Last week, Fox News reported on the existence of a late 2016 email chain in which former FBI Director James Comey told his staff that Brennan insisted that British ex-spy Christopher Steele's unverified research on President Trump's ties to Russia — calling it the "crown material" — be included in the intelligence community assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Now this falls into the category of he said he said. Comey, Brennan (and Clapper) have been pointing their finger at each other as to whom was responsible for the inclusion of the dossier in the FISA warrants and for the use of the dossier in starting the investigation. Obviously this email did not come form Brennan himself, but there would be little reason back then for Comey to have been lying about it. So while it doesn't provide smoking gun evidence that Brennan has been lying under oath, it certainly makes Comey more believable. Knowing Comey, he probably had most of these conversations documented to some degree or the other.
This is also just what we know so far. There certainly could be more direct evidence that Brennan knew about the use of the dossier and that Brennan specifically knew that the dossier was used in the FISA warrants. If such evidence is available, then Brennan will likely face charges. What a shame that would be.
42 comments:
President Trump’s accounting firm must turn over his financial records to Congress, a Federal District Court judge ruled on Monday, rejecting his legal team’s argument that lawmakers had no legitimate power to subpoena the files.
But Mr. Trump vowed that his legal team would appeal rather than permit the firm, Mazars USA, to comply with the subpoena and the ruling, so the legal fight is far from over.
The ruling by the judge, Amit P. Mehta of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, was an early judicial test of the president’s vow to systematically stonewall “all” subpoenas by House Democrats, stymieing their ability to perform oversight of Mr. Trump and the executive branch after winning control of the chamber in last year’s midterm elections.
Mr. Trump’s legal team, led by William S. Consovoy, had argued that the House Committee on Oversight and Reform had no legitimate legislative purpose in seeking Mr. Trump’s financial records and was just trying to dig up dirt — like finding out whether the president broke any laws — for political reasons, so the subpoena exceeded its constitutional authority.
But Democrats have said they need the records because they are examining whether foreigners are in a position to use business dealings with the president to exert hidden influence over American policymaking, and whether ethics and disclosure laws need to be strengthened.
Judge Mehta said that justification was sufficient to make the subpoena valid.
dossier dossier dossier
Conspiracy, you have lost your mind Scott.
It's not over yet Scott.
President Donald Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen told lawmakers behind closed doors that Jay Sekulow, one of the president's attorneys, encouraged him to give untrue information to lawmakers about the Trump Tower project in Moscow, according to transcripts released Monday.
Cohen testified to the House Intelligence Committee earlier this year that Sekulow told him to say in 2017 that discussions about the project had ended in January 2016, when, in fact, they had continued for months after that, the transcripts show.
Cohen said in February testimony that his conversations with Sekulow regarding what he would tell Congress about the Moscow deal in 2017 involved "staying on message."
"And the message was always was whether I was — when I was with Mr. Trump or during these conversations, it was always about to stay on message, which is there's no Russia, there's no collusion, there's no business deals. And that was the message that we were staying on. And that was the message that I was going to put into the statement," Cohen told congressional investigators, according to the transcripts.
In one February exchange, congressional investigators asked Cohen, "So, did Jay Sekulow tell you then why he wanted you to lie about pursuing a deal in Moscow during the campaign?"
"Not that I recall, no. This was the message," Cohen responded. "And we were preparing the statement and stay on message, and there's nothing going — that this whole thing is going to be over. There's no — 'The investigation is going to come to an end in like 6 weeks. Don't worry; it's all good. The boss loves you.' Actually, he would refer to him as the client, you know, or say to me: 'I just left with the client, and he loves you. Don't worry. He's sorry about this, or he's sorry about that, that you have to go through this.' And everybody looked at this document. It got sent around. And this became the final statement as with the other document."
"The public should judge for themselves both the evidence released today in conjunction with Cohen’s testimony related to Trump, his troubling relationship with Russia, and the efforts by Trump and those close to him to hide the relationship and potential business deals," Rep. Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said in a statement. "The public also deserves the chance to judge Cohen’s credibility for themselves, including by examining some of the evidence he provided to the Committee."
Cohen told the House Oversight Committee during his January testimony that he made the false statement because at the time, he was extremely loyal to Trump. He also said that Trump "did not directly tell me to lie to Congress" but added that in Trump's his way "he was telling me to lie."
"To be clear: Mr. Trump knew of and directed the Trump Moscow negotiations throughout the campaign and lied about it. He lied about it because he never expected to win the election," Cohen told the oversight committee. "He also lied about it because he stood to make hundreds of millions of dollars on the Moscow real estate project."
You are going after the former head of the FBI, claiming that he was using the dossier was the only reason to investigate the allegations of the Russian intervention into the election, that got Trump elected.
You are brick wall, as Eli Blake and another former friend who have decided to stay here and have an honest debate.
I responded to a couple of questions last week, and after I shredded your argument.
You disappeared.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/andrew-napolitano-crown-material-email-could-spell-perjury-for-john-brennan
Andrew Napolitano: 'Crown material' email could spell perjury for John Brennan
by Daniel Chaitin
| May 20, 2019 06:37 PM
CIA Director John Brennan may have set up a perjury trap for himself, Fox News judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano said on Monday.
Last week, Fox News reported on the existence of a late 2016 email chain in which former FBI Director James Comey told his staff that Brennan insisted that British ex-spy Christopher Steele's unverified research on President Trump's ties to Russia — calling it the "crown material" — be included in the intelligence community assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Napolitano said if this is true, it would contradict what Brennan told lawmakers under oath.
Just to make it clear that you wrote almost nothing and did not attribute it to the Washington Examiner
Yes, the CIA and other Intelligence Agencies trators are scrambling to CYA.
Lol, where is Cohen calling Home HalfBacked?
I'll bite roger. I must have missed your responses to CHT were you "shredded" his arguments. Please repost or restate. Everything I can recall you either didn't respond, responded without addressing or cut-and-pasting some "bombshell" which fizzled.
I also always run into your "objection of justice" arguments and die laughing.
Or is that what you consider shredding?
Well Roger...
It's clear that one of us has lost their mind...
What if the President declines to release the, despite the order from the Judge order? Even if it goes to the SCOTUS, and he says no, you will support him.
It's not over yet Scott.
You do realize, Roger, that the Mueller report also suggested that Cohen claimed Trump's attorney told him to toe the company line. Oddly, Cohen's statements to the House Intelligence committee seem close, but still not quite the same thing he told Mueller and Special Counsel. So it's pretty much a given that one of the stories he told under oath is not the truth, and I would bet that neither of them are actually truthful.
But I will play your game Roger.
Let's follow through with the logic of the situation. A convicted liar, going to jail, begging for mercy, says he was "told" to perjure himself.
He's admitted that he has no proof. He also admitted that the President himself never actually told him to lie. Just that it was all implied in his own brain.
So what do you do Roger?
Do you decide to charge Jay Sekulow with a crime, with literally no evidence other than the word of a convicted felon, who is in jail partly over lying under oath?
Unless Sekulow confesses, there literally is no case against him. Even if there was a case against him, that still doesn't give you obstruction against the President.
Does it?
So tell us Roger.
What is it that you "really" have here?
Because it looks a lot like what the little boy shot at and missed...
again.
What if the President declines to release the, despite the order from the Judge order? Even if it goes to the SCOTUS, and he says no, you will support him.
Let it play out in court, Roger.
This is like a broken record. Go to court. Get an Obama district judge to rule against Trump. Appeal the order, and eventually it is overturned. Either at the appeals court level, or in the case of the Travel Ban, Criminal immigration detainment, or Transgender military ban... at the USSC level.
It's a dangerous precedent Roger. Allowing Congress to just take whatever financial or tax records they want from anyone they feel deserves to be "investigated". I doubt very seriously whether or founding fathers gave congressional oversight of the executive branch to Congress, so they could dig up old financial records of any old executive branch employees that has nothing to do with their jobs as executive branch employees. I certainly doubt that they considered "investigating" without due process or probable cause as part of the "oversight" duties.
But we shall see, shall we not?
I strongly suspect that the USSC will wade in and that both sides will have to live with the ruling (whether they like it or not).
You believe that if the President decides that any investigation into his actions as President and previous actions are nothing more than simple harrassment.
The law was passed in about 1923 during another investigation into the President's actions.
The judge didn't agree with you.
“It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct—past or present—even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry,” he writes. “This court is not prepared to roll back the tide of history.”
You seem to be in favor of an expansion of executive authority.
You should read what I posted George Washington's farewell address.
It's a dangerous precedent Scott. Denying Congressional authority to take whatever financial or tax records they want from anyone they feel deserves to be investigated.
It is in the Constitution!
Roger, are you going to Answer CHT questions?
The president filed suit last month to block the subpoena, arguing that it amounted to an improper and overtly political abuse of congressional authority. Like I have been saying.
Mehta eviscerated that argument, too, emphasizing that a judge’s analysis of a congressional investigation “must be highly deferential to the legislative branch.”
“Thus, it is not the court’s role to decipher whether Congress’s true purpose in pursuing an investigation is to aid legislation or something more sinister such as exacting political retribution,” Mehta wrote, adding that there are “fundamental”
Article 1
"It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct — past or present — even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry,"
This doesn't mean that the house of Representatives can get the tax records for anyone, as you claimed falsely.
This comment is utterly false!
Allowing Congress to just take whatever financial or tax records they want from anyone they feel deserves to be "investigated".
This subpoena was for the President specifically.
You used to be more reasonable.
IF the USSC upholds the subpoena for the President's records, and Trump continues to decline and release the records, will you oppose impeachment?
When does
Speaker in Name Only Polosi actually begin to make good on her campaign promises?
This subpoena was for the President specifically
And... technically they have subpoenaed how many different members of the executive branch?
The point is Roger... that legally if Congress can just request financial records of the President, then they can request financial records of White House counsel, or the Attorney General, or the Vice President, or his Chief of Staff, Secretary of State, Press secretary, or whomever they want within the branch...
The power given to Congress to "oversee" the executive branch is just that. A power to oversee the executive branch. There is nothing specific in the Constitution that provides them "extra" power to specifically investigate the President.
So what the court says Congress can do to Trump today, then that court is allowing Congress to request whatever personal records they want from ANY member of the executive branch at any time in the future.
The power for Congress to take the personal financial records does not stop with Trump, Roger... in fact, it has absolutely zero to do with Trump.
It has to do with whether or not there are practical limits to congressional oversight and whether or not that congressional oversight is given legal precedent over several areas of the bill of rights, most importantly protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The ruling you advocate takes away the fourth amendment rights of anyone working in the executive branch...
Do you remember that pesky 4th amendment right?
This doesn't mean that the house of Representatives can get the tax records for anyone, as you claimed falsely.
So do you seriously believe that Congressional oversight is limited to the President?
I'd like you to actually explain your logic, rather than just C&P or calling people names.
There is nothing specific in the Constitution that provides them "extra" power to specifically investigate the President.
It says that they can impeach the President and historically investigate the President and the administration.
You really don't understand where your ideas will lead the country. You believe that he can do anything he wants. The founding fathers feared the power of the President because of people like Trump.
Nixon tapes were made public, and resulted in the impeachment indictment. By your logic, Nixon would never have resigned.
Your comments are not logical.
The Congress can investigate far more than the President, personally. His administration, Cabinet members, etc..
If a member of his administration or cabinet members direct people to lie under oath to the Congress, is not protected by the 4th amendment.
Bullshit
There is nothing specific in the Constitution that provides them "extra" power to specifically investigate the President.
Article One.
If your beliefs applied to anyone elected the President assumes dictatorial power.
You really don't understand why they made the Presidency the weakest of the 3 branches.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Your comments are not logical.
as you proceed to explain your "logic" with baseless and empty claims, the copy/pasted words of others, and garden-variety name calling.
that's some "logic" you have there, alky.
you've failed at multiple levels.
you've failed to support your argument that trump should disclose his tax returns.
you've failed to explain why endless investigations into this president and his administration should continue unabated.
you've failed to explain a single legitimate reason why this president should be impeached.
you've failed to accurately illustrate what exactly the AG has done that is wrong or illegal.
in short alky, you've failed at every single level a human being can fail to explain the positions you've dug your heels in on.
you don't even understand the relationship between the branches of government. as a self-proclaimed historian and resident expert on american civics, you could've at least displayed a rudimentary level of competence in this particular area. the only thing you've failed to mention is your obligatory and completely misunderstood reference to "marbury vs. madison."
you're flailing alky.
and what's worse, you're trying to pass off that flailing as a reasoned and logical argument. it is neither.
alky, you're drowning in a vat of TDS, muttering to yourself - "orange man bad, orange man bad, orange man bad."
mail order bailed for a reason, pal. the behavior that you regularly exhibit around here must've been downright frightening to her up close and personal.
the ultimate irony for you is that it is highly likely that you go to your grave with trump as your president. how fitting, considering your hate-filled and completely irrational behavior towards this man.
heh.
The Nixon tapes were in regards to things that happened while he was in office. As were Iran Contra, and nearly every political scandal involving a President.
The only investigation that involved a President and behavior prior to office was White Water, but that particular investigation had been off and on prior to Clinton taking office. The fact that the President's name was being mentioned in an ongoing investigation was what prompted the Special Counsel.
All of the other investigations into the Clintons, Bushes, or whoever, were in regards to actions that took place as President.
The problem here Roger, is that you just had nearly 3 years of a fake investigation into something that never happened, never had any proof of happening, and yet consumed the entire nation, mainly due to a stupid media who believed their own bullshit.
You are not even sure what it is specifically you are looking to "investigate" with the President. There is no specific allegation of a crime that Congress is alleging with any probable cause. They just want to get all of his personal information so that they can "dig around".
A normal criminal judge would never provide a criminal warrant to law enforcement to search and seize financial records of someone, just so that law enforcement agency can dig around to see if something is there. They would be required to provide probable cause that they believe a specific crime has been broken, and provide a specific reason why this information would helpful to prove that alleged crime.
That is the standard of how our country treats our law enforcement and our rights as citizens.
Our entire bill of rights gives rights to the individuals, not the agencies. It does not determine that agencies can simply do what they want because they don't like someone or because they believe that this person is a bad person who has to be stopped.
Under the constitution Congress has no more rights than the local police department to search and seize any American citizen without the same due process that the constitution guarantees.
Bottom Line Roger
THIS IS NOT ABOUT TRUMP!!!
Stop acting like all of the known rules of our society can be "tossed out the window" because of Trump. You can tell over and over what a bad man you think he is, you can throw around words like Dictator and tyrant (because you have no Fucking argument without raw hatred).
But Trump is an American citizen with the same protections as you or me. The only oversight congress is given, is to oversee his job as President.
If they have probable cause of specific crimes, then they should get a warrant that is limited to and specific to information that would help them investigate the specific crimes.
But we do not live in a banana republic where someone can just search and seize everything because they want to.
Article 1 specifically grants the powers to investigate the President.
This isn't about Trump. It is about the separation of powers granted by the Constitution to the house.
Without the limitations on the powers of the office of the President, we would no longer be, a democratic republic.
You want the rule of law "tossed out the window" because of Trump.
Not the other way around.
You believe that the investigation was falsely triggered because Trump was elected President, not because of the Russians intervention into our most important power granted to the people, was triggered by partisan issues, specifically because of Trump, not the Russians hack into the election.
Meanwhile, ex-White House counsel Don McGahn won't appear today before the House Judiciary Committee because the White House says former senior advisers are exempt from having to appear before Congress. US Rep. Jerry Nadler, the committee's chairman, promised McGahn would pay a heavy price for defying the panel's subpoena and threatened to hold him in contempt.
He should be arrested and imprisoned in the capital building until he complies with the subpoena.
More Lil Scotty abject bullshit.....
The Nixon tapes were in regards to things that happened while he was in office.
A crime is a crime is a crime.....being Potus has nothing to do with criminal behavior!!!!! Trumps legacy of being a sore loser businessman who declared bankruptcy 3 times is finally catching up with him.....Good that the whole country gets to witness what a douche nozzle he was when a NY fixture......
Article 1 specifically grants the powers to investigate the President.
You cannot cite one portion of the constitution as a means to demand other portions do not exist. Everyone respects the separations of powers and the checks and balances of the system.
But the constitution (including the bill of rights) are all taken together. Portions do not compete with one another, but rather they all blend themselves into one single concept.
Congress is not the only power in the world with investigative powers. The Federal arm has much broader investigative powers, and they too can go after members of Congress if such an investigation is deemed necessary.
But whether it's members of Congress investigating a President, Vice President, Secretary of State, or whomever... or whether it's the DOJ ordering an investigation into a high ranking member of congress...
all investigators play by the same rules. They need probable cause. They need to respect the constitutional rights granted in the amendments. They need to follow protocol, rules, regulation, and the law.
That is your blind spot Roger. Until you acknowledge that there is no such thing as a blanket right to simply search and seize everything and anything because you have investigative powers...
then you and I have nothing to discuss.
I can only discuss these issues with rational people who have an understanding of the constitution. The whole constitution. Not just the parts that you pick and choose.
And of course trump blames a judge for a well reasoned opinion on his records....Like his blasting an American born judge because of his surname.....obama is to blame for the courts bad decision and you slurpers will be accepting his BS as another example of the deep state and how UNFAIR they tread the asshole in chief....!!!!
You cannot cite one portion of the constitution as a means to demand other portions do not exist
Oh please Lil Scotty, your law knowledge and opinions are 1 step above a first graders throwing a temper tantrum.....BWAAAAAA!!!!!
Roger again is eating your lunch and the courts will soon start making decisions supporting congress and not trump.....deservedly so and correct!!!! All trump is doing is trolling the weak minded....YOU.....to support delaying tactics to move the discussion to next year where he will blame the D's for everything!!!!
Well Denny...
As I stated with Roger. Let's let the courts settle this. The ruling by the Obama Judged was stayed on his own accord, meaning he knows his decision is not enforceable at this point and that his decision will not only be appealed, but determined at a higher level.
If Congress can show the courts (including the USSC) that they have probable cause to feel a specific crime has been committed, and prove that this is not an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the 4th amendment protections under our constitution...
Then the courts will validate the subpoenas and the IRS and other banking entities will have to turn over the documents. It won't be up to Trump.
The bigger problem with all of this is that Congress technically is the only body that has subpoena power that is not required in general to go through a Judge. Because their authority is outside of the traditional court system, there is not much inherent ability to follow through with consequences if these subpoenas are ignored.
In reality, if Congress "really" felt that the President committed an actual crime, then they could make a criminal referral and have the appropriate resources make a determination as to whether or not there is actually a crime. Sort of like what happened with the whole "collusion delusion" hoax. You had actual criminal investigators following criminal protocol where every warrant and subpoena issued was approved by an independent judge or grand jury.
Democrats in Congress just didn't like the findings. They would rather control things (including the narrative) themselves.
As I stated with Roger. Let's let the courts settle this
Why so trump can say all judges he doesn't like are biased like you???? The courts will decide it, but you and the non thinkers will question every single decision as deep state politics and you will continue to swallow with gusto....As to your faux law knowledge....BWAAAAAAAAAA!!!! You spend lots of time trying to convince everyone you are correct....I for one don't give a shit of your lack of knowledge or opinion.....as you feel the same about me or roger....the only way you will move is if you are told to move by others as your brain has been taken over by a fraud and thief.....!!!! Obstruction is an actual crime and your rational only provides cover for your an your parties incompetence!!!!
Fatman you are making less sense everyday. Ask your handlers in your memory care unit to up the Thorazine
Denny...
It really doesn't matter what Trump says about the Judges. The only thing that ultimately matters is what the highest court that rules on a particular case ends up with.
If you want the "real" issue here Denny. If Obama nominated District Judges don't want to be criticized for their rulings, then they shouldn't make rulings that they know are going to be overturned by the USSC.
The more lower courts rule against Trump on issues that are eventually settled in Trump's favor later on... the more Trump has a legitimate "claim" to criticize these Judges.
So it's on them.
They need to get it right. By right, I mean legally right in a manner that will not be overturned as soon as adult Judges rule. Not the sort of right that has anti-Trump liberals cheering a victory that they probably know is temporary.
Personally I don't know what is going to happen with these subpoenas. Right now Trump is on the offensive with lawsuits preventing the private institutions from turning over his information to Congress. He will have no control over the situation once the courts make a final decision. He cannot prevent a private industry from following a court order to turn over the information from the subpoena.
The refusal by the Treasury Department to not turn over the tax returns is not arbitrary. They have a reasoned explanation for why they are denying the subpoena. In this case Congress would have to sue the Treasury Department to get a Judge to order the Department to turn them over. They may wait till the first sets of lawsuits are over to made that determination, or they go full throttle.
In both cases the The courts will have to decide if the subpoena has a better legal reason for being issued than the President has for protecting his financial information and his fourth amendment rights or the Treasury department has for refusing it.
It's not cut and dried and I suspect it will eventually split the court (again).
It really doesn't matter what Trump says about the Judges.
For someone who claims to have a brain....that is now the stupidest thing you have EVER posted!!! Having no respect for the judiciary is akin to the middle finger at society....And YOU BUY IT AS OKAY!!!! Next get rid of the press....next women rights while allowing a fetus to vote....The slip to anarchy is what you like and want!!!! What I find most amusing Merrick Garland is scheduled to hear one of the trump No suits......Can't wait to hear the BS you will come up with when trump broadcasts how another obama appointee fucked him.....Doncha find it amusing Lil Scotty how everyone is wrong when decisions go against our chief thief and liar.....so sad.....!!!
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Article 1 specifically grants the powers to investigate the President.
not for no fucking reason at all, and certainly not for "orange man bad."
This isn't about Trump. It is about the separation of powers granted by the Constitution to the house.
no, it's about trump, only trump and your hatred for trump.
that's the only 'cause' you have for demanding endless investigation laughingly cloaked as 'congressional oversight.'
Without the limitations on the powers of the office of the President, we would no longer be, a democratic republic.
well fuckstick, we're not a democratic republic (whateverthefuck that is) to begin with. we're a representative republic.
and you don't get to strip trump of the constitutional protections every citizen is entitled to just because you hate the man.
Post a Comment