Mukasey Op-ed Should Strike Fear in Democrats
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
If I were a Democrat, I would be afraid, I would be very afraid, after reading former Attorney General Michael Mukasey's Monday WSJ oped: " John Durham's Ukrainian Leads ." The subtitle is "What the prosecutor has found may be quite different from what the Democrats are looking for."
Mukasey begins:
Americans often boast that we are a nation of laws, but for the moment laws appear to play a decidedly secondary role in the drama we are living in and—hopefully—through.
True enough, but the nub of the article, which returns us to the rule of law, comes further on:
True, much media and political effort has gone into sometimes close and often willful parsing of President Trump’s July 25 conversation with President Volodymyr Zelensky —ironic when you consider Mr. Trump’s well-known linguistic promiscuity—not to mention the celebrated whistleblower complaint, which contains no firsthand information. Little notice has been given, however, to another document lying in plain sight: a Justice Department press release issued the day the conversation transcript became public.
That Justice Department statement makes explicit that the president never spoke with Attorney General William Barr “about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son” or asked him to contact Ukraine “on this or any other matter,” and that the attorney general has not communicated at all with Ukraine. It also contains the following morsel: “A Department of Justice team led by U.S. Attorney John Durham is separately exploring the extent to which a number of countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. While the Attorney General has yet to contact Ukraine in connection with this investigation, certain Ukrainians who are not members of the government have volunteered information to Mr. Durham, which he is evaluating.” [Bold mine]
The number of countries includes the U.K. and Italy, the latter of which was just visited by one William Barr. So what's going on? More from Mukasey:
The definitive answer to the obvious question—what’s that about?—is known only to Mr. Durham and his colleagues. But publicly available reports, including by Andrew McCarthy in his new book, “Ball of Collusion,” suggest that during the 2016 campaign the Federal Bureau of Investigation tried to get evidence from Ukrainian government officials against Mr. Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, to pressure him into cooperating against Mr. Trump. When you grope through the miasma of Slavic names and follow the daisy chain of related people and entities, it appears that Ukrainian officials who backed the Clinton campaign provided information that generated the investigation of Mr. Manafort—acts that one Ukrainian court has said violated Ukrainian law and “led to interference in the electoral processes of the United States in 2016 and harmed the interests of Ukraine as a state.”
Sorry to quote so extensively, but the WSJ is behind a paywall and I thought everyone should see as much of Mukasey's writing as possible. Reading not so far between the lines here, it's clear that the biggest story of 2019 or maybe 2020 is yet to come — and it won't be impeachment. The Russia Probe is being turned on its head.
Tags
Who is online
74 visitors
" John Durham's Ukrainian Leads ." The subtitle is "What the prosecutor has found may be quite different from what the Democrats are looking for."
Mukasey begins:
True enough, but the nub of the article, which returns us to the rule of law, comes further on:
Yes, you were so accurate about McCabe being indicted.
He will be. So will Comey. And Clapper, and the communist Brennan.
Well the ICIG statement released yesterday debunks that statement so maybe Mukasey should write a retraction.
An opinion/editorial? Oh, I'm scared shitless!!!!
Democrats are scared to death - that we will find out that the intelligence agencies have spied on, entrapped and violated the rights of American citizens while trying to oust an American President.
Republicans are scared to death.
Of what? Pelosi won't even bring an impeachment inquiry to a vote?
Only in your wildest dreams...
Nope in reality.
This will be at least the third time I have asked you this question:
WHY do you think that Pelosi NEEDS to bring an Impeachment inquiry to a vote?
She dosen't have to for a simple inquiry, but if and when she is serious about bringing about an actual impeachment she will have to.
Here is how it works:
"The impeachment process begins with a vote in the House of Representatives on the formal accusation or charge giving rise to the call for impeachment. Impeachment requires a majority vote of the members of the House, but this is just the first step of a two-step process.
A successful impeachment vote by the House is a formal accusation or charge against the president or other official. It does not, however, result in the removal of the person from public office. The second step in the process is a trial in the Senate presided over by the vice president in cases involving any public official other than the president. Presidential impeachment trials are presided over by the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
At the conclusion of the trial, a vote is held in much the same manner as a trial jury votes to convict or acquit following a trial in a criminal court. Two-thirds of the members of the Senate must vote in favor of conviction for a president to be removed from office through impeachment."
The question I keep asking is why hasn't she asked for the vote is to highlight the obvious reason why she is holding back. You are now going to try and tell us what? That she is going to hold impeachment inquiry's indefinately?
Because he is smart enough to know that for impeachment to actually occur, a vote MUST be taken.
That's how it works.
You can look it up.
We have nothing to be scared of. Certainly not pathetic vindictive small minded corrupt politicians that make up the majority of the US House and their lying lame stream media allies.
Perhaps it would behoove you to review the PURPOSE of an Impeachment INQUIRY. THEN, recognize that the House INDICTS, the Senate conducts the trial. There's a thingy called the Constitution and that's where the rules start. You should read it.
The STOP asking why she hasn't brought the Impeachment INQUIRY a vote Vic.
Bullshit Vic. You're being disingenuous. Since you FINALLY admit that NO vote is required, what the fuck are you pretending that Pelosi is 'holding back' on?
How long will Trump obstruct the inquiry Vic? How many Trump minions will require litigation before they honor subpoenas?
Oh and BTFW, Trump and his minions are STILL investigating Clinton's emails and retroactively classifying them. Are you worried about how much time that has taken?
Are you smart enough to know that an Impeachment INQUIRY is only the first step to Impeachment Tex?
That's how it works.
YOU can look it up.
You haven't seen the news tonight have you Xx.
The IG from the State Department requested an EMERGENCY meeting with 8 Congressional Committees. He want's to meet with them TOMORROW.
A bunch of Congress people are getting on planes tonight.
I knew I should have kept you on ignore. A VOTE IS REQUIRED TO PROCEEDED WITH IMPEACHMENT!
Did you put me on ignore before or after you LOCKED your seed after replying to me 4 times?
We're not talking about PROCEEDED WITH IMPEACHMENT!, we're talking about an Impeachment INQUIRY.
Do try to keep up.
Sure. I am also smart enough to know that isn't what we were discussing.
That's not in dispute here.
Sure. But what is the point and goal of an impeachment inquiry?
To impeach.
And for that, you need a vote.
Yes you did. Don’t ever do that again!!!
Really? Then what is this about Tex?
They will never find enough in their “inquiry” to ever bring their illegitimate sham show trial to a vote.
When it’s written by a former US AG who knows exactly what he’s talking about, you should be.
Your seed is an opinion piece by Roger L Simon based on another opinion piece by a former US AG.
Now if that former AG was a Democrat maybe more people would take notice, but that isn't the case.
So This is just more partisan opinion from one opinion writer being "shared" by the owner of a pretty partisan co-founder of a conservative website, PJ Media.
So you only go by democrats & liberals. Ok, we already knew.
That’s for sure! Nothing new there at all.
Mukasey wasn’t particularly conservative. Much more a moderate Republican during his career. The seeded article quoted as much of Mukasey as he could considering that the Mukasey article was and may still be behind a Wall St. Journal paywall. This article gives Mukasey’s writings more exposure.
Gotta to stay in the circle of safety.
The seeded article quotes parts of Mukasey's article that are BEHIND the paywall.
Fail.
No it doesn't, it's a bias regurgitation of Mukasey's writings.
Wrong, Wrong and Wrong. Are you ever fuckin right?
It's just like trying to run an inquiry through the Intelligence Committee with the most partisan member of congress holding the gavel. The same people are smearing the AG now, because they found out he interviewed Joseph Mifsud, the guy that told Papadapoulous the Russians had dirt on Hillary, but supposedly the FBI didn't know where he went & never charged him. You know, the guy that wreaks of CIA!
Why yes Vic, YES I am. I got the FACT that your seed about 'the CIA gutted the Complaint form' was utter bullshit right. Didn't I Vic?
I ALSO got this right. Here is ALL that isn't behind the WSJ paywall:
There is a BUNCH more quoted in the article so I got that right too, didn't I Vic?
Anymore questions I can answer for you Vic?
A month ago y'all were decrying the 'Squad' as the most partisan members of Congress. None of them are on the Intel Committee.
Barr is running so fast from this shit show that his jowls might knock him out.
Wrong as usual. No regurgitation at all, simple direct quotes of what Mukasey actually wrote.
Bullshit as usual. Truncated quotes and unfounded commentary.
Vic, I have never seen such an occurrence.,.,