hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,402
|
Post by hoyarooter on Dec 19, 2018 20:34:10 GMT -5
Rudy is slipping. He could have said it was a forgery with a straight face. What's one more lie, anyway?
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,013
|
Post by SSHoya on Dec 19, 2018 21:00:55 GMT -5
Writing on Lawfare last week, we made the case that the growing investigation into campaign finance violations committed by Michael Cohen and now American Media Inc. (AMI), in which the president of the United States (“Individual 1”) figures as a co-conspirator, constitute an impeachable offense. We wrote that it was not a simple case, but that in any circumstance in which the president appears likely to have been a leader of a criminal conspiracy, the question of impeachment is directly presented and justifies formal inquiry. Our conclusion rested, importantly, on certain additional and material factors: that the offenses were committed in pursuit of the presidency, that the they continued into Donald Trump’s term in office and that as president he repeatedly lied about them to the public. Since then, we’ve received a range of skeptical responses and have kept our eyes out for additional opposing views in the press. Our colleague Marty Lederman has written that the campaign finance offenses “pale[] in comparison” to President Trump’s other impeachable offenses “in terms of gravity, proof that he's unfit to serve, and, in Charles Black's words, whether it's so seriously threatening the order of political society … as to make his continuance in office ‘pestilent and dangerous.’” In Lederman’s view, these violations occupy a lower rung of importance than the central questions of collusion with Russia that the special counsel was charged with investigating. Somewhat along these lines, the constitutional scholar Philip Bobbitt, author of the recently-published supplement to Charles Black’s “Impeachment: A Handbook,” concludes that, standing alone, the campaign finance violations simply lack the "enormity" required for an impeachable offense. www.lawfareblog.com/does-trumps-involvement-cohen-payments-constitute-impeachable-offense-part-ii
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,013
|
Post by SSHoya on Dec 20, 2018 10:39:42 GMT -5
HPSCI voted to release Stone's transcript to the SCO. Even though still controlled by GOP and clown Nunes still the chair. Therefore, some GOPers must have voted in favor of release. Is the GOP complicity starting to break? Just as Don the Con getting some criticism from Fox Propagandists.
|
|
njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,798
|
Post by njhoya78 on Dec 20, 2018 10:48:42 GMT -5
HPSCI voted to release Stone's transcript to the SCO. Even though still controlled by GOP and clown Nunes still the chair. Therefore, some GOPers must have voted in favor of release. Is the GOP complicity starting to break? For those of us old enough to remember Watergate, the GOP supported President Nixon until it became clear that continuing to do so was akin to political suicide. It was only when the Republican leadership concluded that their own political base was crumbling that they went to the White House in August 1974 and told RMN that he had to resign or that he would face an embarrassing impeachment trial and conviction. He resigned the next evening. Keep an eye on Senator McConnell. If he starts to back off on statements of general support for President Trump, it will be a clear sign that dynamics have shifted, and that the GOP is trying to reclaim what is left of the party.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,013
|
Post by SSHoya on Dec 20, 2018 11:26:01 GMT -5
HPSCI voted to release Stone's transcript to the SCO. Even though still controlled by GOP and clown Nunes still the chair. Therefore, some GOPers must have voted in favor of release. Is the GOP complicity starting to break? For those of us old enough to remember Watergate, the GOP supported President Nixon until it became clear that continuing to do so was akin to political suicide. It was only when the Republican leadership concluded that their own political base was crumbling that they went to the White House in August 1974 and told RMN that he had to resign or that he would face an embarrassing impeachment trial and conviction. He resigned the next evening. Keep an eye on Senator McConnell. If he starts to back off on statements of general support for President Trump, it will be a clear sign that dynamics have shifted, and that the GOP is trying to reclaim what is left of the party. Yeah, but the Senate Republicans (including McConnell) have been compromised by Russian-tainted money as well and you need to get enough on the Senate side for a conviction. Data from the Federal Election Commission show that Blavatnik's campaign contributions dating back to 2009-10 were fairly balanced across party lines and relatively modest for a billionaire. During that season he contributed $53,400. His contributions increased to $135,552 in 2011-12 and to $273,600 in 2013-14, still bipartisan. In 2015-16, everything changed. Blavatnik's political contributions soared and made a hard right turn as he pumped $6.35 million into GOP political action committees, with millions of dollars going to top Republican leaders including Sens. Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham. www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2017/12/15/putins-proxies-helped-funnel-millions-gop-campaigns
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2018 13:10:03 GMT -5
But of course... William Barr, Trump's attorney general pick, criticized special counsel's probe of potential obstruction of justice in June memo on.wsj.com/2ExlsZ9 What caused a high-powered lawyer to spend hours writing a detailed, 20-page memo to send to Trump’s lawyers and Rosenstein criticizing Mueller? Either he is really worked up about Mueller’s investigation or he was angling for an Administration job.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,013
|
Post by SSHoya on Dec 20, 2018 14:26:12 GMT -5
Roger Stone = Trump's G. Gordon Liddy?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2018 2:39:13 GMT -5
Smh....
Hopefully at minimum whoever comes after Trump does not thinks being ethical is optional..
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,013
|
Post by SSHoya on Dec 21, 2018 6:07:55 GMT -5
Simplistic and bizarre memo with unwarranted assumptions (a polite way of saying "alternative facts"). The memo on obstruction of justice by Bill Barr, the once and future attorney general, is a bizarre document—particularly so for a man who would supervise the investigation it criticizes. Because whether one agrees with his view of the law (as does McCarthy) or recoils at it (as does Lederman), one thing attorneys general of the United States should certainly not do is make up facts. And ironically for a memo laying out the argument that Bob Mueller has made up a crime to investigate, the document is based entirely on made-up facts. At a press conference today, Rosenstein declared that the Mueller investigation “is being handled appropriately.” When asked to weigh in on the memo, Rosenstein said that, “Bill Barr was an excellent attorney general during the approximately 14 months that he served in 1991 to 1993” and he predicted that he “will be an outstanding attorney general when he is confirmed next year.” But he added that the department’s handling of the obstruction matter has been “ informed by our knowledge of the actual facts of the case, which Mr. Barr didn’t have.”www.lawfareblog.com/bill-barrs-very-strange-memo-obstruction-justiceOn June 8, attorney general-nominee William P. Barr sent the Justice Department an unsolicited memo attacking special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s obstruction-of-justice investigation as “fatally misconceived.” It is Barr’s legal theory that is misconceived. From all appearances, Mueller’s investigation rests on exactly the same foundation as the case against President Richard M. Nixon. If Nixon was a crook, there is a real possibility that President Trump is, too. www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-william-barr-is-wrong-on-the-mueller-probe/2018/12/20/a6d57a20-049f-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html?utm_term=.22ca1b99d8ab
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,402
|
Post by hoyarooter on Dec 21, 2018 20:00:31 GMT -5
Simplistic and bizarre memo with unwarranted assumptions (a polite way of saying "alternative facts"). The memo on obstruction of justice by Bill Barr, the once and future attorney general, is a bizarre document—particularly so for a man who would supervise the investigation it criticizes. Because whether one agrees with his view of the law (as does McCarthy) or recoils at it (as does Lederman), one thing attorneys general of the United States should certainly not do is make up facts. And ironically for a memo laying out the argument that Bob Mueller has made up a crime to investigate, the document is based entirely on made-up facts. At a press conference today, Rosenstein declared that the Mueller investigation “is being handled appropriately.” When asked to weigh in on the memo, Rosenstein said that, “Bill Barr was an excellent attorney general during the approximately 14 months that he served in 1991 to 1993” and he predicted that he “will be an outstanding attorney general when he is confirmed next year.” But he added that the department’s handling of the obstruction matter has been “ informed by our knowledge of the actual facts of the case, which Mr. Barr didn’t have.”www.lawfareblog.com/bill-barrs-very-strange-memo-obstruction-justiceOn June 8, attorney general-nominee William P. Barr sent the Justice Department an unsolicited memo attacking special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s obstruction-of-justice investigation as “fatally misconceived.” It is Barr’s legal theory that is misconceived. From all appearances, Mueller’s investigation rests on exactly the same foundation as the case against President Richard M. Nixon. If Nixon was a crook, there is a real possibility that President Trump is, too. www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-william-barr-is-wrong-on-the-mueller-probe/2018/12/20/a6d57a20-049f-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html?utm_term=.22ca1b99d8abAt the end of the day it will be clear that Trump is 1,000 times worse than the Trickster ever was. Nearly every facet of Trump's life is built on lying, cheating and fraud. Criticize Nixon all you want, but that's one standard to which he will not measure up.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,013
|
Post by SSHoya on Dec 24, 2018 12:39:17 GMT -5
When Trump starts to lose Republican shills like Ed Rogers, he should be worried. But now, the White House needs ballast. It needs more seasoned experts who bring gravitas to the administration at a time when it seems to be teetering. Think about someone such as former solicitor general Ted Olson. Or maybe Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who is, until the end of the year, filling the Senate seat of the late John McCain. The point is, we need more experienced people in the government — especially in the White House — in case there is a crisis. A guy such as Olson would be ready and reassuring if we faced a constitutional crisis. Someone such as Kyl, along with acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, would have trust and credibility among congressional leaders from both parties. The vice president’s office needs to be prepared for contingencies beyond the ordinary possibilities. www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/12/24/the-vice-president-should-be-preparing-for-the-worst/?utm_term=.fc176a7dc3e4
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,013
|
Post by SSHoya on Dec 27, 2018 16:48:51 GMT -5
Pretty good rebuttal of Barr's memo and Andrew McCarthy's defense of it: In a New York Times op-ed last Friday, we wrote that William Barr, who served as attorney general under President George H.W. Bush and has been nominated by President Trump for that post again, had seriously damaged his credibility by sending an unsolicited and poorly reasoned memo to the Justice Department and the White House arguing that Special Counsel Robert Mueller “should not be permitted to demand that the President submit to interrogation about alleged obstruction.” At the National Review, Andrew McCarthy says that our op-ed is “surprisingly vapid” and that the Barr memorandum’s legal advice is “sound.” We explain below why McCarthy’s arguments are mistaken. www.lawfareblog.com/yes-bill-barrs-memo-really-wrong-about-obstruction-justice
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,013
|
Post by SSHoya on Dec 28, 2018 14:51:15 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2018 13:12:20 GMT -5
And McCabe suddenly decided to clear out by noon today. Mere coincidence? I am fully aware of Civil Service rules since I did the same thing when I retired. But I did not suddenly decide that one morning when a memo was about to be released that might have implicated me in all kinds of bad things. Stay tuned. More to come. And another one bites the dust...
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,013
|
Post by SSHoya on Dec 30, 2018 13:38:47 GMT -5
A mysterious grand jury subpoena case has been working itself through the D.C. courts since August. Doughty reporting by Politico linked the grand jury case to special counsel Robert Mueller. Some of us, connecting the dots, wondered whether Mueller’s antagonist in this secret subpoena battle might be President Donald Trump himself. Speculation heightened two weeks ago when the D.C. Circuit cleared an entire floor of reporters assembled for the oral argument, in order to protect the identity of the litigants. And then, last week, on the Sunday before Christmas, Chief Justice John Roberts personally intervened in this matter. That’s right: The chief justice of the United States himself issued an order on a Sunday, in this very case. If you think that’s highly unusual, you’re right. And the action he took was equally unusual. At least for the moment calling into question the unanimous decisions of the courts below, the chief justice blocked the District Court’s order requiring the foreign corporation to comply with the grand jury subpoena, until the government’s lawyers could respond to the Corporation’s briefings. www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/12/30/supreme-court-john-roberts-robert-mueller-investigation-223569
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2019 6:00:35 GMT -5
Extreme Vetting?
What kind of person meets Paul Manafort and thinks- This guys awesome I'm going to make him my campaign manager. A person who has terrible judgement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2019 10:21:41 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2019 12:47:18 GMT -5
No way he's briefing Trump on Mueller though....
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,013
|
Post by SSHoya on Jan 7, 2019 17:52:26 GMT -5
This is hilarious. Lawyer is from Reed Smith. I wonder if Trump is going to start tweeting about "his judge" being a turncoat like Jeff Sessions. U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich of the District, who was appointed by President Trump, began a Monday hearing by lambasting defense attorney Eric A. Dubelier, saying, “I find your recent filings . . . unprofessional, inappropriate and ineffective.” The judge said Dubelier had made “meritless” attacks on Mueller, his team, other U.S. prosecutors and federal law enforcement. Friedrich cited Dubelier’s inclusions of “what you clearly believe to be clever” references in his legal filings to “movies, cartoons and books” — ranging from the movie “Animal House” to a pre-World War II Swiss travelogue — before concluding: “I’ll say it plain and simple. Knock it off.” www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/russian-firm-indicted-in-mueller-probe-accuses-trump-appointed-judge-of-bias/2019/01/07/194a79e0-129f-11e9-803c-4ef28312c8b9_story.html?utm_term=.9feacab7cfb7
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,013
|
Post by SSHoya on Jan 8, 2019 11:03:02 GMT -5
Not directly tied to the Mueller investigation but Natalia Veselnitskaya has been indicted for obstruction of justice and false statements in connection with the Prevezon civil forfeiture/money laundering litigation. She is the Russian lawyer and the supposed representative of the "Crown Prosecutor" who Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner met with in the Trump Tower meeting. The charge indicates that she lied when she had previously stated that she had no connection with the Russian government. It would not surprise me at all if she were subject to FISA electronic surveillance when present in the United States and other national technical means when overseas. www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-lawyer-at-trump-tower-meeting-charged-in-separate-case/2019/01/08On Tuesday, Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York unsealed a Dec. 20 indictment charging Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who attended the 2016 Trump Tower meeting, with one count of obstruction of justice in an unrelated civil proceeding connected to a money-laundering case. The indictment was sought by the U.S. attorney's office for the Southern District of New York and does not appear to be related to the Mueller investigation. The charging document describes Veselnitskaya having coordinated with a senior Russian prosecutor, which the New York Times describes as “seem[ing] to confirm that Ms. Veselnitskaya had deep ties to senior Russian government officials.” The indictment: www.lawfareblog.com/document-indictment-charging-russian-lawyer-natalia-veselnitskaya-describes-links-kremlin
|
|