Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president, hundreds of former federal prosecutors assert

  
Via:  john-russell  •  2 weeks ago  •  91 comments

Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president, hundreds of former federal prosecutors assert
“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice,” the former federal prosecutors wrote.“We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment,”

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


More than 370 former federal prosecutors who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he held.

The statement — signed by myriad former career government employees as well as high-profile political appointees — offers a rebuttal to Attorney General William P. Barr’s determination that the evidence Mueller uncovered was “not sufficient” to establish that Trump committed a crime.

Mueller had declined to say one way or the other whether Trump should have been charged, citing a Justice Department legal opinion that sitting presidents cannot be indicted, as well as concerns about the fairness of accusing someone for whom there can be no court proceeding.

“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice,” the former federal prosecutors wrote.

“We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment,” they added. “Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. . . . But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.”

The statement is notable for the number of people who signed it — 375 as of Monday afternoon — and the positions and political affiliations of some on the list. It was posted online Monday afternoon; those signing it did not explicitly address what, if anything, they hope might happen next.

Among the high-profile signers are Bill Weld, a former U.S. attorney and Justice Department official in the Reagan administration who is running against Trump as a Republican; Donald Ayer, a former deputy attorney general in the George H.W. Bush Administration; John S. Martin, a former U.S. attorney and federal judge appointed to his posts by two Republican presidents; Paul Rosenzweig, who served as senior counsel to independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr; and Jeffrey Harris, who worked as the principal assistant to Rudolph W. Giuliani when he was at the Justice Department in the Reagan administration.

The list also includes more than 20 former U.S. attorneys and more than 100 people with at least 20 years of service at the Justice Department — most of them former career officials. The signers worked in every presidential administration since that of Dwight D. Eisenhower.

The signatures were collected by the nonprofit group Protect Democracy, which counts Justice Department alumni among its staff and was contacted about the statement last week by a group of former federal prosecutors, said Justin Vail, an attorney at Protect Democracy.

“We strongly believe that Americans deserve to hear from the men and women who spent their careers weighing evidence and making decisions about whether it was sufficient to justify prosecution, so we agreed to send out a call for signatories,” Vail said. “The response was overwhelming. This effort reflects the voices of former prosecutors who have served at DOJ and signed the statement.”

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

The Republican Party should not permit Donald Trump to run for president in 2020. 

Almost 400 federal prosecutors say he should be indicted , and he is going to be on the presidential ballot? It is absurd. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago
The Republican Party should not permit Donald Trump to run for president in 2020.

Well, I'll fire off an email to the GOP telling them not to run Trump, okay?

Almost 400 federal prosecutors say he should be indicted , and he is going to be on the presidential ballot? It is absurd.

People say all sorts of things. Yawn. 

And when Democrats impeach Trump, that will take care of Trump as a candidate anyways, right, so what's the big deal?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1    2 weeks ago
Almost 400 federal prosecutors say he should be indicted , and he is going to be on the presidential ballot? It is absurd.
-
People say all sorts of things. Yawn. 

Pitiful. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

Just strikes me as unusual for you to be telling the GOP what it should or shouldn't do when the "problem" will be solved long before the next election, right?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1    2 weeks ago

And when Democrats impeach Trump, that will take care of Trump as a candidate anyways, right, so what's the big deal?

And when Republicans block that impeachment on partisan grounds, he will be back running as a candidate again.  That's the big deal.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

So Democrats, despite their rhetoric, will simply refuse to do what they consider to be the right thing?

That sounds about right.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.3    2 weeks ago
And when Republicans block that impeachment on partisan grounds, he will be back running as a candidate again.  That's the big deal.

So what, the foolish Democrats are talking impeachment on totally partisan grounds, so of course the Republicans will not go along with this never ending left wing clown show.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.6  Greg Jones  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.4    2 weeks ago

The Democrats always seem to do the wrong thing. No wonder the voters are getting tired of it and tossing them out of office so much lately. Dems winning the House back was a temporary aberration.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.7  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.4    2 weeks ago
So Democrats, despite their rhetoric, will simply refuse to do what they consider to be the right thing?

2 questions for you.

  1. Where in my comment, did I say anything about Democrats?  Or are you just trying to deflect again?
  2. What would you consider is the "right thing to do"?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.7    2 weeks ago
Where in my comment, did I say anything about Democrats? Or are you just trying to deflect again?

I never stated you did. Are you trying to deflect?

What would you consider is the "right thing to do"?

I would consider doing the right thing to do to be doing what you advocate for. You know, not being hypocritical.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.9  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.8    2 weeks ago
I never stated you did. Are you trying to deflect?

Then why did you respond with a comment about the unmentioned Democrats???

I would consider doing the right thing to do to be doing what you advocate for. You know, not being hypocritical.

Boss won't let you give a straight answer, huh?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.9    2 weeks ago
Boss won't let you give a straight answer, huh?

Does that work on the playground for you?

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.11  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.7    2 weeks ago
'Or are you just trying to deflect again?'

That's all she has/does.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.12  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.10    2 weeks ago

Does that work on the playground for you?

I understand, don't want to jeopardize that high paying job of yours.

giphy.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.12    2 weeks ago
I understand, don't want to jeopardize that high paying job of yours.

My job pays fine.

WTF difference does that make and WTF does that have to do with anything?

Deflect much?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.11    2 weeks ago

When will you ever learn the difference between males and females?

Think it might be in my lifetime, or should I just give up hope of you learning that ?

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.15  gooseisgone  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

And Michael Brown had his hands up saying don't shoot.   

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago

Still waiting for you to enumerate all the instances of obstruction. On what charges should he be indicted. You realize that this dismal effort by the left to bring about some kind of action against Trump has run out of steam and no one is stoking the firebox. And the voting public certainly has ceased to care, if they ever did.

 
 
 
cjcold
1.2.1  cjcold  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    2 weeks ago

Maybe, like the rest of us have, you should read the Mueller report and this article. Trump is going down!

Couldn't happen to a more stupid, ignorant, childish, vindictive, hateful, insane fool.

He should have known not to play in this league with his obvious mental disabilities.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  cjcold @1.2.1    2 weeks ago

I read somewhere, not verified yet, that Rump has an IQ of 74.  I believe that is too high.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.2    2 weeks ago
I read somewhere, not verified yet,

Got a link for that, or is it just imagined?

 
 
 
Tacos!
2  Tacos!    2 weeks ago

Well, that's their opinion and they're entitled to it. Of course, as they say, opinions are like . . . well, something everyone has.

 
 
 
lib50
2.1  lib50  replied to  Tacos! @2    2 weeks ago

Because believing a liar who committed obstruction and gets his talking points from Putin is so much more believable than a group of professional prosecutors?  And that makes more sense because...?

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @2.1    2 weeks ago
Because believing a liar who committed obstruction and gets his talking points from Putin is so much more believable than a group of professional prosecutors? And that makes more sense because...?

After Democrats impeach Trump and he is removed from office, he can be indicted for anything at all.

Democrats should get to it!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  lib50 @2.1    2 weeks ago
who committed obstruction and gets his talking points from Putin is so much more believable than a group of professional prosecutors?  And that makes more sense because...?

There has been no evidence presented that he committed any kind of obstruction. Nobody on the left seems to be able to come up with any examples, let indictable ones.

And what talking point from Pootie are you talking about?  You sound like a broken record.

 
 
 
lib50
2.1.3  lib50  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.2    2 weeks ago

There is evidence, we saw part of it in real time with our own eyes and ears.  If you can't even speak to the truth of things seen and heard from the source, no way to even debate this.  Some of the evidence was also in the redacted Mueller report (not Barrspin).  So you are choosing not to see what is right in front of our faces. 

Guess you need to move outside the FoxTrump network for news.  He retweets and passes it on all the time. And so do republicans right here.  Example

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/white-house-tries-downplay-trump-echoing-russian-propaganda

Donald Trump took the rather extraordinary step last week of endorsing the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, a move that coincides with efforts in Moscow to approve a resolution defending the conflict. The American president’s comments were not well received.

In fact, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, one of the most Republican-friendly pieces of media real estate in all of major American print media, noted in response to Trump’s remarks, “We cannot recall a more absurd misstatement of history by an American president.”

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/18/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-putin-215387

I’ve been following Russia’s cultivation of the American right for years, long before it became a popular subject, and I have been amazed at just how deep and effective the campaign to shift conservative views on Russia has been. Four years ago, I began writing a series of articles about the growing sympathy for Russia among some American conservatives. Back then, the Putin fan club was limited to seemingly fringe figures like Pat Buchanan (“Is Vladimir Putin a paleoconservative?” he asked, answering in the affirmative), a bunch of cranks organized around the Ron Paul Institute and some anti-gay marriage bitter-enders so resentful at their domestic political loss they would ally themselves with an authoritarian regime that not so long ago they would have condemned for exporting “godless communism.”

Today, these figures are no longer on the fringe of GOP politics. According to a Morning Consult-Politico poll from May, an astonishing 49 percent of Republicans consider Russia an ally. Favorable views of Putin – a career KGB officer who hates America – have nearly tripled among Republicans in the past two years, with 32 percent expressing a positive opinion.

It would be a mistake to attribute this shift solely to Trump and his odd solicitousness toward Moscow. Russia has been targeting the American right since at least 2013, the year Putin enacted a law targeting pro-gay rights organizing and delivered a state-of-the-nation address extolling Russia’s “traditional values” and assailing the West’s “genderless and infertile” liberalism. That same year, a Kremlin-connected think tank released a report entitled, “Putin: World Conservativism’s New Leader.” In 2015, Russia hosted a delegation from the National Rifle Association, one of America’s most influential conservative lobby groups, which included David Keene, then-president of the NRA and now editor of the Washington Times editorial page, which regularly features voices calling for a friendlier relationship with Moscow. (It should be noted here that Russia, a country run by its security services where the leader recently created a 400,000-strong praetorian guard, doesn’t exactly embrace the individual right to bear arms.) A recent investigation by Politico Magazine, meanwhile, revealed how Russian intelligence services have been using the internet and social networks to target another redoubt of American conservativism: the military community.

Today, it’s hard to judge this Russian effort as anything other than a smashing success. Turn on Fox News and you will come across the network’s most popular star, Sean Hannity, citing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange as a reliable source of information or retailing Russian disinformation such as the conspiracy theory that murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich—who police say was killed during a robbery attempt—was the source of last summer’s leaks, not Russian hackers. Fox’s rising star Tucker Carlson regularly uses his time slot to ridicule the entire Russian meddling scandal and portray Putin critics as bloodthirsty warmongers. On Monday night, he went so far as to give a platform to fringe leftist Max Blumenthal — author of a book comparing Israel to the Third Reich and a vocal supporter of the Assad regime in Syria — to assail the “bootlicking press” for reporting on Trump’s Russia ties. (When Blumenthal alleged that the entire Russia scandal was really just a militarist pretext for NATO enlargement, Carlson flippantly raised the prospect of his son having to fight a war against Russia, as he did in a contentious exchange earlier this year with Russian dissident Garry Kasparov. At the time, I asked Carlson if his son serves in the military. He didn’t respond).

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/trump-just-endorsed-ussrs-invasion-afghanistan/579361/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-new-favorite-network-oann-embraces-russian-propaganda

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @2    2 weeks ago

Well, that's their opinion and they're entitled to it. Of course, as they say, opinions are like . . . well, something everyone has.

You are absolutely correct, however not all opinions are created equal.  Opinions by experts in the field are more widely accepted than those by laymen.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2    2 weeks ago

Yeah but not all experts in that field agree with that opinion.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.2.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @2.2.1    2 weeks ago
Yeah but not all experts in that field agree with that opinion.

Links???

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.2.3  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.2    2 weeks ago

You really need a link to remember that the Attorney General of the United States - the nation's chief prosecutor - AND the Deputy Attorney General BOTH agreed the president had not committed obstruction?

Did Trump Obstruct Justice? Here's What Former Prosecutors Think

So here's one,

Former federal prosecutor Stephen Binhak told TIME that many of Trump’s actions were also perfectly legal, since as president he supervises the Department of Justice. That means Trump would only face trouble if they were paired with another crime or if they were considered impeachable offenses, he explained. . . . “Generally, it is not a criminal offense to the president to exercise powers that he has under Article I of the Constitution,” he says. “The mere firing of an executive branch official, like the director of the FBI, would not be a criminal offense.

And another,

Prosecutors could decide that Trump’s actions did not affect the eventual result of the investigation and decline to pursue charges on obstruction, says Jonathan Biran, a former federal prosecutor currently working at the firm Baker Donelson. For example, while Trump firing Comey and then admitting he did so because of the Russia investigation could look like an attempt to obstruct justice, he ultimately allowed the special counsel’s investigation to finish without firing Mueller. “The investigation did proceed in a very substantial, robust manner after Comey was fired,” Biran says.

And more,

Dershowitz: Mueller got the law 'all wrong' on obstruction of justice

"The position I've taken from day one is for the president to obstruct justice, he has to go beyond his own permissible constitutional authority and engage in conduct that would be a crime for anyone else, like tampering with witnesses, obstructing a witness, paying witnesses, telling them to lie. None of that is charged against President Trump," Dershowitz said. . . . Dershowitz emphasized, "In my view and I think in the view of many constitutional scholars, a president can't obstruct justice by merely exercising his constitutional authority under Article 2, firing or pardoning. And the Mueller report gets that wrong."
 
 
 
lib50
2.2.4  lib50  replied to  Tacos! @2.2.3    2 weeks ago

The AG is not working for the country, he's made it very clear he is working for Trump alone.   Its one of the reasons Mueller chided him in that letter.  Of course we don't trust him.  And Dershowitz is a moron since his OJ days.  No way you would ever accept on piece of this shitshow from a democrat.  Its clear to a majority of Americans think Trump committed obstruction, and that he is NOT above the law as a few seem to think.   Lets see a group letter of prosecutors that agree with you and Dershowitz willing to write a public letter.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.2.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @2.2.3    2 weeks ago
So here's one,

Wow, so you do know how to post links, I'm surprised.

So here's one That means Trump would only face trouble if they were paired with another crime or if they were considered impeachable offenses, he explained.

The claim that you cannot obstruct unless another crime has been charged, has been roundly dismissed by experts.  Obstruction is a stand alone crime irrespective any any other crimes being investigated.

And another Prosecutors could decide that Trump’s actions did not affect the eventual result of the investigation and decline to pursue charges on obstruction

The claim that he couldn't have obstructed because he was too stupid to succeed in that obstruction is another non-sensible claim.  Attempting to commit a crime is just as much a crime.

And more The position I've taken from day one is for the president to obstruct justice, he has to go beyond his own permissible constitutional authority and engage in conduct that would be a crime for anyone else, like tampering with witnesses, obstructing a witness, paying witnesses, telling them to lie.

All of which are pointed out in Mueller's report.  Why the Hell do you think Trump is so opposed to Don McGahn testifying?

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.2.6  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.5    2 weeks ago
Wow, so you do know how to post links, I'm surprised.

Search my posts and you will find many links. I use them routinely.

roundly dismissed by experts

Like I said: Lots of "experts" in the world. Lots of opinions. Educated people disagree on things every day in every field. Getting a bunch of people to sign on to an internet poll or letter doesn't actually settle much.

Attempting to commit a crime is just as much a crime.

It is a crime, but it's not the same crime. That is, it doesn't have the same elements to be proven. Attempts fall into the class of inchoate crimes, where you don't actually commit the crime but you tried to or you helped someone else do it or get away with it. Proving them can be tricky.

Was he "attempting" something? Generally, you need both the intent and some substantial act toward satisfying that intent.

We aren't mind readers, so we look at actions. It's hard to prove intent without unambiguous actions or words. We just don't have that with Trump. If you walk into a bank, point a gun at a teller and say give me the money, intent is pretty clear. But if you ask a friend, "should I rob this bank? I'd sure like to rob this bank. Wouldn't it be great if I could rob the bank and get away with it" but then no action is taken, you don't have anything in the way of a criminal act.

Trump ranted and raved, bitched and moaned, and even may have said something to the FBI Director along the lines of "can't you just drop this?" That doesn't say much. Almost every person who has ever been under investigation or arrest has asked the same thing and it never amounts to "obstruction of justice" because it doesn't go beyond that. If Trump, for example, actually withheld documents he was required to produce or actually ordered someone to lie to investigators, we'd have obstruction.

But we also have a lot of evidence of Trump cooperating with the investigation. We know he told his people to answer questions, produce documents, and tell the truth. We know he himself answered questions even if it wasn't in the format that maybe some would prefer. Trump and his people were objectively cooperative even if they objected to the investigation. Objecting is not obstruction.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.7  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @2.2.3    2 weeks ago
Former federal prosecutor Stephen Binhak told TIME that many of Trump’s actions were also perfectly legal, since as president he supervises the Department of Justice.

Yet Stephen Binhak also said: 

"When the President acts in that way, there's a political solution," Binhak said, adding that the Constitution considers how "Congress should have vigorous oversight of the executive branch -- in this case, that's opening up hearings and seeing what happened, and seeing if impeachment, articles of impeachment should be returned."

Binhak added that while Trump's decisions to fire former FBI director James Comey and pressure former Attorney General Jeff Sessions to unrecuse himself from the special counsel's investigation and fire Mueller weren't criminal, they stood out to him as potentially meriting investigation.

http://www.wfmz.com/news/politics/former-whitewater-prosecutor-congress-should-start-impeachment-proceedings/1075083976

Oppps 

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.2.8  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @2.2.7    2 weeks ago

No one is stopping them but themselves. They have been "certain" that Donald Trump is an agent of Russia for 2 1/2 years - at least when a news microphone is in front to them. But when it comes down to taking action - something that is actually within their power . . . nothing happens.

Why? Because they're full of shit. What they really want is to have talk of scandal during the election. That's what they really care about.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.9  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @2.2.8    2 weeks ago
But when it comes down to taking action - something that is actually within their power . . . nothing happens.

I know that you're not that out of touch Tacos! Since the Democrats have taken the House, hearings have occurred [Cohen], subpoenas have been issued and now today they voted to hold Barr in contempt. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.2.10  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @2.2.9    2 weeks ago

It's all meaningless without an actual impeachment. They plunge ahead with this silly action against the AG because they know it will look meaningful even though it isn't. The only think they could do that would matter is to impeach Trump. Everything else is posturing to try to influence the vote.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.11  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @2.2.10    2 weeks ago
It's all meaningless without an actual impeachment.

What brought you to that conclusion? 

They plunge ahead with this silly action against the AG because they know it will look meaningful even though it isn't.

I'd cite a historical reference but I know how you hate that...

The only think they could do that would matter is to impeach Trump.

They can do a plethora of things that would matter and impeaching Trump is only one of them. 

Everything else is posturing to try to influence the vote.

So you don't support the Congress gathering all of the evidence before taking any action. Got ya. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.2.12  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @2.2.11    2 weeks ago
So you don't support the Congress gathering all of the evidence before taking any action.

I support gathering evidence and thoughtfully weighing it before they say absurd crap like the president is an agent of Russia. (skip to about 5:30).

Now that we know the Trump campaign did not cooperate with Russian interference, the House and Senate should be focused on how we can thwart future attempts at interference. Instead, they care only about ruining the political power of the president. Their words and actions (also inaction) prove it.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.13  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @2.2.12    2 weeks ago
I support gathering evidence and thoughtfully weighing it before they

You mean 'he' right? 

say absurd crap like the president is an agent of Russia. (skip to about 5:30).

Yes, let's DO skip to 5:30 and avoid the context. 

Secondly, since that broadcast MUCH more evidence HAS come to light.

Perhaps Rep. Swalwell has a different POV now, perhaps not.

Yet if we take Trump's example, apologies for false statements aren't necessary.

If we listen to Christy, just like Trump, Swalwell has a right to his opinion, even if it's wrong. 

Now that we know the Trump campaign did not cooperate with Russian interference, the House and Senate should be focused on how we can thwart future attempts at interference.

Exactly! It's no surprise that Trump has pulled out all the stops to make that happen. /s

BTFW, they COULD have been doing that all along. McConnell, Burr and Graham/Grassley don't seem interested. According to IC testimony, little to NOTHING has been done. 

Instead, they care only about ruining the political power of the president.

Wow, you're assuming that the statement of ONE Rep. will ruin Trump's political power? 

Their words and actions (also inaction) prove it.

Specifics of each please. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.2.14  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @2.2.13    2 weeks ago
Perhaps Rep. Swalwell has a different POV now, perhaps not.

He does not. (1:45)

Morning Joe Grills Eric Swalwell: ‘Do You Regret Saying’ Trump is an ‘Agent of Russia?’

It's no surprise that Trump has pulled out all the stops to make that happen.

What would you like to see him do? Write a law? That's supposed to be the job of Congress.

little to NOTHING has been done

It would be premature to act before the investigation was complete. Now that it appears to be complete, it might be a good time to act so long as that action is something that could actually counter the behaviors discovered by the investigation. However, I know the senate is still investigating, so maybe when they are done, we will see some actionable recommendations.

Wow, you're assuming that the statement of ONE Rep. will ruin Trump's political power?

I gave you one example that makes the point. Many Democrats have focused their words and actions on attacking Trump instead of on combatting Russian interference. They know the evidence to convict on impeachment isn't there or the leadership would pursue it. Instead, they will do everything else they can to discredit the Trump administration and Republicans generally as Russian agents or sympathizers because it's the only way (in their minds) that he/they can be defeated in 2020.

Some more examples from politicians and leftist media.

Schiff: ‘Ample evidence of collusion in plain sight’

He said that AFTER the Mueller report said no US person had colluded with Russia. So don't tell me they care about evidence.

Putin Accomplice Mitch McConnell Says Case Closed

Putin accomplice. smh. jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

The GOP has become the Soviet party

Oh, geez.

Maxine Waters Starts "Impeach 45" Chant At 'Glamour Women Of The Year Awards'

18 months ago! Where was her evidence?

‘Case not closed, buddy’: Warren goes all in on Trump impeachment

More Democrats Call For Impeachment Proceedings Against President Trump

The latest is Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton . . . Moulton said he was ready to begin impeachment proceedings last year.

Last year? WTF for?

Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., said the Mueller report "tells us that this president and his administration engaged in obstruction of justice."

Sure Kamala. They obstructed by supplying like a million documents, by telling all their people to cooperate and testify honestly, and by answering tons and tons of questions (apparently, honestly). They did all this to cover up crimes that none of them actually committed. This is some kind of crazy loon-logic.

It is interesting that so many of the people calling for impeachment are running for president. Guess they have nothing else to offer.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3  seeder  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago
Sanders rips Trump for saying Mueller should not testify: 'You are not a dictator'
05/06/2019 11:39 TheHill.com: Briefing Room
 
Sen. Bernie Sanders... Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) May 6, 2019. Mueller could testify before Congress sometime this month on the findings of his 22-month long investigation. Trump on Twitter Sunday alleged Democrats seeking to have Mueller testify are looking for a “redo” after the special counsel's report concluded Trump did not collude with Russia to influence the 2016 election.
 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.1  Jasper2529  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 weeks ago

Sanders rips Trump for saying Mueller should not testify: 'You are not a dictator'

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/442284-sanders-refutes-trump-calling-for-mueller-to-not-testify-you

Well, Bernie is the Socialist who honeymooned in the USSR and who won't condemn NoKo, Cuba, Iran, Venezuela dictators. He's correct about one thing: Trump is not a dictator. What Bernie didn't say is that Trump has never behaved like a dictator or claimed to be one.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.1    2 weeks ago
What Bernie didn't say is that Trump has never behaved like a dictator or claimed to be one.

Here are just 2 instances.  There are a lot more to chose from, like ignoring legal subpoenas....

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.1.2  Jasper2529  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

Context and FACTS are important.

  • First video - Trump's comment was sarcastic/humorous about CHINA. Oh, wait ...  Trump isn't allowed to be either of those things!
  • Second video - Trump's comment was a reference to mental illness, specifically  Nikolas Cruz at a high school in Parkland, FL.

Neither video confirms him stating that he wants to be a US dictator. You need to try harder.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.1.2    2 weeks ago

Try harder.

Don't have to.

Trump's comment was sarcastic/humorous about CHINA.

Trump hasn't made a sarcastic/humorous comment in his life, he probably wouldn't recognize it as such if he heard one.  Just like the way he wanted a military parade to celebrate himself, no humor just an amazing ego coupled with a lack of functioning brain cells.

Trump's comment was a reference to mental illness, specifically  Nikolas Cruz at a high school in Parkland, FL.

Did you forget that Trump himself canceled Obama's executive order prohibiting people with mental illness from owning guns?  You also completely ignored the FACT that even those with mental illness have the right to due process.

 
 
 
Snuffy
3.1.4  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.3    2 weeks ago
Trump hasn't made a sarcastic/humorous comment in his life

Humor, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Just because you don't recognize it, IMO Trump does have a rather sarcastic sense of humor. I understood his first statement there to be much more joking but I guess you don't want to see it.

Did you forget that Trump himself canceled Obama's executive order prohibiting people with mental illness from owning guns?  You also completely ignored the FACT that even those with mental illness have the right to due process.

As for cancelling the EO,  even the ACLU favored getting rid of that. You mention due process but all that EO did was strip the Second amendment rights from social Security recipients without due process. In 2015 and 2016, the Obama administration implemented a series of policies that deemed those needing a representative payee through the Social Security Administration and Veterans Affairs “mentally unfit.” As a result, millions of individuals became ineligible to purchase a firearm. No adjudication of fact, no legal representation, just a stripping of rights without due process.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.1.2    2 weeks ago
  • First video - Trump's comment was sarcastic/humorous about CHINA. Oh, wait ...  Trump isn't allowed to be either of those things!
  • Second video - Trump's comment was a reference to mental illness, specifically  Nikolas Cruz at a high school in Parkland, FL.

Your Rumpsplanations don't cut it.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.6  Ozzwald  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.4    2 weeks ago
You mention due process but all that EO did was strip the Second amendment rights from social Security recipients without due process.

Liar!!!

8742707669_786cfa376b_k.jpg

It only effected the ones that were so non compos mentis that they could not do anything for themselves.

 
 
 
Snuffy
3.1.7  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.6    2 weeks ago

Nope,  not a lie.  Read the link from snopes.  Read the pdf below.  Nowhere in the rulings or the EO will you find that they have been adjudicated as mentally incompetent. It's an administrative ruling, and the EO had the Social Security Administration forward such to the NICS system so that they would be prevented from purchasing guns. If it had been adjudicated, then the SSA could not provide an administrative appeal process to remove them from said list.

While a topic to be discussed, and I do tend to agree that the mentally deficient should be closely reviewed to determine if they are competent enough to possess a gun, I firmly believe that this needs to follow the legal process and they must be properly adjudicated before their rights are taken away.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/social-security-recipients-barred-from-owning-guns/

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44752.pdf

Pursuant to both the Brady Act and NIAA, the SSA final rule specifies the conditions under which individuals are to be reported for inclusion in the NICS index as Social Security or SSI disability beneficiaries who are too mentally incompetent to be trusted with firearms or ammunition. The rule also outlines SSA’s process for notifying affected individuals as well as an administrative appeals process under which such individuals may request relief from the federal Gun Control, Mental Incompetency, and Social Security Administration Final Rule firearms prohibitions.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.6    2 weeks ago
It only effected the ones that were so non compos mentis that they could not do anything for themselves.

Simply not true.

Read the links in 3.1.7.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.7    2 weeks ago
If it had been adjudicated, then the SSA could not provide an administrative appeal process to remove them from said list.

There's the due process you demand. From your link:

Such persons would thus be unable to purchase firearms unless they successfully appealed the removal of their names from the NICS database through an established appeals process.

The appeals process isn't through the SSA, it's through NICS. 

BTW, what makes you think that a mental health adjudication can't be appealed? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.1.9    2 weeks ago
The appeals process isn't through the SSA, it's through NICS.

How Would Affected Individuals Have Their Records Removed from the NICS? SSA plans to notify the Attorney General that an affected individual’s record should be removed if (1) the individual is now capable of managing his or her benefit payments, (2) the individual died, (3) SSA receives information that it reported the record to the NICS in error, or (4) the agency grants the individual’s request for relief under the new rule.57 In requesting relief, an affected individual must prove that he or she is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and such relief will not be contrary to the public interest. Affected individuals denied relief by SSA may file a petition seeking judicial review in U.S. district court. 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.10    2 weeks ago
How Would Affected Individuals Have Their Records Removed from the NICS?

https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics/national-instant-criminal-background-check-system-nics-appeals-vaf

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.1.11    2 weeks ago

I supplied you the quote above--from the link 3.1.7. Just like the poster claimed.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.13  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.12    2 weeks ago
I supplied you the quote above--from the link 3.1.7. Just like the poster claimed.

And I supplied you with a link that answers that question. 

By the way, this part of your quote:

Affected individuals denied relief by SSA may file a petition seeking judicial review in U.S. district court.

Cites another venue for due process. I guess that BS has been put to bed. Thanks for pointing it out. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.1.13    2 weeks ago

My link answered the question just fine.

Of course, you do have to read and understand it first.

And if the only way to appeal is to go through NICS, then it would be pretty damn hard for anyone to be denied relief by the SSA. If SSA denied relief, then it is painfully obvious that an appeal may be made to SSA.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.15  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.14    2 weeks ago
My link answered the question just fine.

What link is that Tex? 

Of course, you do have to read and understand it first.

I read you QUOTE and understood it just fine. 

And if the only way to appeal is to go through NICS, then it would be pretty damn hard for anyone to be denied relief by the SSA.

Where did I say it was the 'only way to appeal' Tex. I thought y'all were adverse to that. 

If SSA denied relief, then it is painfully obvious that an appeal may be made to SSA.

It's logical that the next step after the SSA denial would be an appeal to NCIS. Or one CAN take the direct route. 

Either way, it puts to bed the bullshit that the policy denied due process don't you think? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.1.15    2 weeks ago
What link is that Tex?

The link is in 3.1.7.  My quote from the link is in post 3.1.10. Do try to pay SOEM attention, okay?

I read you QUOTE and understood it just fine.

Your posts prove otherwise, but it is nice you think so.

Where did I say it was the 'only way to appeal' Tex. I thought y'all were adverse to that

You did write this:

The appeals process isn't through the SSA, it's through NICS.

Which my post proved wrong. As far as what YOU think, I am not responsible for every thought that pops into your head. 

Yes, NOW due process will be allowed. Under the old rules of SSA, it was not.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.17  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.16    2 weeks ago
Which my post proved wrong.

It does? How? Are you actually claiming that the ONLY appeal is through SSA? If so, prove it. 

Yes, NOW due process will be allowed. Under the old rules of SSA, it was not.

Your 'link' proves otherwise. You insist that the appeal is via SSA yet fail to recognize that an appeal IS due process of the law.

Sad...

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.1.17    2 weeks ago

I can provide the information to you, but I can't understand it for you.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.19  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.18    2 weeks ago
I can provide the information to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Ditto. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.1.19    2 weeks ago

Wow. Original. Took 4 minutes to copy me?

Sad.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.21  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.20    2 weeks ago
Wow. Original. Took 4 minutes to copy me? Sad.

Wow. Original. Took 4 minutes to whine. 

Sad. 

Done now Tex or do you want to wait for a mod admonition to get back to the fucking topic? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.1.21    2 weeks ago

If you feel the need to report my comment, do it.

Don't threaten me.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.23  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.22    2 weeks ago
If you feel the need to report my comment, do it.

I don't bother mods with such triviality. 

Don't threaten me.

Where did I threaten you Tex? Please be specific. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1.24  It Is ME  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.22    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.25  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.1.23    2 weeks ago
I don't bother mods with such triviality.

So there WAS no point in you saying that.

Where did I threaten you Tex? Please be specific.

Why waste my time with someone who will refuse to understand?

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.26  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.25    2 weeks ago
So there WAS no point in you saying that.

Thank you for your unfounded conclusion. 

Why waste my time with someone who will refuse to understand?

In short, your allegation was BS. Noted. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
3.1.27  Snuffy  replied to  Dulay @3.1.9    2 weeks ago
There's the due process you demand.

No, you are wrong. You are implying that because there is an administrative fix they have due process. But the initial action of removing a persons 2nd amendment rights without going thru a legal process denies them the due process in the first place. You just cannot deny legal rights thru an administrative process, it must be performed within the judicial system.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.28  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.1.26    2 weeks ago
Thank you for your unfounded conclusion.

Sorry you won't accept facts.

In short, your allegation was BS. Noted.

Noted? HA! Play your word game with someone who cares.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.29  Dulay  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.27    2 weeks ago
But the initial action of removing a persons 2nd amendment rights without going thru a legal process denies them the due process in the first place.

That person has ALREADY gone through a 'legal process' to qualify for SSA for a mental disability and/or they have a representative payee because of a documented mental disability. Many representative payees are actually institutions like nursing homes. 

That 'legal process' qualifies as due process. No one that has actually reviewed the SSA procedure for qualifying for mental disability can claim that they ended up in that program without a 'legal process'. 

The FACT that they have an avenue of appeal adds ANOTHER level of due process. 

You just cannot deny legal rights thru an administrative process, it must be performed within the judicial system.

Since WHEN? Administrative policy is PART of the 'legal process' and is the very definition of 'procedural due process'. Look it up. 

Secondly, NOTHING stopped anyone from appealing their listing in a court of law. Yet you'll find that courts frown on bringing suit BEFORE one exhausts all ADMINSITATIVE avenues of mitigation, i.e. appropriate appeals. 

One more thing, the SSA policy change was NOT done through an Obama EO. 

Just sayin'. 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.30  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.28    2 weeks ago
Sorry you won't accept facts.

When you produce some I'll review them. 

Noted? HA! Play your word game with someone who cares.

I'd ask you what word games you're talking about but you've failed to support too many other claims that it's not even worth it.

Move on. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.31  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.1.30    2 weeks ago
When you produce some I'll review them.

S-u-r-e you would.

Past performance notwithstanding, of course!

Move on.

Good advice for once.

Will you be taking it yourself?

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.2  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 weeks ago

How does having an opinion equate to being a dictator?

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.2.1  Jasper2529  replied to  Tacos! @3.2    2 weeks ago
How does having an opinion equate to being a dictator?

Didn't you know that Trump is the only POTUS in our history who isn't allowed to express his opinions?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.2.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.2.1    2 weeks ago
Didn't you know that Trump is the only POTUS in our history who isn't allowed to express his opinions?

Trump doesn't have opinions, he has constipation of the mouth.  Every morning while he sits on his gold throne with his unsecured phone in his hand.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.2.3  Jasper2529  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.2    2 weeks ago
unsecured phone

Seems that you're confusing Hillary with Trump. It's well documented that she (and staff) owned and used unsecured phones, electronic devices, and servers during her SoS tenure.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.2.3    2 weeks ago

That's not true regarding Hillary or her staff.

It is true of the shitstain in chief now

 
 
 
lib50
3.2.5  lib50  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.2.3    2 weeks ago

Sounds like you aren't getting all the news. 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/21/trump-phone-security-risk-hackers-601903

The president uses at least two iPhones, according to one of the officials. The phones — one capable only of making calls, the other equipped only with the Twitter app and preloaded with a handful of news sites — are issued by White House Information Technology and the White House Communications Agency, an office staffed by military personnel that oversees White House telecommunications.

While aides have urged the president to swap out the Twitter phone on a monthly basis, Trump has resisted their entreaties, telling them it was “too inconvenient,” the same administration official said.

The president has gone as long as five months without having the phone checked by security experts. It is unclear how often Trump’s call-capable phones, which are essentially used as burner phones, are swapped out.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/u-s-officials-concerned-trump-discussing-sensitive-information-unsecured-cellphone-n924376

 
 
 
cjcold
3.2.6  cjcold  replied to  Tacos! @3.2    2 weeks ago

A dictator is as a childish dictator does. When will folk realize we have a authoritarian fool for a president?

 
 
 
cjcold
3.2.7  cjcold  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.2.3    2 weeks ago

Funny how Hillary's emails were never hacked but the state department's were.

Seems Hillary and the two republican Sec. States before her with private servers were smart.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.2.8  Ozzwald  replied to  lib50 @3.2.5    2 weeks ago
Sounds like you aren't getting all the news. 

LOL, Jasper sure disappeared after that one...jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.2.9  Ozzwald  replied to  cjcold @3.2.7    2 weeks ago

Seems Hillary and the two republican Sec. States before her with private servers were smart.

Slight correction.  Only Hillary used a private server, the 2 before her used public ones like Google, AOL, etc.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.2.10  Jasper2529  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.8    2 weeks ago
LOL, Jasper sure disappeared after that one..

Nope. I'm still here, laughing at those who still don't know the differences between email accounts and servers. Carry on!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.2.11  Ozzwald  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.2.10    2 weeks ago
Nope. I'm still here, laughing at those who still don't know the differences between email accounts and servers. Carry on!

Apparently you do not either...

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.12  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.4    2 weeks ago
That's not true regarding Hillary or her staff.

yeah, good old Abuela Hillary had a private, non-secured server unlike any of her predecessors.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
4  Jasper2529    2 weeks ago
The Republican Party should not permit Donald Trump to run for president in 2020. 

It's easy to contact them and tell them your concerns:

If you'd like to contact the RNC please email: ecampaign@gop.com

If you are a member of the media, please email: rncpress@gop.com

If you would like to schedule an interview with an RNC official, please email: booking@gop.com

https://www.gop.com/contact-us/

Hope this helps!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

As a captive audience of CNN (is there any other kind?)  a little while ago I saw one of the leaders being "interviewed."  Being CNN, there was not  a single question about the ideological history of the speaker, which almost certainly means she's hard core partisan.  The interviewer let her get away with merely saying "some" of the signers were Republicans ,with no follow ups.  CNN is just such a joke.   

Obviously, just by the CNN interview, one knew it's partisan hackery.

And sure enough, look at the list of "Republicans". Weld, who ran against Trump in 2016 as a libertarian and admitted he wanted Hillary to win. The rest are the usual anti-Trumpers including a Judge who wanted to criminally investigate Republicans for merely suggesting Rosenstein should be impeached. That's the caliber of these idiots, deranged anti-Trumpers who think it's criminal to suggest Congress exercise it's Constitutional powers. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    2 weeks ago

Sure enough, the former prosecutor is a serial donater to ACT Blue and Democratic Candidates. 

Shocking CNN didn't mention that. Imagine how they would handle a similar letter from hard core Republicans. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1    2 weeks ago
Sure enough, the former prosecutor is a serial donater to ACT Blue and Democratic Candidates. 

So what about the other 469? 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Tacos!
Dean Moriarty
Ed-NavDoc
epistte


65 visitors