and terrorism unit. He then moved to the DOJ’s national security division before eventually joining the WilmerHale firm in 2014. He, like Quarles and Rhee, left his job at the firm to work on Mueller’s investigation.
Zebley’s early work at the FBI consisted of grueling, complicated investigations into terrorist groups like Al Qaeda — even before 9/11 propelled the organization into infamy. Yet in recent years at WilmerHale, his focus has turned to cybersecurity.
A recent profile in Wired called Zebley a "dogged FBI agent turned prosecutor turned confidant," noting that his tenacity, history of working alongside Mueller, and globetrotting, investigatory experience will be crucial assets moving into the Trump-Russia probe.
Who a person donated to does not speak to bias. A person could donate to either party and yet be completely unbiased and professional.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
and i have some oceanfront property in iowa for sale, cheap. for the right price i'll even throw in the brooklyn bridge.
"FBI employees donating to the party of their choice does not mean that the FBI donated to a particular party. Their individual donations are free speech, their own business, an exercise of a constitutional right for which they cannot be required justify to the government, nor to you for that matter."
no shit.
"Why do I have to explain this?"
you don't, but apparently someone needs to explain it to you.
i mean, i know several people who donated to hillary, but voted for trump. really i do. like serious, guys.
A recent profile in Wired called Zebley a "dogged FBI agent turned prosecutor turned confidant," noting that his tenacity, history of working alongside Mueller, and globetrotting, investigatory experience will be crucial assets moving into the Trump-Russia probe.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A recent profile in Wired called Zebley a "dogged FBI agent turned hack turned assclown," noting that his liberal bias, history of tongue bathing Mueller's ass, and totally corrupt, "investigatory" (LOL) experience will be crucial assets moving into the Trump-Russia probe.
- the editor
Roger Amick said...
The lawyers on the team are a bunch of Clinton sluts
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
hey alky,
the agent who just got pulled off of the trump "investigation"...which one of mueller's sluts was he banging again?
The argument being made by the lawyer for the President said that he cannot be charged with a crime, because he is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.
The President shall faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii
Article II according to his lawyer he's above the law. This could be taken by this or any successor to give the President dictatorial powers, and that anything short of impeachment or the implications of the 25th Amendment. The claim has various responses. The claim is limited to the objection of justice. But look at the possibilities given that exception. Do we want to grant that power to any President?
None of the regulars here are lawyers. The interpretation of the law is highly complex. But common sense should tell us that we don't want to give the President, the right to violate any law.
I'm not going copy paste the amendment, but you can see.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii
Let me make this clear. I will no give the racist rodent bigot the time of day, as long as he uses the alky alky alky alky alky alky alky alky alky alky alky alky spam.
I am approaching five and one half years of sobriety, and if you look up the statistics on the recovery show that I'm an exception to the average, by far.
And just to make him be even more disappointed that my lab the test results are outstanding.
And despite chronic pain, older bodies suck, I'm going to the gym almost every day and I would bet the jerk a glass of any beer of his choice, that he could not keep up with me.
Good Morning HB, quick question , it is your goal to see this president Fail, correct?
and if you look up the statistics on the recovery show
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the "recovery show"?
you guys have a recovery show on tv out there? like on public access tv or something?
way cool, alky.
it's like c-span for drunks.
man, you guys in mexifornia are so progressive.
Former FBI Comey, violated FBI protocol by NOT recording the interview with Hillary Clinton.
I knew that was weird not to have audio and video of that interview, more protection afforded the Clinton Crime Family .
Whenever a celebrity is arrested, overdoses, or dies from drugs or alcohol, there is usually renewed media interest in addiction. Most of the time, this means that experts on substance use disorders are interviewed, particularly those of us who have some experience treating high-profile addicts. The coverage usually addresses the same general principles:
Addiction is a disease, not a free choice.
Treatment, rather than incarceration, is the best choice.
Wealth and privilege tend to insulate some people from having to face the truth about their condition, but the basic principles of treatment are the same.
Treatment really works, and people do get well.
But the recent tragic overdose death of Phillip Seymour Hoffman, whom many have noted was reportedly abstinent from alcohol and drugs for over two decades, raises another set of important questions:
Do people who get sober actually stay sober?
Can’t you ever be free of addiction? Are you always at risk of relapse?
Is there some period when, like cancer, you are considered to be “cured”?
Isn’t staying sober for a long time at least somewhat protective?
In my experience treating thousands of addicts, I’ve learned that cases like these can often diminish hope and create a perception that these conditions aren’t treatable, or that addicts can never be trusted. When is an addict or alcoholic sober long enough to be considered at least relatively safe? Do most people with addiction who have been sober a long time eventually relapse? In scientific terms, what is the natural history of recovery from alcohol and drug addiction?
I’ve seen numerous experts speak up in the wake of Hoffman’s death, but few have offered hard science on what we really know about how a person’s duration of sobriety is related to their chances of being sober in the subsequent years. Fortunately, there are data to support the idea that recovery is durable, and that the vast majority of people who stay sober for a long time will continue to stay sober afterwards.
The most thorough attempt to understand what happens to addicts and alcoholics who stay sober is an eight-year study of nearly 1200 addicts. They were able to follow up on over 94% of the study participants, and they found that extended abstinence really does predict long term recovery. Some takeaways from this research are:
Only about a third of people who are abstinent less than a year will remain abstinent.
For those who achieve a year of sobriety, less than half will relapse.
If you can make it to 5 years of sobriety, your chance of relapse is less than 15 percent.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/craving/201402/how-often-do-long-term-sober-alcoholics-and-addicts-relapse
In other words, kiss my ass Jimmy.
But common sense should tell us that we don't want to give the President, the right to violate any law.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
well fucking DUH, genius. the president doesn't have the right to violate the law. the president has the right to exercise the powers of his office in accordance WITH the law.
unless of course the president is someone that the liberals despise. then his very occupancy of the office of president becomes a crime, and millions of dollars and countless man hours are spent trying to jam the square peg of a liberal hissy fit into the round hole of impeachment.
this whole thing is election night in the hillary camp writ large. and the american people are being forced to sit through the biggest fucking liberal temper tantrum in american history. all while achieving a level of liberal hypocrisy never seen before.
any normal and honest person would be ashamed and disgusted by this behavior. but not you clowns. you revel in it. proud of the double standard you're espousing.
. I will no give the racist rodent bigot the time of day, as long as he uses the alky " Roger
you do see that you are now again complaining about the very thing you do, name call, you are a very weak minded and low life individual living off the wealth of others, your wife would be wise to divorce you.
Addiction is a disease, not a free choice.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BULL. SHIT.
it's a personal failure. and free choice.
embrace the suck of your own existence. and stop trying to hide behind cowardly and convenient labels. own your failures.
What do you know that the rest of us don't? CHT asking WP
in a nut shell, WP is the smartest person here in her mind, then HB, then oPie (how is your wife this morning?) and then Jane who never answers a question on topics she brings to CHT.
No
One
Cares creeper
The blacks of Michigan support and defend pervert John Conyers, CNN Reports
the "recovery show"?
you guys have a recovery show on tv out there? like on public access tv or something?
way cool, alky.
it's like c-span for drunks." RRB
Funny, thanks
Ette, you know he is hitting on the young woman married or not in his drunksareus group.
22 soulless classless whores laid down with Roger, ugh.
No, you again can't read any better than you can write. He said that the President cannot be charged with a crime, because he is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.
There are many different opinions, but the majority disagree with that cheap lawyer. None of the big name D.C. lawyers would work for your President.
Hey, why aren't you following the "lock her up" diversion?
rrb, Who they voted for (if indeed it was Clinton) also does not speak to bias.
Why do you think that voting for the Democratic party means that you cannot do your job when a Republican is involved? Does that mean, in your mind, that they cannot do their job objectively when a Democrat is involved either? So if they vote for anyone, they must be biased? RRB?
Do you think any of them might have donated to the party they thought would win, because they might want their boss to believe they are loyal? Since donations are public, and their vote is not, how are you so sure that they never donate one way and vote another?
We are too busy tracking your "DOW Crashing" meme's
You have pulled out that twice, once on Nov 9th, 2016 after Paul Krugman your soul mate for life said this:
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman predicts a "global recession with no end in sight" if Donald Trump is elected president."
and the 2nd time you begged for 100's of Americans to loss wealth in the US Stock Market was when you rallied behind the fake news of discredit Ross and the market for the day closed down for the Dow 0.17 %.
KD posited again....
22 soulless classless whores laid
Like your betrothed partner? idiot....
and the 2nd time you begged for 100's of Americans to loss wealth
Like trump, all you do is lie....like clean burning wood....cops never join unions.....troll....
He said that the President cannot be charged with a crime, because he is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.
Read up on the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity.
The only remedy is impeachment.
However it would be politically untenable to impeach a president for just exercising his constitutional powers.
Dershowitz is right, it would create a constitutional crisis.
However it would be politically untenable to impeach a president for just exercising his constitutional powers.
Dershowitz is right, it would create a constitutional crisis.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
two things -
1) democrats, given control of the HOR would leap at the chance to impeach.
2) dershowitz is right, but democrats wouldn't care. this coup must be carried out by any means necessary. and if that means throwing this nation into the shitstorm of a constitutional crisis, democrats couldn't give a shit less. in fact they would welcome the opportunity. it's always been about party before country for those scumbags. this time is no different except that the stakes are higher.
Why do you think that voting for the Democratic party means that you cannot do your job when a Republican is involved?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
wp, have you actually been conscious for the past year? did you witness the democrat reaction to trump's victory? democrats went beyond apeshit. they had a national TDS-fueled meltdown. and now we find ourselves witnessing the criminal/impeachment investigation of donald trump for the crime of WINNING THE ELECTION.
the gloves are off, the long knives are out, the FBI is corrupt to its very core, and the deep state is fully engaged in a coup d'etat.
so no, at this point i think the battle lines have been drawn and it's a death match.
my question to you would be why would mueller feel the need to hire a team chock full of clinton hacks? there wasn't room for even a couple of republicans? really?
if nothing else he could assign them mindless tasks, block them from knowing the real status of the "investigation" and to the country it would give him the air of impartiality. but he's such a fucking hack himself he didn't even care about that.
WP...
We are not just talking about Clinton voters.
We are talking about Clinton donors. People who gave their own personal money to make sure that Donald Trump was not elected President. They had a personal, financial interest in the election, which they lost.
If they were willing to make a financial self sacrifice against Donald Trump then... how can they be trusted to be objective today?
Ultimately Rat is correct. While you can make an argument that Political Party is irrelevant.... Mueller effectively proves you wrong when he made a point to hire no Republicans. It was obviously important to him to have pro-Hillary anti-Trump investigators.
the gloves are off, the long knives are out, the FBI is corrupt to its very core, and the deep state is fully engaged in a coup d'etat.
Ah, so it's not possible for the FBI to conduct ANY investigation, since they're corrupt regardless, part of a secret shadow government trying to overthrow the US ... you'd better beef up defenses in KD's prepper compound ...
I've been meaning to ask you guys something. How come you never have a hidden back exit in those compounds?
They had a personal, financial interest in the election, which they lost.
I'm sorry but this is just funny. Donating money is a "personal, financial interest" LOL
Investment, yeah that's it, you expect a return on investment when you buy a piece of a politician with your donation, right CH? Republican political philosophy in a nutshell.
1) democrats, given control of the HOR would leap at the chance to impeach.
If Democrats get control of the House they won't need Mueller to impeach.
And you're right, they won't care that it will precipitate a constitutional crisis.
And that is a very good reason to deny them the seats they need.
I'm sorry but this is just funny. Donating money is a "personal, financial interest" LOL
Donating money indicates a partisan interest over and above what a normal voter would have.
You're just being obtuse now.
Donating money indicates a partisan interest over and above what a normal voter would have.
For conservative Republicans perhaps. Super-PAC's and big money donations rule the day.
For Sanders, the vast majority of his donors were regular working class voters giving small amounts. Probably not a one of them considered it "a personal, financial interest." Someone buying Tea Party influence, sure LOL
WP....
Considering how easy it is for you see all the unproven conspiracies and obstruction by the Trump administration...
perhaps you can explain how it is possible that Mueller just happened to pick a group of Hillary donors, Hillary supporters, and (as has been proven) actual anti-Trump investigators... without there being any unseemly intent or motive on his part?
Was it just a random set of events?
For conservative Republicans perhaps
In other words anybody with a lick of common sense.
perhaps you can explain how it is possible that Mueller just happened to pick a group of Hillary donors, Hillary supporters, and (as has been proven) actual anti-Trump investigators... without there being any unseemly intent or motive on his part?
OK since you asked nicely. 95% of ALL donations from federal workers went to Hillary. In the Justice Department, it was even higher, 97%. So what you're asking isn't even possible. Any selection of investigators from that group would likely be 97% Hillary donors.
Bear in mind that you're talking about a whopping $287,000 total from all donating employee in the entire Justice Department.
In the Justice Department, it was even higher, 97%.
Then I guess it's time to clean house in the Justice Department...
So people like General Flynn don't go to jail...
While people like Hillary Clinton walk...
Ah, so it's not possible for the FBI to conduct ANY investigation, since they're corrupt regardless, part of a secret shadow government trying to overthrow the US ... you'd better beef up defenses in KD's prepper compound ...
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1) we're not talking about ANY investigation. we're talking about a highly partisan political investigation, the genesis of which is some lame brained russia, russia, russia excuse team hillary cooked up to explain her embarrassing loss. the brainchild of hillary's three stooges: mook, palmieri and podesta
2) no lesser light than john bolton is on the record acknowledging this is a blatant coup attempt.
3) you insist that an obviously and blatantly corrupt FBI is beyond reproach when it comes to an ability to conduct an above board investigation into a president they overwhelmingly desired would lose to the democrat.
I'm sorry but this is just funny. Donating money is a "personal, financial interest" LOL
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
this ain't rocket science, son.
when i donate $ to a political cause/candidate i am assuming a personal financial interest. i want my candidate or cause to WIN. why the fuck else would i donate?
my self interest is personal and financial.
when i donate $ to the humane society or the alzheimer's foundation that donation is altruistic and charitable. done out of the goodness of my heart to help a cause i care about. unless i'm a cynic who needs some deductions. then my interest is personal and financial.
your TDS may not be at stage 4 like the alky's but it seems to be getting worse.
this ain't rocket science, son. when i donate $ to a political cause/candidate i am assuming a personal financial interest. i want my candidate or cause to WIN. why the fuck else would i donate?
Kids today need to know the difference between spending sprees, donations and investments. Evidently conspiracy theorist grandpa's aren't teaching them.
Your interest is a political one. A financial interest is when you have invested or purchased equity in a property, or interest in a business. Your donation is a gift, for the other party to use as they see fit. The usual, nominal reason to donate to a political party or candidate is because you believe that their policies align with your interests. The one thing it is not, is purchasing a financial interest.
The one thing it is not, is purchasing a financial interest.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
no, but the spending of actual $$$, as opposed to say, going door to door to hand out campaign fliers, is MY financial interest.
i need not receive something of tangible value in return to have a tangible interest. my candidate wins, my financial interest has been met.
otherwise i wouldn't have made the donation to begin with.
candidate victory = self interest = financial interest. especially if i'm convinced my candidate ( by winning) helps the economy earning me more $$$, or lowing my tax burden saving me $$$.
All the Clinton talk is an order by Emperor Trump to divert attention away from his behavior.
The cult is in full bloom.
The cult is in full bloom.
Well it's funny now that they're all panty-twisted about how many government people voted for Clinton, but what if it's like Trump-funny? They want to institute a voting litmus test, and vilify government employees for voting wrong ... which could lose the comedy appeal very quickly.
Yeah Rog...
Emperor Trump just called me a few minutes ago with the talking points memo.
WP, I donate hundreds of dollars of food a year to my locally run food bank ran by my church. With you so called logic, I donate food because I want those in need to starve.
Hillary spent 1.35 Billion against her best interest as Trump won, right Compound Building Cultists WP.
I really did not take you for a "prepper", but in my America you're free to purse what makes you happy.
CH, funny, but you are so deeply in the cult, you know what to say and when to say it.
Will we have another Saturday Night Massacre?
Follow The Money
Mueller Subpoenas Deutsche Bank Records Related to Trump
Updated Dec. 5, 2017 5:17 p.m. ET
1786 COMMENTS
Deutsche Bank AG DB -1.88% received a subpoena earlier in the fall from U.S. special counsel Robert Mueller’s office concerning people or entities affiliated with President Donald Trump, according to a person briefed on the matter.
The subpoena requested documents and data about accounts and other dealings tied to relationships with Mr. Trump and people close to him, the person said. The bank has lent more than $300 million to entities affiliated with Mr. Trump, according to public disclosures.
Ty Cobb, the White House’s chief lawyer handling the Russia investigation, said bank records of Mr. Trump and his family weren’t subpoenaed. “Previous reports today about subpoenas for financial records relating to the president and his family are false,” Mr. Cobb said.
Mr. Mueller is investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 election, including flows of cash tied to Russia and people in Mr. Trump’s orbit, in a deepening probe that has led to charges against former advisers to Mr. Trump.
A Deutsche Bank spokesman said Tuesday that the bank “takes its legal obligations seriously and remains committed to cooperating with authorized investigations into this matter.” The subpoena was earlier reported by German newspaper Handelsblatt.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-deutsche-bank-records-subpoenaed-by-mueller-1512480154
During the campaign and after the election and since he took office, he has said that he's got no financial contacts with the Russians. This is a complex situation, but given his multiple bankrupts, that Deutsche Bank is the only bank who would do business with Trump. And this bank has been involved in laundering huge amounts of currency, and other shady things, so we may see some thing that may find more than Trump has admitted.
We shall see.
Will we have another Saturday Night Massacre? "
when was the first one
Post a Comment