Obstruction of Justice, Criminal Investigations, the Justice Department and Political Hacks
After Watergate, a rule was put into place that, among other things, limited the number of White House officials that could talk to the Justice Department regarding pending criminal investigations; that number was FOUR (4).
The George W. Bush Administration changed that number to roughly 800, give or take a few, after which Attorney General Mukasey, returned to FOUR.
That rule IS NOT BEING ENFORCED … to wit Reince Priebus leaned on FBI Director, James Comey, to back off on revealing any information regarding the investigation into the Trump campaign and its connection to Russia!
Apparently, a Deputy FBI Director refused to follow Priebus' REQUEST.
Preibus is NOT ONE OF THE FOUR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS ENTITLED BY THE LAW TO SPEAK WITH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT!
Either ignorance of the law, or, willful violation … this, plus the reality that at least four individuals chosen for White House staff positions recently FAILED TO PASS SECURITY CLEARANCE … makes for great trepidation regarding the Trump Presidency.
FBI refused White House request to knock down recent Trump-Russia stories
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/23/politics/fbi-refused-white-house-request-to-knock-down-recent-trump-russia-stories/index.html
Tags
Who is online
104 visitors
Hoping for an intelligent discussion. It's your country and mine.
The Headline is mine … the headline in the article is CNN's (see the link).
Preibus did not lean on the FBI To do anything and certainly didn't Order the FBI to do anything.
Fake news.
he asked the FBI to go on record with what he was told. . They refused. End of story.
Preibus did not lean on the FBI To do anything and certainly didn't Order the FBI to do anything.
Fake news.
he asked the FBI to go on record with what he was told. . They refused. End of story.
You and Donald have come to referring to any news you don't care for, as "Fake news".
I'll concede the point that Priebus did not "order" the FBI to knock down the Trump/Russia stories/investigation since he hasn't the power to do so … nor does he have the legal right to even speak to the FBI regarding a criminal investigation.
I'll change the word "order" to "request".
But the news is otherwise correct.
I doubt it's the end of the story, rather a piece of the on-going story.
There is also zero sourcing for your claim that he "leaned" on the FBI.
the deputy director of the FBI approached Preibus and told him the New York Times reporting was wildly inaccurate.
preibus asked McCabe and Comey to state that publicly and the FBI refused. Those are the facts. No requests to lie or pressure was put on the FBI.
Should they be in contact? Probably not. Is there any evidence of actual wrongdoing? Unless you think asking someone to tell the truth is wrong.
There is also zero sourcing for your claim that he "leaned" on the FBI.
the deputy director of the FBI approached Preibus and told him the New York Times reporting was wildly inaccurate.
preibus asked McCabe and Comey to state that publicly and the FBI refused. Those are the facts. No requests to lie or pressure was put on the FBI.
Should they be in contact? Probably not. Is there any evidence of actual wrongdoing? Unless you think asking someone to tell the truth is wrong.
Let's see your source.
Pick one. They all support what I wrote.
We agree then that my summary is correct and there was no "leaning" on the FBI.
Other than the word "order", I'll stand by the current reporting.
You have provided zero evidence that PReibus leaned on the FBI.
You made the allegation. Find a reputable source that supports your outrageous claim.
Priebus is not supposed to talk about this with the fbi AT ALL.
From the linked article …
Your source provides zero evidence that Preibus leaned on the FBI. You highlight a dispute about where and when the initial conversation between McCabe and Preibus occurred. Was it the morning? The afternoon? Either way it provides zero evidenced to support your unsupportable contention that Preibus leaned on the FBI in any way.
The White House is overrun with professional liars. I wouldn't take a word they say as truth without triple checking it against other sources.
Your source provides zero evidence that Preibus leaned on the FBI. You highlight a dispute about where and when the initial conversation between McCabe and Preibus occurred. Was it the morning? The afternoon? Either way it provides zero evidenced to support your unsupportable contention that Preibus leaned on the FBI in any way.
And you provide NO Source.
When a source publishes a report as such … as news … it GOES ON THE RECORD which means that it stands by that report.
YOU on the other hand, rather than providing a credible source and rebuttal, make a declaration.
Your source, please.
Your sources support me. I don't need to cite another one,
you, on the other hand, made up a bullshit acccusatiom and try to change the subject by refusing to support your own allegation, YOU MADE THE ALLEGATION. It's your job to defend it., obviously, you can't. Rather than admit you made a false accusation without any support, you now think it's my job to prove a negative. I know you can't do it because no mainstream source makes that allegation,
It's very easy. Support your false allegation with actual evidence or retract it. Quit weasling around.
There are multiple sources from many reputable news organizations, including The New York Times and The Washington Post that Preibus illegally contacted the Deputy Director of the FBI to try to get the FBI to suppress the stores in The New York Times contacting the Trump campaign to Russian intelligence agents. The Deputy Director, to his great credit, refused to do so, but the fact is that Preibus does not have legal standing to talk to any member of the FBI or the DOJ for that matter, about any ongoing cases or frankly anything at all.
Mac has provided a credible source that prove this, so to deny this truth is to be intentionally blind to a fact that is true, but that you simply do not want to see. It is selective blindness. As Trump would tweet...Sad.
I see the strawmen brigade is out in force, fighting against arguments no one is making either out of ignorance or dishonesty. Given your record, I'll assume you simply don't understand what's going on because you utterly ignore the issue in favor of your simplified daily kos talking points.
Let's make this simple. AMAC claimed, without any evidence, that Spicer "leaned on" the FBI. I hope your educational studies progressed to the point where you can differentiate between "leaned on" and "contacted." NO one, silly boy, is arguing that Spicer did not contact the FBI and ask them to publicly state what they told him privately, that the Times reporting was wrong.
The issues is "leaned on." Leaned on implies pressure. There's a difference between me asking you to retract a stupid post and me telling you to retract a stupid post or I am going to alert the authorities. One is requesting you to do something, one is leaning on you. Can you see the difference?
There is zero evidence that Spicer leaned on the FBI. Zero. If there was, this would actually be a story. But the daily kos brigade needs to cling to the fantasy that Spicer pressured the FBI because it makes it look much worse than what is actually being reported.
I also hesitate to do this, because you will never understand it. But what Spicer did was not illegal, despite your claim. It's against DOJ policy for the conversation to have occurred. There's no law that prohibits the conversation and it's not illegal to violate a policy. I'd ask you to retract your false claim, but given your track record what's the point? You'll just persist in your alternate reality of bizarre allegations, as usual.
Let's make this simple. AMAC claimed, without any evidence, that Spicer "leaned on" the FBI. I hope your educational studies progressed to the point where you can differentiate between "leaned on" and "contacted." NO one, silly boy, is arguing that Spicer did not contact the FBI and ask them to publicly state what they told him privately, that the Times reporting was wrong.
Don't talk down to me … especially when you don't know what you're talking about.
I DIDN'T SAY "SPICER," I SAID "PRIEBUS"!
Report: Priebus asked FBI to refute Russia stories
Reince Priebus asked FBI to dispute Russia reports, White House says
WASHINGTON — White House chief of staff Reince Priebus asked top FBI officials to dispute media reports that Donald Trump’s campaign advisers were frequently in touch with Russian intelligence agents during the election, according to three White House officials who confirmed the unusual contact with law enforcement involved in a pending investigation.
The officials said that Priebus’ Feb. 15 request to FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe came as the White House sought to discredit a New York Times report about calls between Russian intelligence officials and people involved with Trump’s presidential run.
As of Friday, the FBI had not commented publicly on the veracity of the report and there was no indication it planned to, despite the White House’s request.
The White House officials would only discuss the matter on the condition of anonymity. Two hours later, Trump panned news stories that rely on anonymous sources, telling a conservative conference that reporters “shouldn’t be allowed to use sources unless they use somebody’s name.”
White House officials said it was the FBI that first raised concerns about the Times reporting but told Priebus the bureau could not weigh in publicly on the matter. The officials said McCabe and Comey instead gave Priebus the go-ahead to discredit the story publicly, something the FBI has not confirmed.
______________________________________________
PRIEBUS … NOT SPICER!
And the law prohibits all but FOUR White House officials from discussing on-going investigations with the Justice Department/FBI.
The POTUS, the VPOTUS, the President's Attorney and the Attorney's Assistant.
Your long winded, dismissive comment is TRUMP-LIKE in both its length, inaccuracy and condescending, arrogant tone.
When you have nothing of value to say, move on.
Don't talk down to me
I wasn't talking to you. It's why the response wasn't directed to you. Since you didn't bother to provide any proof when I asked you to support your claim that the FBI was "leaned on" I assumed you had acknowledged you were wrong but didn't want to admit it.
Apparently not.
I DIDN'T SAY "SPICER," I SAID "PRIEBUS"
It's been a few days. I goth them mixed up. I was wrong. See how it's done?
Still no evidence that Preibus "leaned on" the FBI though, huh? All of your sources say "asked" without any evidence of pressure being applied, which you need to justify your "leaned on" fake premise. Just admit you can't support your claim.
And the law prohibits
Which law? Cite the precise US statute so we can see.
I wasn't talking to you. It's why the response wasn't directed to you. Since you didn't bother to provide any proof when I asked you to support your claim that the FBI was "leaned on" I assumed you had acknowledged you were wrong but didn't want to admit it.
Apparently not.
You referred to me by name … and your argument is not with me, rather with the media that put out the story; LET THE WHITE HOUSE STATE PUBLICLY THAT IT WANTS THE FBI TO RELEASE ALL THE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION REGARDING TRUMP AND RUSSIA!
If there's nothing to knock down, then it's case closed … otherwise, unlike innocent parties, guilty parties NEVER SAY, "Let the record show"!
I DIDN'T SAY "SPICER," I SAID "PRIEBUS"
It's been a few days. I goth them mixed up. I was wrong. See how it's done?
Mr. "Humility" … when you refer to me by name in a derogatory manner, you'd better come with the facts.
Still no evidence that Preibus "leaned on" the FBI though, huh? All of your sources say "asked" without any evidence of pressure being applied, which you need to justify your "leaned on" fake premise. Just admit you can't support your claim.
Oh … the "F" word … again, take it up with the sources of the story.
And the law prohibits
Which law? Cite the precise US statute so we can see.
Oh! I was wrong … but not so wrong …
WASHINGTON (CNN) – The FBI rejected a request from White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus last week to publicly knock down media reports about communications between Donald Trump’s associates and Russians during the 2016 presidential campaign, according to multiple US officials briefed on the matter.
The White House denies any inappropriate contact occurred, claims the FBI initiated the conversation and insists Priebus only discussed the news story, not the underlying pending Russia investigation.
The revelation of these conversations raises a decades-old question: Are the White House and FBI permitted to talk about an ongoing criminal investigation?
While no law in the US code prohibits communications between the White House and the Justice Department, guidance issued by the DOJ in 2007 and 2009 explicitly limits communications on pending investigations to avoid any appearance of improper political influence.
“Initial communications between the (Justice) Department and the White House concerning pending or contemplated criminal investigations or cases will involve only the attorney general or the deputy attorney general from the side of the department, and the counsel to the President, the principal deputy counsel to the President, the President, or the vice president from the side of the White House,” reads the 2009 memo.
The memos say the communication should only happen when it is “important for the performance of the President’s duties and appropriate from a law enforcement perspective.”
Former White House counsel and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales under President George W. Bush explained in a CNN interview that “it’s very, very important that you limit contacts between the White House and the Department of Justice,” for two reasons.
“One, you don’t want actual pressure placed upon the Department of Justice in connection with an investigation or prosecution, and two, you don’t want the appearance of political influence with respect to an investigation or prosecution,” Gonzales said.
An administration official said on Friday that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was the first one to initiate the conversation with Priebus about some of the Russia news reports, and McCabe called some of them inaccurate.
Senior administration officials said Priebus expressed his frustration to McCabe that the administration was “getting crushed” on the story and asked him: “What am I supposed to do?” McCabe initially demurred and then later called Priebus to say the FBI could not comment publicly on the reports.
{SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS SAID -- GOT THAT, SEAN?}
FBI Director James Comey also called Priebus later to echo McCabe’s message — that he believed the story to be inaccurate — but said the FBI could not “get into the position of making statements on every story,” according to the White House.
The Trump administration defended Priebus’ actions Friday, saying he only did what any “normal human being” would have done when confronted with information that a news story is false.
{The Trump Administration defended Priebus -- DEFENDED WHAT HE DID, SEAN}
Very simply. Do you think the verbs "asked" and "leaned on" have different meanings or are they interchangeable?
Very simply. Do you think the verbs "asked" and "leaned on" have different meanings or are they interchangeable?
Even more simply … rather than concede the point, now you want to split hairs … EITHER WAY, Priebus was not one of the four White House officials permitted to approach the FBI.
Would you care to have a discussion, or, do you just want to break balls with deflections?
The Trump administration defended Priebus’ actions Friday, saying he only did what any “normal human being” would have done when confronted with information that a news story is false.
{The Trump Administration defended Priebus -- DEFENDED WHAT HE DID, SEAN}
If he hadn't asked, leaned on, got his panties in a wad … whichever … there would be nothing to defend … and the Trump Administration is defending what the DOJ protocol prohibits.
I'm finished with you on this one, Sean.
ather than concede the point, now you want to split hairs
Wow. You are a basket of projection. The issue is whether you can support your unsubstantiated charge that the FBI was "leaned on" by the Trump administration. That's what all the discussion this has been about. But rather than simply admitting a mistake you've wasted God knows how many words deflecting and attacking straw men of your own creation.
If you want a have an actual discussion of what Trump did, fine. But when you refuse to acknowledge reality and instead waste everyone's time defending a false attack on Preibus that you made up, it's becomes impossible to discuss what actually happened. For whatever reason, you chose to die on the hill of an obviously fake claim that the FBI was "leaned on."
Still playing with words, Sean. The point was and is that Priebus approached the FBI in violation of DOJ protocol and asked, leaned on, confronted the FBI to knock down evidence under the guise, to put it your way, the Trump mantra of "fake news."
Slice it or spin it any way you care to; I will concede that you did not say in so many words that Priebus did not do what the report stated, but minimizing the significance or, that it happened at all by calling it "fake news" and playing with the words, is tantamount to denial either by degree or implication.
Lean, ask, beg, rant ... It doesn't matter; what does is Priebus' objective and his improper action in even broaching any such issue under DOJ protocol.
When you attempt to minimize an action's gravity by playing with verbage, you are flirting with denial.
Yes, you did what you claimed, but that claim skirted the real issue. which is an attempt to obstruct justice.
I have to go out for the evening and before I do, let me summarize the disagreement between Sean and myself.
• I cited several reports that Reince Priebus had a discussion with the FBI that DOJ protocol does not allow him do.
• Sean claimed that such a discussion between Priebus and the FBI did not happen.
• But …
The Trump administration defended Priebus’ actions Friday, saying he only did what any “normal human being” would have done when confronted with information that a news story is false.
{The Trump Administration defended Priebus -- DEFENDED WHAT HE DID, SEAN}
Whether the news story in question is true or false is yet to be determined … but, the issue Sean and I disagreed on, is whether or not Priebus talked about it with the FBI. Clearly, the only reason the Trump White House would defend such a discussion … IS IF THEY KNEW IT TOOK PLACE!
Consequently, that ends the discussion … and, that is why I will not argue further over this issue with Sean, nor with anyone else who takes a similar position.
"Sean claimed that such a discussion between Priebus and the FBI did not happen."
No e didn't. There's no reason to lie.