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.
@Michael:
Fortunately for the nation, Hillary Clinton was not elected and never will be President.
Of course, you knew which Clinton I was speaking of. Do you intentionally feign stupidity in an attempt to be comical?
Yet, the impeachment clause specifically states “high crimes and misdemeanor” both prosecutable under federal statutes. The second phase of impeachment, trial by the Senate, is a criminal trial based on the [criminal] violation of a law.
Where did you get your degree? Some internet university in Bali?
It is your contention that President Trump has violated the Emoluments Clause? If so, based on what proven evidence?
@kitt:
When it comes down to it, the question of whether he’s making a profit doesn’t even really arise, even though I used the word as a shorthand for “making money off of his presidency.” The pertinent clause reads as follows:
He shouldn’t allow money from foreign governments to flow into his personal bank account. Notice that this doesn’t cover money made from book sales — this is about money from foreign government entities, such as that made when foreign diplomats book rooms in your hotels. If he didn’t want to lose that sweet, sweet foreign government money, he shouldn’t have run for president.
If there’s no law against it, then yes. It’s certainly a valid question to be raised in the course of a campaign.
A relevant thought for the day.
Democrats lied
Obama spied
Gregory cried
AATW
@Deplorable Me, #31:
While in this particular case Trump’s tax returns are most definitely NOT being demanded “on a whim”, the committee in question COULD demand them with no more reason than that if they so desired, because the law empowers them to do precisely that.
This degree of power was granted intentionally and purposefully as an oversight power. It allows Congress to confidentially examine tax returns to check on the honesty and integrity of those entrusted by the people with great powers of office that could otherwise be secretly abused. This IRS does not do this sort of oversight. It lacks the authority. The IRS will be satisfied if an audit demonstrates that you’ve properly paid your taxes on an illegal enterprise. (Seriously. This is a fact. If you don’t believe me, look it up yourself.)
Trump is misusing his powers of office in the very effort he is making to evade such oversight. He is ordering a subordinate who works for the people to break the law to prevent a confidential examination of his financial dealings. He is most likely breaking the law to hide something even more significant—and that is the central concern.
You’re arguing that a president is above the law; that he can order federal appointees under his authority to break the law to protect himself from scrutiny. This one is never going to fly. It’s a step too far. Anyone who thinks this through can easily understand why.
@Michael:
It is your contention that any elected official who earns dividends (earnings) from investments with companies that conduct business with “foreign government entities” should be impeached?
@Greg: Read the letter there is no such order,Trump simply has not given his permission, he cites the law, a law that may supercede the older statute. That law was passed to insure privacy of tax payers, all taxpayers.
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Secretary-Mnuchin-Response-to-Chairman-Neal-Plus-Appendix-A.pdf
I know you cannot simply understand the position Mnuchin is in, to wait until he hears from the Justice Dept. for clarification, and this issue may need to be decided by the SCOTUS. Trump is not below the law. I am sure if the court orders it he will provide the private documents requested.
Its quite simple get the knot out of your thong. Look at the slow walk the congress got in request for Clinton documents dealing with Bengahzi.
Maybe the documents were on Lois Learners hard drive, then what?
@Michael: Your “self” is part of the Party, bub. You’re a Democrat, and you’re going to vote for whoever the Party nominates. You’ll do it blindly, and have any justification they give for you to have.
It’s also likely your a paid troll.
@retire05:
The Democrats merely want to inflict political damage with impeachment. When it fails in the Senate, they further exploit it by claiming the Republicans don’t care about ethics, blah, blah, blah. Clinton had 12 CHARGES for which he was impeached.
@Michael:
Hillary. State Department. Clinton Foundation. Millions and millions and millions of dollars in foreign money pouring in. YOU supported her. Try again.
@Greg:
Nothing BUT a whim. And, no, they won’t get them.
@kitt:
Remember, liberals only like and respect the laws that serve their political agenda.
@retire05:
Maybe we could start by reminding them of what they need to do, which, traditionally, is put their finances into a blind trust. Just as Trump was reminded and then declined to do.
If need be, we can move on from there.
@Deplorable Me:
Actually, I didn’t. You try again. Trump promised that he was going to lock her up. He has been President for over two years. Why isn’t he doing anything?
“Try again,” my ass.
@kitt, #57:
Mnuchin is pretty much babbling. There’s nothing whatsoever in Article I of the Constitution that would limit the scope of 26 U.S. Code § 6103(f).
Article I , Section 1 defines the powers of Congress as follows:
This broadly grants Congress the power to make law in accordance with Constitutional process—which was exactly what they did in creating 26 U.S. Code § 6103(f). It doesn’t say anything defining or limiting the laws that Congress may make under that process. The law in question has existed since 1924. Its constitutionality has never been challenged. If its application is unprecedented, it is only because the election of someone like Donald Trump is unprecedented.
The remaining sections of Article I don’t even remotely relate to what Mnuchin is claiming.
@Deplorable Me:
Trump has been president for two years. He needs to get a move on!
@Deplorable Me, #59:
You can keep on saying that, for all the difference it will make.
@Greg: It is a reference to the powers of legislating so the tax request should be used for that purpose, to alter change or create a law so sorry you were not able to interpret his meaning. It is clear congress just wants them to be public, no other intent just to get them out there in the public. I am sure in a searchable pdf format the buzzards are circling.
There’s very little about Article I that requires interpretation. It’s all very clear and straightforward. The same can be said for 26 U.S. Code § 6103(f). There’s nothing confusing about it.
Trump is ordering his subordinates to break the law in an effort to avoid congressional oversight. He’s not nobly taking a stand to protect the integrity of the Office of President, or the privacy of individuals. He’s obstructing an investigation, as he has been attempting to do since it began. He’s hiding something serious enough that it makes it worth taking such a risk.
@Greg:
From 26 U.S. Code § 6103
Any resolution described in this paragraph shall specify the purpose for which the return or return information is to be furnished and that such information cannot reasonably be obtained from any other source.
The Democrats stomping their feet and saying “Because we want them” is not a valid reason.
@retire05:
And that is not what they’ve said.
@Michael:
I fully understand. I would never admit it, either.
After the campaign, Trump wanted peace and unity. He did not (much to my disappointment) continue the calls for prosecuting Hillary… until the never-ending investigations began, as a political strategy, against him. Now, there are numerous investigations into emails, the Clinton Foundation, Uranium One (all connected) and more will be on the way, I’m sure. Trump tried to let bygones be bygones, but the sore-loser Democrats didn’t.
http://www.magapill.com/?fbclid=IwAR3NvOLl0O9kMBaUFYX-MfFRiKG2HEFtE6KNTdWKIeIjthDrpszrRtyarAE
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/trumps-list-289-accomplishments-in-just-20-months-relentless-promise-keeping
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10215023848047182&set=a.1341792902427.2051420.1159336646&type=3&theater
@Greg:
They don’t have the power to make a law that violates the Constitution.
Well, you’ve been right about so many things… Obamacare, Hillary’s emails, the 2016 election, collusion. Why wouldn’t we take your word for it?
@retire05, #67:
That sentence has been removed from its context paragraph, (f)(3). It pertains only to requests made by other committees—that is, committees other than those specifically mentioned in (f)(1) and (f)(2).
The Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation covered by (f)(1) and the Chief of Staff of Joint Committee on Taxation covered by (f)(2) are not required to specify a purpose. That’s likely because of their specific oversight responsibilities.
Refer to 26 U.S. Code § 6103(f), paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).
@Deplorable Me:
You don’t have to take his word for it. You can read the statute and then discuss it from a position of knowledge.
@Deplorable Me, #69:
It doesn’t violate the Constitution.
People should figure it out for themselves.
@Greg:
Yes. It does. It violates the 4th Amendment. Very harshly and unnecessarily, too, I might add. Face it; you are going to have to beat Trump on the field of battle, not by exposing bits and pieces of his personal life. His Presidency has grown the economy, added millions of GOOD jobs, raised wages and opened opportunities for those in poverty. Unless your rogues’ gallery of idiots, jesters and boobs can provide some details of how they are going to as well if not better, then you better find another tack.
Barr also expressed willingness to review criminal referrals that are expected to be sent to him from Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), for government officials he believes committed crimes related to the investigation into the Trump campaign.
Those that resigned or retired are not out of the woods yet
Who goes down first for 18 U.S. Code § 3333
Comey, Clapper, Brennen? any bets?
They seem to be all guilty of 18 U.S. Code § 1621
@Greg:
What you, and fellow traveler, Michael, are doing is cherry picking the part of the Code that suits your argument. You are wrong.
The Code cannot be cherry picked rather it must be adhered to en toto. You really should stop trying to play armchair lawyer.
@kitt: The IG report coming in May or June is said to contain criminal referrals as well and also to declare Obama interfered with the 2016 election more than Putin. THEN there’s a separate investigation ongoing just for Comey.
It doesn’t appear the DOJ is fully in the pocket of the liberals anymore….
@retire05, #75:
I’m reading it in the proper fashion. The requirement that a purpose be specified applies only to such requests as those described by paragraph (3) itself. That is, requests made by other committees. Those described by paragraphs (1) and (2) have no such requirement.
@Greg:
Oh, do tell us all, Greggie Gullible, where you obtained your J.D..
Seems all you majored in is b/s.
@retire05: Ol Bottom of his class Joe comes out swinging repeating the gazillion time corrected there were good nazis in Charlottesville, ok looks like Big Joe needs a little Trumpie therapy. Hows that Job for the gas company and China deals working out for your kid Joe, lord knows with his genetic material he can use all the graft he can get.
The last thing you want Joey is to swing on Trump verbally especially with debunked BS.
Campaign Ts already out https://www.teeshirtpalace.com/products/joe-biden-hand-2020-election-funny-t-shirt?msclkid=80e508d61326170338b054144d37c703
https://www.teeshirtpalace.com/products/joe-biden-2020-hands-women-s-t-shirt?msclkid=8c2f305af6c31d75319f6c98a9503944
Comes with a free bottle of “Gee Your Hair Smells Terrific” shampoo. A $14.99 value
https://www.vermontcountrystore.com/gee-your-hair-smells-terrific-shampoo-or-conditioner/product/76881?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=paid%20search&utm_campaign=pla&sourceid=7BINGPLA&msclkid=713686f45c2a1949dd1bda363c0d33f8&adlclid=ADL-5eee971b-12a9-4bbe-abd5-94388d3f17d1
They always get away with it. They know how to play the game and go right up to the line and make a deal. How about this…..
1. DOJ closes in on high-ranking democrat’s shenanigans
2. Democrats proffer a “Deal” to Trump to drop it in favor of an issue close to his heart…Complete wall funding, easier time with judicial/executive nominees, rigging their primary to make sure he is re-elected……
3. Trump takes the deal (Why not? Re-election and all of the things he can do for the country is worth more than revenge on some tool bags whom are out of office or no longer employed and are now irrelevant…sic: Lois Learner, John Koskinen, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, “Jucy” Smollett, New Black Panther Party, Hillary: Rose billing records, Illegal health-care committee meetings, whitewater and the new stuff which is double-booked here and #1 above) Nobody cares about them anyway especially when you compare them to a wall or re-election.
4. Democrats re-neg and the subjects still walk.
5. I say, “I told you.”
@kitt: No surprise when a Democrat begins their campaign with a lie. Then, they follow up with more lies.
@retire05, #78:
All that is needed is an ability to comprehend what one is reading and a willingness to rightly understand what is being said. The statute is clearly written. No one needs a J.D. to understand it.
@Kelly Mayer, #80:
A more likely scenario might be a resignation, putting President Pence in a position to issue a blanket pardon. Then the Democrats would lose their election issue and the GOP could focus on selling the angle that it was all a Democratic Party plot in their 2020 sales pitch. Trump could be turned into a political martyr.
@Greg:
Yeah, that should work if you are ever in the position of defendant because, surely if you can read legal tax codes with expert comprehension you can also read criminal codes with the same expert comprehension, right?
I’m sure your opinion would be held in high regard by someone like Alan Dershowitz. Why go to law school? Just ask Greggie Gullible for an opinion.
Don’t ask me. Just read the statute.
@retire05: He once quoted a federal law to me that he claimed exempted a VA employee from having to testify in a criminal matter. When I pointed out to him the law only applied to federal judicial employees he claimed it didn’t matter and that it applied to ALL federal employees. The VA employee was made to testify. He was 100% wrong. In the Army we called people like him shithouse lawyers.
@Greg:
A President cannot pardon for state crimes, and the Dems would not let him off and let it rest, they are just A$$holes like that.
Here is another scenerio, Barry is banished, Hillary goes to a nice minimum security old folks home, the rest go to other minimum security prisons. The people that replace them know there is now accountability and steer clear of political shenanigans. Punish all countries with minimal sanctions that cooperated with this travesty, everyone involved gets their assets confiscated and put into the treasury.
@another vet:
I find it laughable when people like him think they are so, so smart they understand how to “read” law because it is so clear and concise when, in reality, the only who do hold J.D.s. These are generally the same people who claim the U.S. Constitution is ambiguous when trying to explain their positions (like the 2nd Amendment) or that it doesn’t mean what conservatives think it does.
But then, it is no surprise that the left would want to repeat their standard of using a federal agency (the IRS) against a political opponent. FDR did. JFK did. LBJ did. And the outlier Republican, Nixon, did.
@retire05:
They are definitely irritating regardless of their political stripes. Their arrogance also bleeds over into other areas as well making them quite dangerous at times.
@kitt:
Donald Trump is King of the A$$holes. This is why we are now fighting an uphill battle. The entire field is now tilted in favor of such people. Genuinely holding to the fundamental principles we once valued most highly—honesty, truthfulness, loyalty, kindness, courtesy and respect for others—has been turned into a handicap.
@retire05, #88:
That’s a b.s. statement. Holding a jurisprudence degree is not a prerequisite for understanding. Any reasonably intelligent person who takes the time to do so can read the statute in question and have a clear understanding of what it says. It isn’t written in formal, highly technical legalese; it’s written in plain English.
@Greg: How many in the FBI/CIA coup do you think will do some time?
@kitt, #92:
None. An entirely necessary investigation into what might be a serious national security threat is not a “coup”. Exercising Section 4 of the 25th Amendment would come closer to meeting the definition. I suspect a number of people within the Trump administration have recently read it, just to refresh their memories about what it says.
@Greg: Perjury? It is never an FBI job to try to make false predicate for the 25th.
Maybe some of these comments are in jest or halfway serious, but there are laws against “advocating the overthrow of the government” of the United States.
According to 18 U.S. Code § 2385, Advocating overthrow of Government, “Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government” could face charges.
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
@kitt, #94:
Yet Christopher Hasson has just been granted pre-trial release, in spite of “grave concerns” about the threat he may pose.
@Greg:The investigation was begun with unverified Russian disinformation basically a lie they never tried to see if it was truthful. Even Muellers investigation should have never happened if thats the garbage they began with. I think he knew it was totally garbage before he began, or should have.
Then to ignore the Podestas same connections as Manafort what a half cocked political boondoggle.
Wasn’t it Podesta that opened a phishing email that got the DNC hacked, pretty suspicious.
TRUMP no collusion, not enough evidence for obstruction.
@Greg: #95 1000 rounds for 15 fire arms is WTH wrong with that guy he should have a brick for each weapon so he can practice. that would be 7500 rounds.
He had a hate list, I dont much like those people either. The guy is 50 he had a collection not a cache, some look have some pretty good age on them and no one is dead by his hands yet. I bet they wont give him access to those fire arms pre-trial.
You are such a bed wetter.
The photo is not his stuff or the article is inaccurate.
@Greg:
So now you recognize him as your King. That is a good start.
Well, like the entirely unnecessary investigation of Trump into the collusion committed by Democrats, we’ll know when it’s over, won’t we? It doesn’t look good for the sedition team, though.
A FOX News video segment that for some mysterious reason now shows only a black rectangle on their own website. Technical problems, no doubt. Fortunately, it can still be viewed elsewhere. Prepare to be shocked:
Fox News’ Legal Analyst Called Trump’s Obstruction “Immoral, Criminal, Defenseless, and Condemnable”
@kitt: Even Greg is not so ignorant that he can not see that Clinton and the Dems paid $10,000,000 for a document in order to justify a bogus investigation that would force Trump out of office one way or the other. Calling it a COUP is a mild term. It was a serious attack on try using our top law enforcement officers and our intelligence teams. The Gang of 8 were in on it by leaking classified information. Spying on a president elect and recruiting a mole in the Trump transition team are criminal. If Mueller could have found something, he would have mentioned. The really reason Mueller failed to find any thing is there was nothing. But even if there was, the finding had to be a killing blow or Trump would retaliate. Mueller is vulnerable, too. He was part of the Obama staff that initiated the fraudulent/criminal action at least with Uranium 1 and other efforts. Judicial Watch is slowly getting the evidence that will be used to convict or at least expose the guilty. This is why Pelosi is trying to back the left off of impeachment. Many of the top members of the house and senate (Ds) are coconspirators. Greg knows that, too, but has painted himself into a corner and will not admit it!