Now Samantha Power has pulled back a little on her statement claiming that she didn't really mean anything by it. But the intent is clear and consistent with what many others have stated about the so called "deep state".
In essence, this is all a thinly veiled threat that people with certain behind the scenes law enforcement power have to ability to come get you if you piss them off... and if John Brennen cannot do so personally, well then it's likely he has friends in all the right places to get it done by proxy.
Of course, this is EXACTLY what the President is claiming is happening to him. That he is the victim of an overzealous deep state attack on him, and those close to him. Ultimately every time someone talks about how the FBI or the Deep State or some other behind the scenes trilateral commission will ultimately get Trump, it reinforces the allegations.
63 comments:
President Trump won.
Exposing the filthy dirty scum of the obimbo white house and hillary, is the cHerry on top.
There are now reports that mueller isn't even investigating collusion, but rather, obstruction. Its a coup attempt by deep state democrats. There are some of them who should go to jail.
What, NO Collusion?
Well, not from Pres. Trump, plenty from Obama/Hillary.
The Barack Obama campaign hired Fusion GPS back in 2012 to dig up dirt on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.."
So sure Hillary used the same company.
Statements from people are actually proof of the partisanship, bias
Oh horseshit, CH....They are partisan only because you hear what you think is biased...Those guys are either independents or republicans with samantha nothing more than a private citizen!!!!!!!....the quote you posted from brennan is from a pragmatic realist and 100% authentic!!! You just don't like them.. Well as Putin says...so fucking what!!!!! Get over it....Me thinks you have too much Rusbo and loser GED Hannity CH....they have eaten what's left of your brain.....
Fixed it for you ballz.... Its a coup"e" Yep that is exactly what it is....LOLOLOL
Its not a car dumbass.
Its not a car dumbass.
So what...makes more sense than your posit....LOL
Trump is disgusting. You don't have to be biased to see and say that.
Actually, it is bias that blinds anyone who cannot see it.
(And most of you do, actually -- you just won't admit it.
"But...but the Dems are WORSE," you want to say.
NO. In "worseness," Trump is at the front.
How Stormy Daniels Could Doom Trump’s Presidency
Richard Cohen: “The saga of the adult-film star and the juvenile president has become a rollicking affair. Each step of the way, Daniels has out-Trumped Trump. She is as shameless as he, a publicity hound who adheres to the secular American religion that, to be famous, even for nothing much, is to be rich. By and large, that’s not true, but then there is Kim Kardashian to prove otherwise.
“In pre-Trump days, it might have been possible to destroy Daniels by calling her a slut or whatever. But Trump himself is a slut. He is a liar and a moral harlot who revels in irresponsibility and bad-boy behavior. He has no moral edge over his accuser. We have all been instructed by Trump himself to disregard schoolhouse virtues of honesty, dignity and rectitude. Trump himself travels light.”
Ryan Says Trump Won’t Fire Mueller
Speaker Paul Ryan said he has received “assurances” that Robert Mueller won’t be fired, as questions swirl around whether President Trump will pull the plug on the special counsel, The Hill reports.
Said Ryan: “I received assurances that his firing is not even under consideration. We have a system based upon the rule of law in this country, we have a justice system, and no one is above that justice system.”
_____________
A little fact that infuriates and frightens Trump.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile and admits it.
Trump doesn't need to fire mueller. His collusion investigation is failing all on its own.
Yep
Jane, welcome back. What promises have you broke today?
Obama/Hillary data mining of FaceBook.
What do you think of that move by the Democrats.
i noticed today that a whole slew of asshats were apoplectic at trump congratulating pooty poot on his election victory...
until they were reminded that 0linsky congratulated putin in 2012.
weird.
between that and the facebook/cambridge analytics furor it seemed like the liberal hypocrisy was on steroids today.
until they were reminded that 0linsky congratulated putin in 2012.
So fucking what.....I wondered if trump swallowed after he did putin????
Dayum, maybe there is an honest lawyer left in the US....wasn't Olson in cahoots with Bois on gay marriage??? Not a cultist like loretta and menstral.....who will say he's really not a conservative...
High-profile conservative lawyer Theodore B. Olson declines offer to join Trump legal team
The president’s legal team had reached out to Olson to join forces amid mounting challenges in the probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election, according to people familiar with the talks.
Not a record, but again the bazzionth month in a row with above normal temps...
February 2018 was the planet's eleventh warmest February since record keeping began in 1880, said NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) on Monday. NASA rated February 2018 as tied for the sixth warmest February on record, with the only warmer Februarys being 2016, 2017, 1998, 2015, and 2010. The difference in rankings between NASA and NOAA is mostly due to how they handle data-sparse regions such as the Arctic, where few surface weather stations exist. The rankings for February were cooler than we've seen in recent years thanks to the presence of colder weather than average over much of North America, Europe, and east Asia, plus the presence of cool ocean temperatures over the Eastern Pacific from a weak La Niña event for the second consecutive winter.
Global ocean temperatures during February 2018 were the seventh warmest on record, and global land temperatures were the fifteenth warmest on record. Global satellite-measured temperatures in February 2018 for the lowest 8 km of the atmosphere were the eighth or twelfth warmest in the 40-year record, according to the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) and RSS, respectively.
On March 1st, I informed Fox that I would not renew my contract. The purpose of this message to all of you is twofold:
First, I must thank each of you for the cooperation and support you've shown me over the years. Those working off-camera, the bookers and producers, don't often get the recognition you deserve, but I want you to know that I have always appreciated the challenges you face and the skill with which you master them.
Second, I feel compelled to explain why I have to leave. Four decades ago, I took an oath as a newly commissioned officer. I swore to "support and defend the Constitution," and that oath did not expire when I took off my uniform. Today, I feel that Fox News is assaulting our constitutional order and the rule of law, while fostering corrosive and unjustified paranoia among viewers. Over my decade with Fox, I long was proud of the association. Now I am ashamed.
In my view, Fox has degenerated from providing a legitimate and much-needed outlet for conservative voices to a mere propaganda machine for a destructive and ethically ruinous administration. When prime-time hosts--who have never served our country in any capacity--dismiss facts and empirical reality to launch profoundly dishonest assaults on the FBI, the Justice Department, the courts, the intelligence community (in which I served) and, not least, a model public servant and genuine war hero such as Robert Mueller--all the while scaremongering with lurid warnings of "deep-state" machinations-- I cannot be part of the same organization, even at a remove. To me, Fox News is now wittingly harming our system of government for profit.
Trumpism gone wild wings!
Thecoldheatruth Fox is assaulting our constitutional order and the rule of law, while fostering corrosive and unjustified paranoia among viewers.
There are now reports that mueller isn't even investigating collusion, but rather, obstruction. Its a coup attempt.
Ralph Peters, never-trumper.
I wish him well.
There are now reports that mueller isn't even investigating collusion, but rather, obstruction.
No, collusion, no obstruction of justice.
That's pretty straightforward.
Straightforward, but wrong.
ralph peters? not one of your better concern trolls, alky.
wphamilton said...
Straightforward, but wrong.
Really WP? Try to get a jury to convict without an underlying crime.
Or for that matter try to find a majority in Congress to impeach and convict.
Really WP? Try to get a jury to convict without an underlying crime.
and this is what has been at the crux of this circle jerk all along. normally you appoint a special prosecutor to investigate an actual crime that has actually been committed.
in this case mueller was appointed to go out and try and find a crime, any crime, however remotely attached via 60 degrees of separation from trump.
pretty cool stuff.
an unending charter fishing expedition with an unlimited budget.
question for wp -
has a deputy to mueller been named yet? i mean no one lives forever, and this "investigation" could potentially outlive ol' bob. just sayin'.
menstral the mental midget and cramp posted...
Or for that matter try to find a majority in Congress to impeach and convict.
Hold that thought.....coming to congress before you know will be said majority!!!!!
You know the "cogress" inclues both the US House and Senate. You channeling alky with your own blue wave in just a few months?
So the Texas Bomber is Dead, good.
So the Texas Bomber is Dead, good.
and now begins the process by the media of tying him directly to trump. i would expect brian ross of abc news to sit this one out considering his suspension at the end of 2017. ross is an asshole, but i gotta believe he learned the lesson.
You know the "cogress" inclues both the US House and Senate.
Great spelling BTW
And you do know that is coming and that you are an idiot...
ss by the media of tying him directly to trump.
LOL probably an obama supporter....LOL
Lol, just wanted to box you in the corner, again.
Lol, just wanted to box you in the corner, again.
Sure you did, freemartin lover....Idiot
Statements from people like Brennan, Power, McCabe, Comey... are actually proof of the partisanship, bias, and unprofessionalism that existed prior to their ultimate release from positions of power.
But we don't hold Trump's statements to a similar standard do we? The main difference being that Trump's statements sound childish while Brennan's probably stings.
Really WP? Try to get a jury to convict without an underlying crime.
There are many precedents of prosecutions and convictions of obstruction, without proving the underlying crime.
You know the "cogress" inclues both the US House and Senate.
Great spelling BTW
It takes 67 senators to convict on impeachment.
In fact, probably the majority of them CS. Think about it: witness tampering for instance may prevent a conviction, but the defendant can then be charged with obstruction. And, you should note, that there is absolutely no requirement in the statutes that a crime other than obstruction has been committed.
Your requirement is simply fictional, and absolutely contrary to both statute and established case law.
in this case mueller was appointed to go out and try and find a crime, any crime, however remotely attached via 60 degrees of separation from trump.
That's what worries Trump. He's got secrets, his family has secrets, and he certainly doesn't want Mueller to come across them.
There are many precedents of prosecutions and convictions of obstruction, without proving the underlying crime.
Not "proving an underlying crime", but at least a prima-facie case that a crime existed.
If you say there are "many precedents of prosecutions and convictions of obstruction", where an underlying crime never existed then it should be easy to name one.
Not "proving an underlying crime", but at least a prima-facie case that a crime existed.
Nope. wrong again. There only needs to be an investigation. Actually, not even that, but the current context is an investigation, which is all that is required to charge someone with obstruction.
I'll tell you what, I'll say I'm wrong if you can find ANY obstruction charge thrown out in ANY court in the history of US jurisprudence, due to "no prima-facie crime" . As opposed to simply repeating this misconception over and over again.
Think about it: witness tampering for instance may prevent a conviction, but the defendant can then be charged with obstruction. And, you should note, that there is absolutely no requirement in the statutes that a crime other than obstruction has been committed.
This is where your logic fails, if there was no underlying crime to begin with, what conviction is the witness-tampering preventing?
It's like you saying convict the defendant of witness-tampering in a murder case when the murder "victim" is alive and well.
I could name you dozens where the "underlying crime" (which isn't even a legal concept in obstruction) was not proven. "Never existed", that's kind of an absurd demand, since you cannot prove that something never existed, and no lawyer on either side of Obstruction of Justice would need to seek to show that it did or didn't.
It doesn't deal with the "underlying crime" at all. How is it that hard to grasp?
Nope. wrong again. There only needs to be an investigation.
And I'm saying, in order to get 12 people to convict you better have more than just an investigation. There better be a real crime at the other end.
Otherwise, we are no better than the Soviet Union where you can investigate and jail people just because you don't like them.
This is where your logic fails, if there was no underlying crime to begin with, what conviction is the witness-tampering preventing?
Are you serious??? Whatever charge is being tried, obviously.
You should probably read this, which addresses some of your questions
https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1468&context=law_lawreview
Juries are just fine with convicting people of obstruction, because the lawyers and the Judge will disabuse them of that notion that some "underlying crime" or "prima-facei crime" are necessary, relevant, or even legal concepts.
I could name you dozens where the "underlying crime" (which isn't even a legal concept in obstruction) was not proven.
Not proven as in nobody was convicted of it or not proven it ever existed.
People, being the common sense jurors they are, are going to ask "what justice was the defendant obstructing?"
If the prosecutor can't answer that question then he's not getting a conviction.
Are you serious??? Whatever charge is being tried, obviously.
That's the point of the matter if there is a charge then there's an underlying crime.
Right now you're trying to say you can get a conviction for obstruction without ever charging for an underlying crime.
Good luck with that.
Not proven as in nobody was convicted of it or not proven it ever existed.
There are no court cases with obstruction charges where it was proven a crime "never existed", because that's not even a legal concept with obstruction. I don't think it's a legal concept period - it's just something that occurred to you personally, and has no explicit legal meaning.
The closest thing to what you're looking for would be in that link I already showed you. The kid, an honor student who'd never been in any trouble, was accused of drug use. He didn't commit any crime. His parents tried to convince a witness to change his testimony. There was no "underlying crime" for them. They were charged and convicted.
Anonymous wphamilton said...
Juries are just fine with convicting people of obstruction, because the lawyers and the Judge will disabuse them of that notion that some "underlying crime" or "prima-facei crime" are necessary, relevant, or even legal concepts.
wow. i never would've expected that such an outsized abuse of power condition could exist within our justice system.
i guess thought crimes are in vogue these days.
You think that the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 is an abuse of power?
How is it prosecuting thought crime?
And BTW, § 1503 deals with federal judicial proceedings while § 1505 deals with investigative proceedings. Maybe that distinction would help CS clear up his misconceptions about proving an "underlying crime" (whether guilt or even exists) before obstruction can be charged.
You think that the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 is an abuse of power?
well, as long as it's interpretation and subsequent application remains under debate, yeah, it's not a stretch as viewed through my cynical view of government that it's far too sweeping and broad and goes too far.
The interpretation and subsequent application is not under debate. That's all been settled long ago - it's just a few Trump supporters who have been confused - possibly by some conservative firebrand spouting nonsense - in order to discredit any potential charges.
Ironically, Mueller himself has been known to over-reach for obstruction charges. However, that's far beyond the basics that we're talking about here.
as long as the application of that statute can differ from federal court to federal court i would consider that as remaining open to interpretation and under debate.
and here's your 'conservative firebrand':
Why Obstruction of Justice Is a Hard Crime to Prove
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/business/dealbook/trump-obstruction-justice-prove.html
and here's your 'conservative firebrand':
Why Obstruction of Justice Is a Hard Crime to Prove
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/business/dealbook/trump-obstruction-justice-prove.html
As near as I can tell, that one is saying the exact same things that I have been. For about a year now. What did you have in mind?
He fairly well explains the requirements to prove obstruction of justice. Please note that there is nothing about "underlying crimes" nor "prima-facie" anything. Like I have pointed out numerous times, he stresses that the great difficulty is in proving "corrupt intent" ... and that's why the investigators cast such a wide net. Without knowing specifically what is in the mind of the suspect, they must gather as much evidence as possible, from many sources, that demonstrate the intent.
Also note, with relevance to the McCabe matter that we're discussing, that Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that uttering false statements to an investigating agent (and even proven) is insufficient to violate the omnibus provision of 1503.
well then i guess sol wachtler is right. with that wide of a net, how does even a completely innocent person emerge unscathed?
find me the man and i'll find you the crime? indeed.
the statute is constructed to destroy by being broad and subjective. that's orwellian. i find it chilling. i'm sure those on a mission to destroy trump et. al. find it mighty convenient.
and here's an utterly bullshit quote from the ny times story 0
a federal grand jury under Mr. Mueller’s direction could look at any potential violations of federal law, even just to assure itself that the law had been upheld.
if mueller convenes a grand jury, it will be to destroy every single person in his path. not to ensure that the law has been upheld.
for chrissakes, i was born at night but not last night.
well then i guess sol wachtler is right. with that wide of a net, how does even a completely innocent person emerge unscathed?
I have noticed that people "caught in the net" have at the very least dealt with criminals or had clandestine meetings with foreign intelligence services and assets. My suggestion to a "completely innocent person" would be to avoid criminals and their enterprises, and to resist the temptations being dangled by the intelligence services of our enemies. You wouldn't need to hide your activities, hide your financial transactions, have dodgy loans and other deals, and so on. Then you wouldn't have to lie about it.
That would be a good start, for "a completely innocent person."
There is no "deep state". That's just batshit insane conspiracy bullshit.
If you actually believe in a "deep state", kindly take your stage 4 idiocy outside.
Post a Comment