As Democratic leaders tentatively took impeachment proceedings off the docket this week, the White House put payback on the front burner — calling for closer looks into everyone from the FBI officials who investigated the Russia case to allies of Hillary Clinton’s campaign who solicited foreign help during the 2016 presidential campaign.
“All those things have to be explored and more,” Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani told “Fox & Friends” on Wednesday.
On social media and in televised interviews, President Trump, his attorneys, his campaign and senior members of his administration have in the wake of the Robert Mueller report seemingly adopted a strategy of highlighting lesser-known episodes of alleged misconduct by Democrats and investigators, as Democrats pursue obstruction of justice inquiries.
White House adviser Kellyanne Conway led the charge on Monday, openly wondering on Twitter why former FBI Director James Comey focused so heavily on the lurid and salacious claims in a largely discredited anti-Trump dossier.
“Comey, then-FBI Director, waited 2 months after @realDonaldTrump was elected to pay a visit & brief the President-elect,” Conway wrote. “While there, he wasted his time on this golden-shower-nonsense-concocted-dossier. Could have been honest about Obama ignoring Russian interference instead.”
Comey, then-FBI Director, waited 2 months after @realDonaldTrump was elected to pay a visit & brief the President-elect. While there, he wasted his time on this golden-shower-nonsense-concocted-dossier. Could have been honest about Obama ignoring Russian interference instead. https://t.co/LqmvGs9okB
— Kellyanne Conway (@KellyannePolls) April 22, 2019
“Tables are finally turning on the Witch Hunt!” Trump also tweeted.
The FBI is currently being sued by conservative group Judicial Watch, after the bureau failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request concerning contacts in late 2016 between the then-FBI general counsel and a top Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer, as well as contacts between the FBI and the author of the dossier.
Comey briefed Trump on the salacious contents of the dossier in January 2017, ostensibly to make him aware of potential blackmail threats, Comey later testified. That confidential meeting later leaked, and CNN cited the fact that intelligence officials had briefed Trump on the dossier as a justification for airing the story, even though the dossier’s claims were unverified.
Comey told lawmakers that then-National Intelligence Director James Clapper, an Obama appointee, came up with the idea to brief Trump on the dossier’s contents.
I’m going to have to buy popcorn in bulk.
Where is the bus route it will be fun to watch them throw each other under it.
Certainly the evidence to pursue has been extensively uncovered and developed; it wasn’t hidden that well anyway, since Hillary was supposed to win and then bury it all.
We may need a new prison.
@Deplorable Me: We could put them all in Gitmo with “some people”
You won the Witch Hunt, and there has never been a president who has been more transparent. Got it.
@Greg: He has, you should probably admit, been MADE totally transparent, and what we see is pretty damn clean. Obama, who promised to be THE most transparent administration, was anything but. Corrupt, scandals, failures, spying and then, for the icing, persecuting and prosecuting “whistle-blowers”.
No collusion, no obstruction.
@Greg:
The most ridiculous part of his tweet was his threat to go to SCOTUS if the House starts impeachment hearings. The Supreme Court has no role in that process at all. His lack of understanding about how the government actually works is massive.
@Deplorable Me:
If by “no obstruction” you mean “ten documented instances of obstruction that Mueller teed up for Congress to address,” then yes. You are correct.
@Michael: I mean NO OBSTRUCTION. Since there were no charges of obstruction, then NO OBSTRUCTION was found.
So, to summarize, NO OBSTRUCTION because there was NO OBSTRUCTION found.
@Deplorable Me, #5:
Uh huh. Where are his tax returns? You know, the ones he promised to make public? He has ordered a subordinate to break a law requiring that they be provided by the IRS to a Congressional committee for confidential review upon their request. And he has now ordered that White House staff ignore Congressional subpoenas.
This guy is about as transparent as mud. That, at least, is clear.
@Michael:
I guess no one has told him about that yet. He’s also suing Elijah Cummings.
@Greg: OMG Elijah will beat him to death with his over the limit race card, like those , “Let the record show White Bankers”
Told you so we will see this shake out in court.
Who knows it might just end up in the Supreme court to better define the limitations of the banana republic of US Congress’s oversight powers.
Trump could lose.
@Deplorable Me:
That’s not the way it works. Mueller did not indict the president, but he laid out 182 pages of obstruction that the president conducted, and he specifically said that the president was not exonerated on the question of obstruction.
I really don’t understand why you’re pushing “no obstruction.” That’s clearly not what Mueller says in his report. You could even get away with “no obstruction at a level worth charging the president with,” and you could make a case for it (but you’d be wrong, what with the whole “not indicting a sitting president” thing and the whole “here you go, Congress, it’s up to you to prove that the president isn’t above the law” thing). But to just keep insisting on NO OBSTRUCTION is flying in the face of the report.
You’re saying that if a person wasn’t indicted, then a crime wasn’t committed. That’s simply not the way the world works. By your logic, Obama never did anything wrong because he hasn’t been formally charged with a crime. Now, I know you don’t believe that, right?
@Michael: You know damn well Barry is innocent until proven guilty, an investigation will take place if there is enough evidence Barry will be indicted and given a fair trial.
His happy minions will be investigated.
@Greg:
Where is the legal need to see them? For that matter, where are OUR State Department emails Hillary destroyed? Let’s see those first, then we can worry about tax returns.
However, it looks like that has been back-burnered.
Don’t worry; Obama made that OK.
Just because Trump has committed no crimes is no reason to bare his entire life to liberal whiny crybabies that are irresponsible with information. If there is a specific legal need for information, it will be provided.
No President has ever been impeached for inflicting butthurt on a bunch of spoiled, whiny babies. Perhaps the Supreme Court will decide the proper use of impeachment.
@Michael:
Well, yeah it is. Had there been reason to indict Mueller would have said so instead of “Well, I couldn’t find anything… YOU try it.”
Don’t you wish along about now that you had something besides blathering idiots as Presidential candidates? Impeachment just ain’t gonna work out for you crybabies.
@Deplorable Me: Impeachment wont go before the courts , but these oppo research subpoenas might see the supremes, Barry had lots of cases there, https://www.cato.org/blog/obamas-abysmal-record-supreme-court. Elijah isnt seeking impeachment he is wanting opposition research, ignorant liberal voters believe any deduction or business expense is grounds for impeachment as their TVs will tell them so.
They will trot out an “expert”. A preview…
This is professor Butt Hurt with a degree in Male whiteness, she filed taxes last year now she will now reveal the bombshell in trumps taxes.
@kitt: Well, they won’t be using Cohen anymore. He has kind of revealed himself, as if anyone hadn’t figured this out already.
https://www.blabber.buzz/conservative-news/555917-leaked-recording-reveals-michael-cohen-reneging-on-some-guilty-pleas-special?utm_source=c-alrt&utm_medium=c-alrt-email&utm_term=c-alrt-GI
Star witness. Revealler of the Truth. President Slayer. The Democrats can really pick em.
@Deplorable Me: Sure the part of the sad saga where Mueller raped attorney client privilege, and Attorney Spineless came up with illegal recordings, really crappy recording device too.
@Deplorable Me, #14:
How many times does it have to be explained that the law does not require Congress to explain their need to see them? It’s an oversight power. They have been intentionally given the power to review anyone’s tax returns just to see that all is in order, and the IRS has no legal basis for denying such a request.
If you want a reason in spite of the fact that they don’t have to give one, in this particular person’s case it isn’t only a matter of seeing that taxes are being properly paid. There are also questions of conflict of interest and vulnerability to blackmail.
Why the hell is he resisting this—to the point of willfully defying the law and misusing his power of office to command other people to do so—unless he’s hiding something serious?
@Greg:
There needs to be evidence of a REASON for oversight. In case you haven’t been paying attention, they don’t “oversight” everyone. They conduct oversight when their is a perceived NEED for oversight. THAT’S what the Constitution provides. I don’t know how many times I have to remind you of THAT.
He is audited every year, so you can forget about the first part. His taxes won’t tell you anything about the second part, so you can forget that. What else you got?
Because it is his RIGHT, just as it is every American citizen’s right. It was so important, they wrote an Amendment for it. If he submits to this simply for the reason of digging for political oppo research, the government can do this to ANYONE. You liberals don’t really care about such things as the Constitution, rights and freedom, do you? They get in the way of your grasping power despite the fact that most Americans don’t WANT Democrats, liberalism and socialism.
@Deplorable Me, #19:
No, there does not. Congressional oversight is not governed by the investigative rules that apply in criminal law, to law enforcement, and to the Department of Justice. They have the legal power to confidentially examine anyone’s tax returns in closed session simply because they deem it necessary. The law intentionally created that specific oversight power when a situation arose that clearly demonstrated such a power was necessary.
@Greg: He is protecting the office from banana republic tactics with all the resources he has. Already Russian disinformation was taken unverified and they ripped into every person in his campaign ruining them financially for your latest nothing burger. The democrats are proving they do not deserve anyones vote. They are on an endless unicorn hunt, Trump is exposing them for the fakes, frauds, empty shells they are, they cant legislate. They have no platform to legislate.
Nothing they do will stop the pain to come, there are things in the pipeline, the walls are closing in, to borrow a phrase. Declassification.
@Greg:
You will find, soon, that indeed there does. As stated, I know you and your fellow Democrats HATE the Constitution for all it’s impediments to wantonly doing whatever the hell you want, but it is, nevertheless THERE and still functions as the guiding principle of this great nation. As soon as it doesn’t and we become the socialist ruin-in-the-making you crave, THEN you can peak into everyone’s private business to find the crime to suit the man, komrad.
@Deplorable Me:
The only body that has to evaluate need in this situation is Congress. If Congress feels the need to subpoena someone’s tax returns, it can do so, and the law compels the IRS to comply. Period.
No test or justification is required.
Could this law be used against you or me? Yes. Should it be a different way? That’s a whole separate question. But the law is what it is, and your all-capsing your way into a stroke won’t change that.
Read the law.
@Michael:
As I said to Greg, you will soon find out that innocent people are protected against unjust and illegal search and seizure. You are going to have to rid yourself of the Constitution before you can operate in the manner you wish.
I don’t think so. Nor do any legal experts who know vastly more about the law than I do.
No one is going to allow any U.S. president be able to use his or her powers of office to rise beyond the reach of constitutional law. If that were ever allowed to happen, we would no longer have a president, we would have an autocratic ruler. Our system of government was designed with checks and balanced to prevent that from happening. Congressional oversight is part of the mechanism that keeps it from happening.
@Greg:
Perhaps you should broaden the scope of your advisers from only liberal sycophants.
The Constitution is what you are trying to violate. The Constitution supports Trump’s position.
@Deplorable Me: deja vu this seems to be a rerun of You dont know whats in Muellers report, he has loads of Russian stuff, he has the Russians, you just cant see what right in front of your face Trump is a Russian agent all of his children are Russian spies, Putin is Barons Father!
Such nonsense TV nonsense, We have all the time in the world declassification will happen, the courts will make a decision on the Democrats wanting the keys to Donalds lingerie drawer. They know they cant beat him in an election impeachment is their only hope.
The Constitution will support the law that the man in the White House is brazenly flouting, as it was created 95 years ago in the manner prescribed by the Constitution for just this sort of occasion. Trump’s lawyers have undoubtedly told him that, unless he has hired complete idiots. He probably views this as nothing more than a delaying tactic. In fact, it may become yet another argument for a finding of obstruction of justice, or a finding that he is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors in the context of an impeachment. A president is not above the law.
@Deplorable Me:
Maybe you could share some links. I’d be interested in seeing what they have to say.
I was unable to find one single legal type who says that Congress doesn’t have the power to do this, but I may have been typing in the wrong search terms.
Legal experts predict the matter will end up as a separation-of-powers case before the Supreme Court.
The Internal Revenue Code, Section 6103, guarantees the confidentiality of all tax returns.
The Supreme Court takes interest in separation-of-powers arguments,” Levey said. “This is not something the administration will give up on, nor will the Democrats accept any compromise. So, it won’t be settled in any way. It has the hallmarks for a Supreme Court case.”
1976, Congress passed legislation making tax returns confidential and prohibiting disclosure of taxpayer information without the taxpayer’s consent. that just may over ride the 90 year old law Greg is referring to.
Who knows, maybe, maybe not.
If the congress does not start working for their voters, the may not maintain the House.
10,000 member caravan arrived in Mexico city and nothing on immigration reform. I think all of congress are to busy running for President, on the get Trump Platform, and freebies. Medicare broke in 8 years they want everyone to have it, I dont want a 40 to 70 % income tax rate for that free shit.
@Greg:
No, it won’t. Make releasing 10 years of tax results a prerequisite for running for office if you want to but you CAN NOT simply demand on a whim access to private information. So, you can just accept the FACT.
@Michael:
I’m sorry; my fault. I wasn’t aware you didn’t already know this.
https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment4.html
@Deplorable Me:
So you can’t find anybody with legal experience who can support your interpretation of this law.
@Michael: I defer to the Founding Fathers. I think the 4th Amendment is pretty clear on “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated“. I don’t need someone else to tell me what to think, as some apparently do.
@Deplorable Me: The response to request for opposition research request.
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Secretary-Mnuchin-Response-to-Chairman-Neal-Plus-Appendix-A.pdf
See ya in court suckers…
@Deplorable Me:
There’s a whole branch of the Federal government — the judiciary, which was also established by the Framers, by the way — which deals with the basic question of whether or not particular laws (and applications of those laws) abide by the Constitution.
You have decided that the statute in question counts as an unreasonable search, but nobody cares what you think — or what I think, for that matter. What accounts in this situation is what judges and lawyers think, since they’re the ones who will be making the case for or against the statute’s constitutionality.
You can find no judges or lawyers who can make a case for your position on this issue (or, if you can, you’re making it seem that you can’t by playing coy on the matter).
@kitt:
Possibly, but Mnuchin says in the letter that the department hasn’t yet decided what to do about the request.
He makes a solid case as to why the statute in question is a bad idea, but it doesn’t seem quite as strong to me as a layman on the issue of whether or not it’s constitutional. That would be up to the lawyers to fight about, I guess.
@Michael: Read the legal references in the PDF.
Trump is not giving him permission, so this is not a refusal, no order from the White House. He is seeking legal clarification. The congress is not an investigative branch it is a legislative branch, no legislative cause was provided.
Billionaires have a right to win an election, constant harassment used as cover for their lack of legislative skills is no excuse.
@kitt:
I didn’t say there was.
@kitt:
True, but they don’t get to change the rules simply because they’re billionaires and it would make them unhappy to follow said rules.
@Michael: Rules? Which rules, have you perused the reasons cited for not producing millions of the Presidents private tax documents?
This is just driving the progressive commies further into their cesspool of insanity, and its glorious to witness.
If the supreme court gives Don a win on this issue what is next?
No President is above the law, nor below it.
Congressional Powers are vast but there are limits.
@Michael:
Uh…coming from the Party who wants to get rid of the EC so they can win? And a party that supplanted the democratic process to install Hillary and block Sanders?
That’s rich.
All Presidents have their elections bought for them. Obama’s was purchased as surely as anyone’s. He spend more on both elections, and won both. They tried to cover this up so Reps couldn’t say “money won the election.” But it does.
Trump is only president to ever give a billion dollars (now or adjusted). It’s unprecedented. As a result, he’s been able to stay with his promises…because they were HIS promises.
He didn’t payback United Healthcare with ACA contracts (Obama did). He didn’t “evolve” on issues that were only for political maneuvering.
I got what I voted for. It’s incredible.
Trump has followed the rules. The Dems never do. They are notorious for moving the goal posts instead of getting better.
Trump will win the popular vote, and the liberal tears are going to flow worse this time, than last.
@kitt:
I was actually thinking about the Emoluments Clause when I was writing that. The arguments I’ve seen here on the topic are all along the lines of, “He shouldn’t have to abide by that because he’s rich and has a large business empire, and we knew that we he was elected.”
@kitt: And that, as they say, is THAT.
Excellent observation. Michael, Greg and other liberals don’t seem to accept either end of that statement. They are satisfied that a Democrat President gets to act outside the law and a Republican President has no legal or Constitutional protections whatsoever.
@Michael:
And so, NO tax returns until it is decided. Trump has every right, and IS absolutely right, to expect his tax returns to remain private unless he decides otherwise. As Mnuchin’s letter clearly and accurately states, this is an unprecedented request for revelation for the sake of revelation; there is no LEGAL NEED described. So, no… you don’t get them.
There is no “rule” to change. There is no power to simply seek someone’s IRS returns for the sheer fun of it.
@Nathan Blue:
I’m not “the Party,” and I don’t pretend to speak for “the Party.” I’m speaking for myself here.
As I mentioned to kitt, the rule I was referring to specifically was the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.
USSC oversight on Presidential impeachment, which has never been challenged, is a possibility:
“Justice White indicates an unwillingness, on his part at least, to conclude in advance that a Presidential impeachment would be unreviewable. See Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 244. [1993]As stated by Justice White at footnote 3, page 247 of the Walter Nixon case:
“Finally, as applied to the special case of the President, the majority’s argument merely points out that, were the Senate to convict the President without any kind of trial, a Constitutional crisis might well result. It hardly follows that the Court ought to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Nor does it follow that, in cases of Presidential impeachment, the Justices ought to abandon their constitutional responsibilities because the Senate has precipitated a crisis.”
This view is echoed by Justice Souter in his concurring opinion in the same case:
“If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results…judicial interference might well be appropriate.” Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 253.”
https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html
The USSC was basically reserving the right to hear arguments on a Presidential impeachment.
A trial would be required in order for the Senate, not the House of Representatives, to remove a sitting President. And that trial would have to be of a criminal nature. IOW, how a president committed a crime. Not the “appearance” of “intent” to commit a crime, but an actual crime. The intent to rob a bank, but lacked actions to plan or execute the robbing of a bank, is not a prosecutorial crime.
Mueller found no prosecutorial crime of “obstruction” against Trump. What Mueller did do in over two hundred pages was write an op-ed and kick the ball to the Congress to find a “crime.”
Meanwhile, we learn that almost 49,000 Clinton emails, some labeled Top Secret, were found on Anthony Weiner’s lap top. We also know that Hillary used the same secret server to send emails to the Office of President [Obama]. If our resident indoctrinated liberals want a crime to actually go after, that would be the one.
@retire05:
Nobody is saying otherwise.
Sure, bearing in mind that “high crimes” don’t need to violate a statute to be “high crimes.” Impeachment is not a criminal trial; it’s impeachment, which is its own thing.
The House should impeach President Clinton.
@retire05:
They only want and actual REPUBLICAN crime to go after and they are willing to invent it if they have to.
@Michael:
Thus we have the difference between the level to which the Trump administration cooperated fully with the Mueller administration and how the Obama administration stalled, stonewalled, hid and destroyed evidence and granted immunity in order to make sure they ran out the clock. Impeachment is no longer an option there, but criminal proceeds, thankfully, are.
@Deplorable Me:
Yet again, I was referring to the Emoluments Clause there.
@Michael:
I pointed out in a previous thread how difficult your case is to make that he is making large profits from the events or rental of rooms, what if there are losses does the Federal Reserve reimburse that?
a side question
Should we allow dual citizenship to be held by any member of congress?
@kitt: I suppose if Trump were to tank the economy, like Obama did, the left would be happier knowing he was losing money due to his policies. One wonders, since Obama only lives off gratuities, what his angle was?