Bill Barr should be slapped in cuffs for his role in denying congress materials subpoenaed for investigative oversight.
Trump is acting like he is above the law and republicans are silent.
I'm furious watching all of this.
Just watched a bit about Trumps lawyer making an argument that congress has no right to any materials unless the admin deems them 'legislatively relevant' , WTH? Congress has no right to oversight? Congress has no right to investigate suspected crimes commited by trump or people in his admin? Their stance is that Trump can't be charged, can't be investigated, and has no legal reason to comply with any congressional request for documentation or testimony deemed not relevant for having no legislative purpose!
A dictator is rising right in front of our eyes and 30% of the country is rooting it on! Shameful and anti-American, period.
"No legitimate legislative Purpose"... It's time to impeach Trump.
Barr said out loud to Pelosi, "Madam Speaker, did you bring your handcuffs?". Pelosi responded that the congressional Sargent at Arms was present as was the option to arrest. Barr chuckled at her and walked away.
Is this how an AG acts? Barr must be removed and jailed. Period.
"No legitimate legislative Purpose"... It's time to impeach Trump.
Barr said out loud to Pelosi, "Madam Speaker, did you bring your handcuffs?". Pelosi responded that the congressional Sargent at Arms was present as was the option to arrest. Barr chuckled at her and walked away.
Is this how an AG acts? Barr must be removed and jailed. Period.
Yes that’s how a trump AG acts. Loyal to his ruthless dictator.
There is no thread for this, I looked. This is not a single incident and the white house attorney just released a statement saying the Trump admin will not make anything requested available to Congress because the materials are not legitimate for a legislative purpose, the president can not be indicted therefore can not be investigated. smh, they want an impeachment and the dems should start impeachemnt hearing immediately.
'Claiming that the President is a king': White House-Dem oversight feud escalates
(CNN)The White House flatly rejected the House Judiciary Committee's request for documents in its sweeping investigation into possible obstruction of justice, the latest escalation of tension in the battle between President Donald Trump's administration and the Democratic House conducting oversight of the Executive Branch.
In a move House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler compared to "claiming that the President is a king," White House Counsel Pat Cipollone accused the committee in a letter sent Wednesday of seeking to recreate the special counsel investigation to harass the President.
"It appears that the Committee's inquiry is designed, not to further a legitimate legislative purpose, but rather to conduct a pseudo law enforcement investigation on matters that were already the subject of the Special Counsel's long-running investigation and are outside the constitutional authority of the legislative branch," Cipollone wrote.
"Congressional investigations are intended to obtain information to aid in evaluating potential legislation, not to harass political opponents or to pursue an unauthorized 'do-over' of exhaustive law enforcement investigations conducted by the Department of Justice," he added.
The letter adds yet another layer to the escalating feud between the White House and House Democrats over their numerous investigations into the Trump administration and President Donald Trump's businesses and finances.
Nadler responded to the latest Trump administration rejection by accusing the White House of "claiming that the President is a king."
"No President, no person in the United States is above the law. This is preposterous," Nadler told CNN. "They are saying we should end the investigation. We are not ending the investigation. If we were to agree to that, then no president would ever be subject to any kind of investigation for misconduct of any type."
Trump has already declared that his administration will fight all of the House subpoenas — several of which are now being fought in court. The Judiciary Committee voted last week to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt for not providing the full Mueller report and evidence and the Ways and Means Committee has issued a subpoena for Trump's personal and business tax returns.
When you do crazy things often enough.... When you lie and repeat them often enough... When you defy the law often enough.... Soon it becomes accepted as normal.
Things were found and almost everyone knows it. Sorry but the "law" allows congress oversight. Too bad you care more about your orange God than you do the law and what subpoenas mean.
Making excuses for illegal activity is all you have left.
J\C Soetoro told LYNCH.to tell COMEY to not investigate Hillary in which he didn't and HILLARY was comepletely exonerated without one witness testifying, but they want to slap the cuffs on Barr....whatta a joke
It is funny how some of these guys cry for the Constitution and the Rule of Law while supporting open borders, Sanctuary Cities and ignoring Federal Law on Marijuana possession.
I expect lots of time in court rooms before anything would happen. The cases would probably last longer than Trump is in office. So, rather than taking it to the Judicial Courts, people are airing things in the court of public opinion. Democrats are trying to gain ground in the next election, so they can fill their own pockets a bit more readily the next go round.
Found this when looking for a refresher on which branch had what powers:
Quote:
Congress has the authority to conduct investigations “in aid of its legislative function.” That authority can extend to investigations for the purpose of deciding whether legislation is appropriate, to information gathering on matters of national importance, to oversight of federal departments and executive agencies. As a result, a congressional committee has broad discretion regarding both the scope of its investigation and the relevance of the information it requests.
Although congressional authority to investigate is broad, it is not unlimited. Because Congress’s authority to investigate is tied to its authority to legislate, limits on congressional investigations are necessarily linked to the limits on Congress’s constitutional authority. For example, Congress has no general authority to investigate the purely private affair of an ordinary citizen.
The doctrine of separation of powers also places limits on congressional authority to investigate. Congress cannot, under the guise of an investigation, usurp the power of another branch of government. It cannot investigate matters where the means of redress is purely judicial. Nor can Congress investigate matters committed to the President’s discretion. For example, Congress could not undertake an investigation to determine an individual’s entitlement to a pardon because the Constitution granted the pardon power to the President, not Congress.
So basically it sounds like there will be lots of lawyers and loophole jumping and not a whole lot actually getting done. Still, lots of law firms will be racking up billable hours on the taxpayers' dime. I'm honestly not sure how it would work with the "government" on both sides of any case between Congress and the President.
It probably won't be taken to the Supreme Court because Democrats in Congress wouldn't want to risk losing the case. 5 of the Justices were appointed by Republicans (2 by Trump himself and the others by one Bush or the other). Innocence until proven guilty leaves lots of wiggle room. The law is also not particularly clear in many relevant areas. Plus, there are lots of ways for money, power, and prestige to come into play.
Politics, Business/Money, and the Law/Lawyers- my personal pet peeve trifecta. What a tangled, jacked up mess.
He found obstruction and it's up to congress to figure out what to so about it. I mean if trump would stop obstructing them from doing their job.
When did Mueller say he didn't find obstruction? Oh, that's right, he didn't.
Here it is 5/16 and you're still talking about some not existent obstruction. Obstruction to what? Collusion? There was no collusion? So obstruction to what?
Barr already declared there was no obstruction. Get over it dude.
Do we need another thread for this? And who cares. Trump is an incompetent moron. Be thankful he's an idiot and not a competent politician.
Pretty much how the Jews throughout Eastern Europe felt about Hitler in the late 1930’s.
Congrats on making the dumbest post in dawgtalkers history.
Why? For pointing out that the Jews of Eastern Europe knew that Hitler was an incompetent moron, an idiot, and an incompetent politician like trump? Or for pointing out that a certain percentage of the German public was all for Hitler and his final solution for wiping them all off the face of the earth?
You spent 35 million dollars and had a Special Prosecutor with all his own prosecutors but found nothing.
You lied, you pushed the false narrative, You supported those who tried to take down our duly elected President and you were found to be WRONG.
Sorry, No Do Overs.
STOP IT ALREADY.. WE DID NOT FIND NOTHING>... DAMN man,, what the hell is wrong with you...Have you taken the time to read the redacted Mueller report..... Have you?
I doubt it..
This report DOES NOT exonerate Trump......He says it does, but if he really knew that to be fact, there is no reason to stand in the way of allowing the full report to be released
THere would be no reason to stop Barr from Testifying.
No reason to stand in the way of Don McGann from testifying.
No Reason not to release his tax returns
No reason not to release Trump Org financials documents
he's so full of crap and whats worse,, people believe him....
Here it is 5/16 and you're still talking about some not existent obstruction. Obstruction to what? Collusion? There was no collusion? So obstruction to what?
Barr already declared there was no obstruction. Get over it dude.
Barr believes a president is above the law and it is impossible for him to obstruct. That's how he got the job in the first place. I know you haven't been keeping up.
The 10 instances of possible obstruction in Mueller report
It is funny how some of these guys cry for the Constitution and the Rule of Law while supporting open borders, Sanctuary Cities and ignoring Federal Law on Marijuana possession.
Hypocrite much?
"Squirrel!"
deflect much? Bring game, or cool your keyboard, rookie.
The law was followed and Mueller's report said it all.
No Collusion No Obstruction
NEXT!
The judges and the Congress need to keep releasing to the public.
Judge orders public release of what Michael Flynn said in call to Russian ambassador Carol D. Leonnig and Rosalind S. Helderman, The Washington Post Published 9:47 pm CDT, Thursday, May 16, 2019
WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Thursday ordered that prosecutors make public a transcript of a phone call that former national security adviser Michael Flynn tried hard to hide with a lie: his conversation with a Russian ambassador in late 2016.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington ordered the government also to provide a public transcript of a November 2017 voice mail involving Flynn. In that sensitive call, President Donald Trump's attorney left a message for Flynn's attorney reminding him of the president's fondness for Flynn at a time when Flynn was considering cooperating with federal investigators.
Recommended Video The transcripts, which the judge ordered be posted on a court website by May 31, would reveal conversations at the center of two major avenues of special counsel Robert Mueller III's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. So far they have only been disclosed to the public in fragments in court filings and the Mueller report.
Sullivan also ordered that still-redacted portions of the Mueller report that relate to Flynn be given to the court and made public.
Sullivan's orders came very shortly after government prosecutors agreed to release some sealed records in Flynn's case. The release was in response to a motion filed with the court earlier this year by The Washington Post, which argued that the public deserved to know more about Flynn's role in key events and cooperation with investigators.
Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017 to one felony count of making a false statement to FBI investigators about his contact with the ambassador and awaits sentencing.
The purpose of the phone calls, and the motives of the callers, have been hotly debated.
In the December 2016 call, Flynn urged that the Kremlin not get too riled up about U.S. sanctions that President Barack Obama had just announced against Russia and to give Trump time to take office. That conversation, intercepted by U.S. intelligence, raised grave concerns about Russians' secret and frequent contact with Trump allies and advisers during the campaign and before his inauguration.
In the second conversation, an attorney for Trump tried to learn whether Flynn had any problematic information about the president after Flynn's attorney signaled his client might begin cooperating with Mueller's investigators. The attorney was John Dowd, then a private attorney for the president, according to people familiar with the episode. The special counsel was then threatening to charge Flynn with lying to FBI agents about his call to the ambassador. Dowd's voice mail was scrutinized as Mueller's investigators probed whether the president engaged in obstruction of justice to try to thwart the probe, and whether he deployed his aides to assist him.
In one of the previously redacted filings released Thursday, prosecutors said Flynn described multiple episodes in which "he or his attorneys received communications from persons connected to the Administration or Congress that could have affected both his willingness to cooperate and the completeness of that cooperation."
In addition to the transcripts, it also is possible that the judge may release the audio recordings of the conversations. In his Thursday order, Sullivan directed that the government provide a copy of those recordings to him in his chambers, along with any other calls Flynn made to the Russians, so he can review them.
Dowd and the president's current attorney, Jay Sekulow, declined to comment as did a spokesman for the White House.
Robert Kelner, the attorney for Flynn, could not be reached for comment Thursday night.
The newly unsealed portions of court records showed Flynn was a fount of useful information to the special counsel's team in 2017 and 2018, helping it probe the Trump campaign's effort to gain stolen emails and the question of whether Trump sought to criminally interfere in the investigation bearing down on him.
The records confirm the questions that Flynn, a retired lieutenant general and former military intelligence officer, helped federal prosecutors answer after his guilty plea. Flynn admitted in 2017 that he tried to conceal the nature of his conversations with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and then began cooperating with Mueller's team to try to reduce and possibly avoid a prison sentence.
Flynn also provided the special counsel with information about efforts by the Trump campaign and Trump allies to seek out stolen emails during the campaign after WikiLeaks began publishing internal Democratic correspondence in July 2016, the records show. He also provided evidence of "multiple efforts" by people connected to Trump that could have impacted his willingness to cooperate with the probe, useful information as Mueller explored whether the president obstructed justice.
At the same time, Flynn assisted federal prosecutors based in Alexandria, Virginia, who were preparing criminal charges against his former business partner, Bijan Kian, for working as an unregistered agent of Turkey. Kian has pleaded not guilty to the charges. He is expected to face trial in July, and Flynn is expected to be a critical witness for the government.
The new material echoes the Mueller report findings, but helps explain why prosecutors told Sullivan they had found Flynn's cooperation valuable and recommended he receive little or no prison time.
Ultimately, Flynn opted to postpone his sentencing when Sullivan said he was distressed by Flynn's conduct and said he was inclined to give him prison time if he hadn't yet finished cooperating with the government.
The Mueller team analyzed the Dowd call to Kelner and other allies' outreach to Flynn for possible obstruction of justice, but ultimately determined the evidence of Trump's intent was "inconclusive." Mueller's team noted their inquiry was hampered because much of the conduct involved Trump's legal team, and concerns about attorney-client privilege limited the special counsel's investigation.
Mueller's team noted in particular that in November 2017 - after Flynn withdrew from his joint defense agreement with the president - Trump's "personal counsel", who was Dowd, left a voice mail for Kelner that urged him to give a "heads up" if they had anything that implicated the president. He added: "remember what we've always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn." In a later call, Kelner repeated that he could not share information with Dowd, and Dowd grew indignant and said he believed the president would be very displeased, the report said.
Trump seemed particularly eager to convey his affection for Flynn after Flynn left the White House in the wake of reports about his calls with Kislyak. Former White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus told Mueller's team that Trump asked him to call Flynn after he was let go to convey that the and former deputy national security adviser K.T. McFarland both told investigators Trump asked them to reach out to Flynn to check on him and tell him to stay strong, according to Mueller's report.
The Mueller team analyzed the Dowd call to Kelner and other allies' outreach to Flynn for possible obstruction of justice, but ultimately determined the evidence of Trump's intent was "inconclusive."
Nuff said.
No charges, No crime.
Moving along now, got immigration, crazy Iranians, the economy and Trade talks to do.
Congress has no legal authority whatsoever under the US Constitution to investigate anything or arrest anyone. All Congress can do is:
1. hire an independent official(Mueller) to work WITH the Justice Department to investigate. 2. Ask the Justice Department/FBI to investigate a matter for them. 3. Impeachment
People really need to read the Constitution, its a very simple document will take less than an hour to read.
Barr done nothing illegal, all he done was his job. The Dems got the investigation they wanted, they are just mad Mueller couldn't find anything so they are going to keep beating a horse that is already dead for votes.
Any Investigation Congress is trying to carry out is illegal under our Constitution. They have no motive, they have no tangible evidence, hell they don't even have a preponderance of evidence. All they have is a few talking news heads saying they are "leaking things" or some news report said this...
none of the evidence based on news story The House is using for investigation would stand in any court in the Western World, even the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California would toss this nonsense for what it is...nonsense.
This is the same nonsense they done with Obama, just coming from a different side of the isle. Instead of focusing on his decisions via policy and criticizing him on things that matter, they instead decide to use stupid Conspiracy theories and Christine Blasey Ford type of allegations with no merit.
The news media is disgusting, on both side of the isle.
Congress’s power to investigate has deep roots in our political tradition, and the ability of Congress to investigate is embedded in our national charter, which gives Congress the power to legislate. As the Supreme Court has recognized, “[a] legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information—which not infrequently is true—recourse must be had to others who do possess it.” Given its function, the congressional power to investigate is quite broad, “indeed co-extensive with the power to legislate.” Moreover, should the Executive Branch refuse to comply with congressional requests for information, Congress has tools available to enforce its oversight authority, including bringing a civil action in court against recalcitrant Executive Branch officials.
Why do the libs insist on using the IRS to get their political enemies, sounds like FASISM to me. IMO
While you openly support a fascist. Oh the irony....
But that's how you twist things. Now you call expecting the truth "getting someone". You present having him be held to the same standard as every other president has been, "fascism". What an odd little man you are.
Mnuchin says he won’t comply with subpoena for Trump’s tax returns.
No.
It's odd that you're actually beginning to brag about criminal activity in the Trump White House.
It is you who told us of our President being a Traitor, Colluding with our enemies and other lies.
Now that he has been proven innocent, you turn on the Attorney General and others.
The whole time you could not and still can not see the true criminal activity has been in the Congress as they abuse their power to the point where no one is listening to them, or you, any more. The true criminal activity was perpetrated by those at the head of the FBI and CIA, and now in our Congress.
It is you who told us of our President being a Traitor, Colluding with our enemies and other lies.
And now your latest lie. I said we need to wait until the report comes out to see what's in it. Yet you refuse to look at what's actually in it.
Quote:
Now that he has been proven innocent, you turn on the Attorney General and others.
Yet even the man who wrote the report, Mueller, said he couldn't conclude Trump was innocent of obstruction.
Quote:
The whole time you could not and still can not see the true criminal activity has been in the Congress as they abuse their power to the point where no one is listening to them, or you, any more. The true criminal activity was perpetrated by those at the head of the FBI and CIA, and now in our Congress.
Your day of reckoning is at hand.
It's too bad you believe what the talking heads you follow say more than what the Mueller report actually says. It's too bad that you seem to have no clue that laws give congress the authority to do what they're doing and it's your orange god and his cronies breaking the law. But you'll find out soon enough.
If they did wrong I hope they're punished just as much as Trump and his cronies are for their illegal activities. But so far you've already investigated Hillary for years with nothing.
At least she had bigger balls than Trump and publicly testified before the House Select committee for 11 hours.
No, it is too bad you are small thinking and cannot recognize what is truly happening in our government.
The Congress (legislative branch) has gone on full frontal assault against the President (executive branch) after their refusal to acknowledge the findings of the Special Prosecutor and the findings of the Justice Department.
The Executive Branch will not give up its power to the Legislative Branch and its ploy of harassment and abuse of power.
The Executive Branch is ignoring the subpoenas and other harassing tactics of the legislative Branch.
If it hasn't happened yet, the Executive or the Legislative Branch will turn to the Judicial Branch of our government to solve this situation.
I don't think either side wants the Judicial Branch to decide what powers they lose or keep, so the battle continues.
If as threatened, the Legislative Branch sends the Sergeant at Arms to make Executive Branch arrests, don't be surprised if the Executive Branch sends the Military or Secret Service or whoever to arrest the Sergeant at Arms.
Soerotor, or whoever he is use the IRS to get (Govt)to get his political enemies like Castro, Mussolini, etal. He enriched Iran with a phoney back door deal,a sworn enemy of the us. Kissed VLADS arse on a hot mike, spied on fox news reporters via illegal wiretap these are some of the fasist facts that I believe are true IMO as you so put it. Watta twisted little boy you are. Oh and by the way ill throw in your open antisemetic and infanticidal leaders that you adore.
"The House Judiciary Committee has issued a subpoena to try and force Mr. McGahn to testify again. The Department of Justice has provided a legal opinion stating that, based on long-standing, bipartisan, and Constitutional precedent, the former Counsel to the President cannot be forced to give such testimony, and Mr. McGahn has been directed to act accordingly," Sanders said. "This action has been taken in order to ensure that future Presidents can effectively execute the responsibilities of the Office of the Presidency."
The answer to Congressional abuse of power remains...
Even better than what I imagined. No need to put salt on this popcorn.
Yeah, if you like comedy on par with male genitalia and fart jokes.
OBSTRUCTION: I don't know how the fed statute is written but where I'm from you can't charge someone with obstruction unless they have actually hindered the investigation in a meaningful way. By all accounts Mueller was able to complete his investigation.
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE: because the report has been released, it's not likely that it can then be protected under executive privilege. It'd be like putting the cat back in the bottle. BUT anything not in the report I think stands a decent chance of being protected.
Clearly this Congressional "investigation" is nothing but pure political posturing.
But for our friends who believe it has a legitimate purpose:
Pit, OCD, Daman, others... what is there to investigate? Obstruction? If the Mueller Report is abundantly clear that Trump committed obstruction as you guys claim... then why not simply start impeachment proceedings based on that?
Impeachment doesn't require proving your case "beyond a reasonable doubt". All it requires is making a case to convince a sufficient number of votes in favor of impeachment (in the House) and removal (in the Senate).
Trump doesn't have to be indicted in a criminal court in order to justify impeachment. The fact that he wasn't/couldn't face indictment doesn't prevent the initiating of proceedings.
Seriously guys. They don't need anyone to testify, Barr or whomever. You guys are convinced of Trump's guilt based on what you've seen and you don't even have the access Congress does.
Interfering in the right of congress to the oversight of the executive branch by thumbing their noses at congressional subpoenas. Just because someone obstructs in plain sight doesn't mean it isn't obstruction.
See, Don McGhan already testified before. There is no excuse or executive privilege to be claimed after the fact.
Congress, by law has a right to Trump's tax returns. Not supplying those returns, demanding and threatening to sue others if the hand over those returns is obstruction of justice.
And some people sit back and applaud his criminal behavior.
Interfering in the right of congress to the oversight of the executive branch by thumbing their noses at congressional subpoenas. Just because someone obstructs in plain sight doesn't mean it isn't obstruction.
See, Don McGhan already testified before. There is no excuse or executive privilege to be claimed after the fact.
Congress, by law has a right to Trump's tax returns. Not supplying those returns, demanding and threatening to sue others if the hand over those returns is obstruction of justice.
And some people sit back and applaud his criminal behavior.
Congress doesn't have "oversight" of the Executive Branch. It's not it's job, it's function, or in it's purview under the Constitution.
All 3 branches are a check on each other, no one branch above the other. Is it too damn much to ask that you self proclaimed defenders of democracy and the Constitution against the evil fascist Trump have a clue what you are talking about?
Geezuz
Yes, McGhan already testified and no executive privilege can or should apply. I essentially said as much in concept.
Congress doesn't have carte blanche to things like tax returns just because they want to see them. Even the President has the same 4th Amendment Rights as we do. Congress has to have a legitimate LEGISLATIVE purpose. If you told me they want his tax returns public for the time he's in office to insure any income outside his Presidential pay is on the level, I'd be cool with that and do you one further by saying ALL the elected officials should have their tax returns public while they are in office.
But a fishing expedition of decades worth of returns to see if anything ever illegal was done is not a legitimate legislative purpose.
And no, refusing to cooperate with Congress is not "obstruction of justice"... it can't be as a point of law because Congress can't prosecute people. It can learn things and recommend/request criminal prosecution from the DOJ, but it is not a law enforcement entity.
Like I said earlier... Congress doesn't need a criminal conviction or the go ahead from a grand jury to impeach. THAT is their check on criminal behavior.
I'm on my phone but I'll keep this short. Mueller found 11 instances of obstruction in his report. After a 2.5 year investigation, one could easily make the argument for hindrance. Especially in regards to Trump's conduct towards Manafort, Flynn and his multiple efforts to fire DoJ officials (Comey and Mueller). The DoJ's current stance is that they do not have the power to indict the President and that is a job for Congress. Which is whatever.
I do not believe Nancy wants to impeach Trump as a way to win the 2020 elections. I also do not believe she has the votes to do so. The Republicans do not want Trump impeached because his personality is now the party. He defeated the moderates and the crazies, and has won the support of the people of the GOP. So the Establishment does not want to upset their base, because they fear that they will be voted out like they were when the Tea Party came about.
Congress doesn't have "oversight" of the Executive Branch. It's not it's job, it's function, or in it's purview under the Constitution.
All 3 branches are a check on each other, no one branch above the other. Is it too damn much to ask that you self proclaimed defenders of democracy and the Constitution against the evil fascist Trump have a clue what you are talking about?
Oversight of the Executive by Congress does not mean Congress is above the Executive. It just means that Congress is intended to act as oversight in the event the Executive abuses its power or otherwise commits actions considered impeachable.
This administration is going all in on the idea of the "unitary executive" and it will be up to the courts to determine whether the President does indeed hold that power or not. If the president is found to be unable to be challenged by either the Executive or Legislative branches, then they are an absolute unitary executive and no oversight applies to them. I personally find that scary, but there have been proponents of the unitary executive in the past. Dick Cheney was one, many in Reagan's and Nixon's admin also. If you liken the president to being the CEO of the United States, then you'd like a strong unitary executive. If you feel the 3 branches of the government should be co-equal, you likely find the idea of a strong unitary executive to be scary and to have strong tyrannical potential.
First on CNN: Justice Department willing to hand over counterintelligence if Schiff backs off 'enforcement action' CNN Digital Expansion 2017 By Laura Jarrett, CNN
Updated 2:27 PM ET, Tue May 21, 2019
(CNN)The Justice Department is trying to stave off an "enforcement action" against Attorney General William Barr this week, making a rare offer to have the House Intelligence Committee review materials from special counsel Robert Mueller's report if House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff agrees to back down.
Last week Schiff said that he would hold a business meeting Wednesday to take an unspecified action against the Justice Department for not providing the committee documents related to Volume I of Mueller's report on links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. The Justice Department had previously offered to show all committee members a less redacted version of the Mueller report, but now says it's continuing to review the initial tranche of 12 categories of documents Schiff wants, and will make them available "in relatively short order," according to a letter obtained by CNN. "The Department has already begun the process of identifying, locating and reviewing the materials potentially responsive to the categories of documents," Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd wrote Tuesday, "a process that will not continue should the Committee take the unnecessary and unproductive step of moving to hold the Attorney General in contempt." Boyd's letter also confirms that last week's offer of having all members of the House Intelligence Committee review the less redacted version of the Mueller report remains on the table -- and it now extends to the Senate Intelligence Committee. CNN has reached out to Schiff's office for comment.
Congressional oversight of the executive branch is a critical part of the United States federal government’s system of checks and balances. This report provides an overview of the major forms of congressional oversight as well as the organizations involved. Congressional oversight processes include those related to investigations, impeachment, confirmation of nominees, appropriations, authorization, and budget. Congress conducts much of its oversight through committees, with the support of a number of federal agencies and offices that investigate, audit, and provide information and analysis on executive branch activities.
I've never been a supporter for firing squads and I won't follow the lead of those I see as selling their morals down the river. It would make me no better than them.
I've never been a supporter for firing squads and I won't follow the lead of those I see as selling their morals down the river. It would make me no better than them.
Yeah, forgot the purple on purpose but was waiting for somebody on the far right to have a meltdown over me saying that. I don't support killing anyone who doesn't deserve it or just plain need killing and you have to be a pretty bad person to meet that criteria. Dumbass bigot doesn't qualify, nor does a non violent criminal administration.
House Democrats officially introduce contempt resolution for Barr, McGahn
House Democrats have officially introduced a resolution to hold Attorney General William Barr and former White House counsel Don McGahn in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with congressional subpoenas.
The contempt resolution allows House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) to go to court to seek civil enforcement of the subpoena for Barr to turn over special counsel Robert Mueller’s unredacted report and underlying evidence, as well as for McGahn to provide documents and public testimony.
The resolution also gives any committee chair the rare power to go to federal court to seek civil enforcement of subpoenas, both current and future orders, so long as they are granted approval by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group.
The House Rules Committee is expected to mark up the resolution to hold Barr and McGahn in contempt on Monday, according to a Democratic congressional aide, and the full House is slated to vote on the resolution Tuesday.
The measure, introduced by Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), comes as Democrats accuse the White House of unprecedented efforts to stonewall their legitimate investigations into President Trump and his administration. The White House has accused Democrats of trying to score political points against Trump ahead of the 2020 election.
Nadler subpoenaed Barr for the full Mueller report in April following its release. The Justice Department has so far refused to turn over the full report and underlying evidence, arguing that doing so would amount to Barr violating the law by releasing grand jury material and compromising ongoing investigations.
Instead, Barr has offered for a select group of lawmakers, including Nadler, to view a less-redacted version of the report provided they keep its contents confidential. Democrats have rejected this arrangement as too limited.
The fight reached a fever pitch last month, as the Judiciary panel voted along party lines to hold Barr in contempt and Trump asserted executive privilege over the subpoenaed materials on the attorney general’s recommendation.
Separately, the committee had subpoenaed McGahn for documents and public testimony, but he has refused to comply on instructions from the White House.
McGahn didn’t show up for a public hearing on May 21 after Trump told him not to testify, citing a Justice Department legal opinion that the former official is immune from compelled congressional testimony.
The plans to vote on the resolution mark a dramatic escalation in Democrats’ battle with the Trump administration.
Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, voiced concern that such a measure will pull power away from the full House and concentrate it in the power of five top House leaders -- three top Democrats and two top Republicans -- to decide.
“The resolution takes power away from the 435 members of the House by giving only five members a vote for whether a chairman can sue to enforce subpoenas," Collins said in a statement. "In their zeal for Article II information, Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Nadler are skipping key steps on the road to that material. I fear House Democrats may be doing immeasurable harm to our Article 1 powers by taking weak cases to court.”
Democratic aides describe the resolution as a powerful expression to the courts about the White House refusing to comply with their “reasonable” requests and an effort to enforce subpoenas across the board. It is also a move that reaffirms the current rules, rather than changing them.
The aides emphasized that the case could potentially unlock many doors for the investigation if a judge rules the White House cannot assert absolute immunity from its officials testifying. If the judge makes a ruling that McGahn must testify, the aides said, it could also unblock the testimony of other officials that the White House has sought to stop from testifying.
Though the measure deals with civil contempt, a Democratic aide also noted that if Democrats come across behavior that is “egregious enough,” there may be additional criminal contempt proceedings.
Pelosi tells Dems she doesn't want Trump impeached, she wants to see him in 'prison': Sources
In a closed door meeting on Capitol Hill Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told key Democratic committee leaders she'd rather see President Trump go to "prison" than start an impeachment process, according to officials familiar with the conversation.
"I don't want to see him impeached, I want to see him in prison," Pelosi told five committee chairs, comments that were first reported by Politico.
Ashley Etienne, a spokesperson for Pelosi, called Tuesday's meeting "productive" and would not comment on the reported prison remark, saying that the leaders "agreed to keep all options on the table" moving forward.
Pelosi's private remarks – described as an aside by one official familiar with her comments – come as she faces growing calls to launch impeachment proceedings against Trump from inside her party.
Nearly 60 House Democrats – 1-in-4 members of the caucus – including half of the majority on the House Judiciary Committee, want to open proceedings, according to an ABC News analysis.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York, who was one of the five chairmen in the closed-door meeting with Pelosi on Tuesday, has repeatedly laid out the case for launching impeachment proceedings to Pelosi in recent weeks.
On Tuesday, he again laid out the case, arguing that it could bolster Democrats' legal standing in court as they battle with the Trump administration over access to documents and testimony, according to sources familiar with the meeting.
Democratic sources familiar with Nadler's thinking believe he is sympathetic to calls from members of his committee to open impeachment proceedings, and has been privately supportive of the effort in conversations with them.
In an interview with CNN on Wednesday, Nadler was asked if he and Pelosi are "on the same page" on the issue of impeachment, and paused before responding.
"As I said, we are launching an inquiry now and whether we'll launch an impeachment inquiry, it may come to that," he said.
"When that decision has to be made, it will be made not by any one individual, it will be made probably by the caucus as a whole. Certainly, Nancy will have the largest single voice in it, various committee chairmen and rank and file members," he added.
A spokesman for Nadler declined to comment on the meeting Thursday.
Pelosi has been wary of starting the impeachment process without bipartisan support, concerned that the effort could potentially backfire and cost Democrats their House majority. There is also concern that impeachment could help Trump's reelection chances, particularly if the GOP-led Senate votes to acquit him.
In a news conference Wednesday, she defended Democrats efforts to continue their oversight investigations and bring the Trump administration to court to when necessary to enforce subpoenas.
"Make no mistake," Pelosi said. "We know exactly what path we're on. We know exactly what actions we need to take. And while that may take more time than some people want it to take, I respect their impatience. It's a beautiful thing and it's important to our country."
"I'm not feeling any pressure," she said of the impeachment push from some members.
This is the best and most clear cut breakdown of Barr's lies to the public about the Mueller report.
And it just goes to show you the "value" of being first to announce the 'result' of the report .... millions of idiot Trumpian fan boys and girls happily cling to the "Barr exonerated him" - than knowing what the report actual says. But - this is a very good read that dispels that lie.
I think I am pretty safe in stating that not one Trump supporter will be willing to - and certainly not be able to - debate or counter the contents of the article.... we might get a lot of deflection and noise - but zero to counter.
How many investigations are needed? We have already had 4 with NOTHING.
Geesh
Yup. And the democrats are making NO attempts to pass any laws for the American people. Zero effort to do anything. Zilch. A whole hell of a lot of people will remember that.
The further the democrats go down the road of investigations and impeachment talk the bigger the loss in 2020.its pretty much guaranteed at this point. The only people who don't realize it are the Dems.
How many investigations are needed? We have already had 4 with NOTHING.
Geesh
Yup. And the democrats are making NO attempts to pass any laws for the American people. Zero effort to do anything. Zilch. A whole hell of a lot of people will remember that.
The further the democrats go down the road of investigations and impeachment talk the bigger the loss in 2020.its pretty much guaranteed at this point. The only people who don't realize it are the Dems.
We needed only 1.
And in it Mueller clearly laid out the corrupt actions of our President.
Barr lied about it. Mueller publicly set the record straight.
The article I posted perfectly lays it out.
As I said - lots of NOISE and DISTRACTION form the Trump stooges but .... z.i.p on debating the facts.
Yup. And the democrats are making NO attempts to pass any laws for the American people. Zero effort to do anything. Zilch. A whole hell of a lot of people will remember that.
The democrats hold the majority in the house of congress. As of now, there are over 100 pieces of legislation passed by the house that the republican held senate refuses to even bring up on the floor. So if you want to talk about somebody not doing their jobs, you may wish to look at the facts instead of just spreading the BS you're being spoon fed.
Yup. And the democrats are making NO attempts to pass any laws for the American people. Zero effort to do anything. Zilch. A whole hell of a lot of people will remember that.
The democrats hold the majority in the house of congress. As of now, there are over 100 pieces of legislation passed by the house that the republican held senate refuses to even bring up on the floor. So if you want to talk about somebody not doing their jobs, you may wish to look at the facts instead of just spreading the BS you're being spoon fed.
Yes, it's easy to pass garbage legislation when you know the Senate will never touch it. The republicans did it for years. Look at the health care bill, for example. They got 100% GOP votes in the house until we had a gop senate. Bunch of damn cowards.
Now the dems are passing crap and more crap so they can talk about how much they're getting done, when none of these bills have a prayer of getting through the process, and they know it.
Only a fool believes this type of theater. If you don't believe me, please recall the "green new deal" when the GOP decided to give it a vote. The dems panicked.
Juan Williams: Cloud of illegitimacy hangs over Trump
BY JUAN WILLIAMS, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 06/10/19 06:00 AM EDT
So now he admits it?
President Trump recently tweeted that investigations into allegations of collusions with Russia were unfair “because I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected.”
Uh, Mr. Trump, you’ve now admitted that Russia acted to put you in the White House?
Of course, within hours Trump reverted to denying Russia helped him: “Russia did not get me elected,” he told reporters asking about the tweet.
Trump is afraid of the truth regarding Russia’s help because it opens the door for Americans to see him as an illegitimate president.
And if he admits he is in the White House by accident, then his campaign for reelection starts in a big hole. Voters will have to face the ugly reality that he is president only because Russia twisted the 2016 race.
By the way, there is no question that Russia worked to get him elected.
U.S. intelligence agencies stated unequivocally in January 2017 that Russia interfered for the express purpose of boosting Trump and defeating his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.
That truth is so frightening to Trump that last year, while standing next to Russian President Vladimir Putin, he said he believed Putin’s denials of interference and not the findings of America’s own intelligence agencies.
That jaw-dropping statement at the Helsinki summit in July 2018 was famously described by the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) as “one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory.”
Even now, Trump persists in telling people at his rallies that the “deep state” is selling a “Russia hoax.”
Special Counsel Robert Mueller in fact found numerous contacts between Russia and the Trump camp but concluded there was insufficient evidence for an indictment.
Recall the final words from Mueller at his press conference last month, when he asked Americans to focus on the “central allegation of our indictments — that there were multiple, systemic efforts to interfere in our election. That allegation deserves the attention of every American.”
Mueller’s warning is chilling because the crime continues.
Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said this explicitly last year.
“I am concerned the Russians never left,” he said, adding that the Russians hacked “between 20 and 40 state board of elections” in 2016.
Then-National Security Agency chief Adm. Mike Rogers was famously asked last year by the Senate Armed Services Committee if the White House had ordered him to do more to stop future Russian interference in elections.
Rogers said it had not.
“President Putin has clearly come to the conclusion that there’s little price to pay and that therefore ‘I can continue this activity,’” added Rogers. “Clearly what we have done hasn’t been enough.”
In May, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said Russian hackers accessed voting data in two Florida counties.
“Russia’s social media efforts will continue to focus on aggravating social and racial tensions, undermining trust in authorities and criticizing perceived anti-Russia politicians,” according to a “Worldwide Threat Assessment” from U.S. intelligence agencies issued in January.
But when then-Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen expressed concern to White House officials that Russia interfered with the 2018 midterms, she was told, according to the New York Times, “not to bring it up in front of the president.”
The White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, according to the Times, made it clear to Nielsen that Trump “still equated any public discussion of malign Russian election activity with questions about the legitimacy of his victory.”
Maybe that explains why the Trump White House has done away with its cybersecurity coordinator.
Maybe that is why Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, still describes Russia’s role in the 2016 election as nothing more than “a couple Facebook ads.”
The reality, in the words of FactCheck.org, is that the Mueller report found Russia conducted a “sophisticated, years-long hacking and social media effort to influence an election.”
Incredibly, Kushner later told Axios that he is not sure that he would alert the FBI if he received an email, similar to one he received in 2016, suggesting that Russia was willing to help a future Trump campaign:
“It’s hard to do hypotheticals,” he said.
Say what?
Americans can see through the Trump team’s attitude.
A Monmouth University poll taken last month found 60 percent of Americans think the government is not doing enough to stop Russian interference.
The press, members of Congress and the American people need to ask themselves which is more important: protecting the president’s fragile ego or protecting the integrity of democratic elections?
Whatever your answer, there is no way to save the Trump presidency from being tainted by the cloud of illegitimacy.
Juan Williams is an author, and a political analyst for Fox News Channel.
The job of the senate is to bring bills on the floor and vote on them. Not put them on a shelf and refuse to follow the process. The new green deal wasn't even a binding piece of legislation. But the right sure wasn't saying that. They made it sound as of it was a binding measure. It wasn't.
Do you mean like an election security bill? One that would help stop foreign governments from interfering in our elections? Now why would McConnell be refusing to bring that on the floor for a vote I wonder?
Or would it be the election reform bill?
That's what mud slingers do. They refuse to address specifics and just throw out garbage that has no merit.
I don't disagree that the Dems come up with some pretty partisan bills. But you really need to quit acting like that's all they do and absolve the senate from bringing common sense bills to the floor.
Try not to attack the President the same day you wish to discuss things like Infrastructure.
Why? Infrastructure was a Trump campaign promise. So are you trying to say if you disagree with the president it will prevent him from doing what he promised he would do?
You may have a valid point there. I mean he made a new trade deal with Mexico last year and threatened to promptly break that deal less than a year later if Mexico didn't allow him to set their immigration policies.
The job of the senate is to bring bills on the floor and vote on them. Not put them on a shelf and refuse to follow the process. The new green deal wasn't even a binding piece of legislation. But the right sure wasn't saying that. They made it sound as of it was a binding measure. It wasn't.
No, wrong.
Ultimately, a law can only be passed if both the Senate and the House of Representatives introduce, debate, and vote on similar pieces of legislation. ... Once each chamber has approved the bill, the legislation is sent to the President. The President then makes the decision of whether to sign the bill into law or not.
Their job is not to simply approve the junk the House has sent them.
The job of the senate is to bring bills on the floor and vote on them. Not put them on a shelf and refuse to follow the process. The new green deal wasn't even a binding piece of legislation. But the right sure wasn't saying that. They made it sound as of it was a binding measure. It wasn't.
No, wrong.
Ultimately, a law can only be passed if both the Senate and the House of Representatives introduce, debate, and vote on similar pieces of legislation. ... Once each chamber has approved the bill, the legislation is sent to the President. The President then makes the decision of whether to sign the bill into law or not.
Their job is not to simply approve the junk the House has sent them.
That's how it's supposed to work, but you got a dimwit like McConnell who won't even allow votes or discussion on the floor of the senate... Is he afraid they might get passed?
Their job is to vote on the bills. Nobody said approve them. You just described how both the congress and the senate must pass a bill before it can become law. Yet on the other hand you make excuses why they aren't holding a vote.
The job of the senate is to bring bills on the floor and vote on them. Not put them on a shelf and refuse to follow the process. The new green deal wasn't even a binding piece of legislation. But the right sure wasn't saying that. They made it sound as of it was a binding measure. It wasn't.
No, wrong.
Ultimately, a law can only be passed if both the Senate and the House of Representatives introduce, debate, and vote on similar pieces of legislation. ... Once each chamber has approved the bill, the legislation is sent to the President. The President then makes the decision of whether to sign the bill into law or not.
Their job is not to simply approve the junk the House has sent them.
That's how it's supposed to work, but you got a dimwit like McConnell who won't even allow votes or discussion on the floor of the senate... Is he afraid they might get passed?
You have a wise man like McConnell who knows when a piece of junk bill is DOA. He doesn't waste everyone's time on garbage.
He keeps them busy approving Trump's Judges to the Federal Bench as Democrats ground that process to a halt.
Their job is to vote on the bills. Nobody said approve them. You just described how both the congress and the senate must pass a bill before it can become law. Yet on the other hand you make excuses why they aren't holding a vote.
Wrong again!
Bills can be introduced whenever the House is in session. ... In the Senate, a bill is introduced by placing it on the presiding officer's desk or by formally introducing it on the Senate Floor. In the House, a bill clerk assigns the bill a number. House bills begin with "H.R."
So why isn't the House bringing Senate Legislation to the floor for a vote?
Anyway, I see both Schiff and Nadler have begun to act like adults...
Nadler puts Barr contempt push on hold after striking Mueller report deal
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler announced Monday that he plans to hit pause on efforts to hold Attorney General Bill Barr in contempt, after reaching a deal with the Justice Department for access to evidence related to former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report.
In a statement, Nadler, D-N.Y., announced the agreement with the Justice Department to turn over key evidence from Mueller’s investigation pertaining to the review of whether President Trump obstructed justice.
House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Doug Collins, R-Ga., praised Nadler on Monday for negotiating with the Justice Department “for the first time in months.”
“Today’s good faith provision from the administration further debunks claims that the White House is stonewalling Congress, which Chairman Schiff’s successful negotiations with the Justice Department already showed,” Collins said, referring to an agreement between the House Intelligence Committee and the Justice Department last month. At the time, the Justice Department agreed to share some documents with Schiff’s committee.
So they agreed to turnover the evidence they were denying before and Fox News is trying to spin that. You buy it hook, line and sinker. No surprise here. The White House buckled.
So they agreed to turnover the evidence they were denying before and Fox News is trying to spin that. You buy it hook, line and sinker. No surprise here. The White House buckled.
As usual, you are wrong.
FOX has nothing to do with statements issued by our Government officials. You can read the same stuff everywhere.
Back to making your mud pies. Add some extra hate to them.
So your definition of stonewalling is ignoring a circus?
Is that the best excuse you have for ignoring the rule of law by obeying subpoena's? See, that's all you have, excuses for breaking the law.
Quote:
Who you got testifying today?
Since trump is continuing his obstruction by demanding people not follow legal subpoenas, nobody. That's what happens when there are people like you who applaud criminal activity.
Funny thing. The guy who wrote the report said it didn't absolve trump and there was a process with which to investigate that. That process being the congress. And you wish to make false claims about what the man actually said?
Funny thing. The guy who wrote the report said it didn't absolve trump and there was a process with which to investigate that. That process being the congress. And you wish to make false claims about what the man actually said?
The first investigation did not prove what the Dems wanted. So let's continue to investigate. It is time to move on already.
But first they have to call Howard Dean before Congress!
At the outset of his testimony, Dean said, "Clearly, I am not here as a fact witness."
No kidding! You should read some of the stuff the Libs on here pass as facts!
Georgia GOP Rep. Doug Collins, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, mocked Democrats for bringing Dean in for testimony, accusing Democrats of using him to try to attack the president. “This committee is now hearing from the Seventies and they want their star witness back,” he said.
The first investigation did not prove what the Dems wanted. So let's continue to investigate. It is time to move on already.
But first they have to call Howard Dean before Congress!
Georgia GOP Rep. Doug Collins, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, mocked Democrats for bringing Dean in for testimony, accusing Democrats of using him to try to attack the president. “This committee is now hearing from the Seventies and they want their star witness back,” he said.
Collins mockingly added, “Let the show begin.”
They're talking about John Dean. Did you get Diam syndrome and unlearn how to read?
Says the person who supports a man who bragged about grabbing women by the pu$$y.
Well your boy Pete will never be accused of that.
I will just let this stand on its own as a part of what's wrong with America. Yet attacking another American veteran. It seems to be what you all do so well these days.
You support a draft dodger and attack a veteran. That's your Murica!
Says the person who supports a man who bragged about grabbing women by the pu$$y.
Well your boy Pete will never be accused of that.
I will just let this stand on its own as a part of what's wrong with America. Yet attacking another American veteran. It seems to be what you all do so well these days.
You support a draft dodger and attack a veteran. That's your Murica!
Cry away but the guy is running for president. He is fair game, just like Trump's hair and orange skin.
No problem when you spew about Trump and others but oh no, someone said something about poor Pete.
You were warned about throwing stones from your glass house.
Funny thing. The guy who wrote the report said it didn't absolve trump and there was a process with which to investigate that. That process being the congress. And you wish to make false claims about what the man actually said?
Priceless.
Funny. It's always been up to the prosecution to prove guilt, with the exception of the current president. Did the rules officially change, or is this the new whine of the left?
Funny thing. The guy who wrote the report said it didn't absolve trump and there was a process with which to investigate that. That process being the congress. And you wish to make false claims about what the man actually said?
Priceless.
Funny. It's always been up to the prosecution to prove guilt, with the exception of the current president. Did the rules officially change, or is this the new whine of the left?
Yes for decades the DOJ has had a policy that a President can't be indicted. Still, Mueller documented the 11 times that Trump obstructed Justice.
Funny thing. The guy who wrote the report said it didn't absolve trump and there was a process with which to investigate that. That process being the congress. And you wish to make false claims about what the man actually said?
Priceless.
Funny. It's always been up to the prosecution to prove guilt, with the exception of the current president. Did the rules officially change, or is this the new whine of the left?
Yes for decades the DOJ has had a policy that a President can't be indicted. Still, Mueller documented the 11 times that Trump obstructed Justice.
You missed the word "possibly". He used that 11 times too.
Funny thing. The guy who wrote the report said it didn't absolve trump and there was a process with which to investigate that. That process being the congress. And you wish to make false claims about what the man actually said?
Priceless.
Funny. It's always been up to the prosecution to prove guilt, with the exception of the current president. Did the rules officially change, or is this the new whine of the left?
Yes for decades the DOJ has had a policy that a President can't be indicted. Still, Mueller documented the 11 times that Trump obstructed Justice.
You missed the word "possibly". He used that 11 times too.
Funny thing. The guy who wrote the report said it didn't absolve trump and there was a process with which to investigate that. That process being the congress. And you wish to make false claims about what the man actually said?
Priceless.
Funny. It's always been up to the prosecution to prove guilt, with the exception of the current president. Did the rules officially change, or is this the new whine of the left?
Yes for decades the DOJ has had a policy that a President can't be indicted. Still, Mueller documented the 11 times that Trump obstructed Justice.
You missed the word "possibly". He used that 11 times too.
No that's not what the report said.
If he has 11 documented cases of obstruction, where are the charges? The guy that hired a team of all democrats found 11 documented instances of obstruction, and not a one of them called for procecution? They've got nothing left but the whining.
Cowards,the whole lot of them. I want the dems in the house to impeach. If they have 11 documented cases of obstruction, they should have the proof to force the Senate to convict. It should be on prime time TV every night like watergate. Write your congressman tonight and ask them what the hold up is. 11 documented instances, and they have their thumbs up their libs.
But Eric, its not about crime, its not about the Constitution or duty, its about politics.
Remember when they tried to declare him insane?
Constant investigations and accusations with no proof of a crime. No charges filed. No impeachment. Special Prosecutor and all. Just cry and point, hoping the American people elect one of their losers to replace him.
But Eric, its not about crime, its not about the Constitution or duty, its about politics.
Remember when they tried to declare him insane?
Constant investigations and accusations with no proof of a crime. No charges filed. No impeachment. Special Prosecutor and all. Just cry and point, hoping the American people elect one of their losers to replace him.
But Eric, its not about crime, its not about the Constitution or duty, its about politics.
Remember when they tried to declare him insane?
Constant investigations and accusations with no proof of a crime. No charges filed. No impeachment. Special Prosecutor and all. Just cry and point, hoping the American people elect one of their losers to replace him.
I know that. You know that. Libs actually believe the garbage they spew. If they had actual proof of a crime, they would have moved to impeach years ago. They've got nothing except for their constant droning, and none of them are smart enough to realize it.
Cowards,the whole lot of them. I want the dems in the house to impeach. If they have 11 documented cases of obstruction, they should have the proof to force the Senate to convict. It should be on prime time TV every night like watergate. Write your congressman tonight and ask them what the hold up is. 11 documented instances, and they have their thumbs up their libs.
That's why they need the whole report and details. That's why they are having hearings. Be careful what you wish for...
But Eric, its not about crime, its not about the Constitution or duty, its about politics.
Remember when they tried to declare him insane?
Constant investigations and accusations with no proof of a crime. No charges filed. No impeachment. Special Prosecutor and all. Just cry and point, hoping the American people elect one of their losers to replace him.
I know that. You know that. Libs actually believe the garbage they spew. If they had actual proof of a crime, they would have moved to impeach years ago. They've got nothing except for their constant droning, and none of them are smart enough to realize it.
Exactly! And I for one will not vote for any of them!
But Eric, its not about crime, its not about the Constitution or duty, its about politics.
Remember when they tried to declare him insane?
Constant investigations and accusations with no proof of a crime. No charges filed. No impeachment. Special Prosecutor and all. Just cry and point, hoping the American people elect one of their losers to replace him.
I know that. You know that. Libs actually believe the garbage they spew. If they had actual proof of a crime, they would have moved to impeach years ago. They've got nothing except for their constant droning, and none of them are smart enough to realize it.
Exactly! And I for one will not vote for any of them!
Neither one of you has read the Mueller report. Don't even try to deny it.
But Eric, its not about crime, its not about the Constitution or duty, its about politics.
Remember when they tried to declare him insane?
Constant investigations and accusations with no proof of a crime. No charges filed. No impeachment. Special Prosecutor and all. Just cry and point, hoping the American people elect one of their losers to replace him.
I know that. You know that. Libs actually believe the garbage they spew. If they had actual proof of a crime, they would have moved to impeach years ago. They've got nothing except for their constant droning, and none of them are smart enough to realize it.
Exactly! And I for one will not vote for any of them!
Neither one of you has read the Mueller report. Don't even try to deny it.
But Eric, its not about crime, its not about the Constitution or duty, its about politics.
Remember when they tried to declare him insane?
Constant investigations and accusations with no proof of a crime. No charges filed. No impeachment. Special Prosecutor and all. Just cry and point, hoping the American people elect one of their losers to replace him.
I know that. You know that. Libs actually believe the garbage they spew. If they had actual proof of a crime, they would have moved to impeach years ago. They've got nothing except for their constant droning, and none of them are smart enough to realize it.
Exactly! And I for one will not vote for any of them!
Neither one of you has read the Mueller report. Don't even try to deny it.
FOX has read it and you used them as a source.
I don't believe for a minute that most of the Fox anchors have read it. Maybe the ones who have said HE DID commit obstruction, I think they read it. Hannity and others might have looked at the words but couldn't make them out for Trump's butt cheeks blocking the view. Probably the same issue for you.
Most but not all. I've read the second part. What could be read. I personally think the conspiracy part is confusing. Seems like conspiracy to me, but not enough evidence to meet a high bar for charges. I'm not sure how they interpret that from what I've read but I'm definitely not a lawyer.
If I were Mueller, I would have charged him and Don Jr.
But Eric, its not about crime, its not about the Constitution or duty, its about politics.
Remember when they tried to declare him insane?
Constant investigations and accusations with no proof of a crime. No charges filed. No impeachment. Special Prosecutor and all. Just cry and point, hoping the American people elect one of their losers to replace him.
I know that. You know that. Libs actually believe the garbage they spew. If they had actual proof of a crime, they would have moved to impeach years ago. They've got nothing except for their constant droning, and none of them are smart enough to realize it.
Exactly! And I for one will not vote for any of them!
Neither one of you has read the Mueller report. Don't even try to deny it.
Why don't you be a dear and post all 11 instances. Please quote the article.
It would be easier if oldcold just linked to the 11 instances of obstruction, and the proof of them that would/could lead to prosecution. I mean, he said he had 11 instances of provable obstruction. How's it happen he has that info, and congress doesn't?
It would be easier if oldcold just linked to the 11 instances of obstruction, and the proof of them that would/could lead to prosecution. I mean, he said he had 11 instances of provable obstruction. How's it happen he has that info, and congress doesn't?
Not sure where I said that. But I can find you a good summary.
This article is ok as a summary but doesn't cite by paragraph number or anything.
So, in essence, Barr lied about the conclusions of the Mueller report? And congress has seen the Mueller report, yet still not acted on impeachment? That's what you're going with in order to say there were 11 obstruction of justice charges?
So, in essence, Barr lied about the conclusions of the Mueller report? And congress has seen the Mueller report, yet still not acted on impeachment? That's what you're going with in order to say there were 11 obstruction of justice charges?
Congress is acting methodically due to Trump's admin's lack of cooperation. They have to rediscover the underlying facts that Mueller has in his report as if they are new because Barr will not give them the entire report or underlying evidence. So that part is on Trump. They won't impeach unless they have that evidence and have shown the country what exactly Trump did and why it's impeachable. You can see enough in the report to know the evidence is there and Mueller all but draws the entire picture... yet without all the facts you can't tell average Joe the guy he voted for is a crook and expect a positive reaction. Nixon was loved by the right until the same type of evidence exposed him for a crook.
Long answer short, congress (house dems) are trying to get the evidence that Mueller has/had to reach his conclusion. Then they need to educate the electorate with REAL facts and not the misdirection of Barr/Trump.
So, in essence, Barr lied about the conclusions of the Mueller report? And congress has seen the Mueller report, yet still not acted on impeachment? That's what you're going with in order to say there were 11 obstruction of justice charges?
You know how the progressive liberals work. If you are accused you are guilty. They do not believe in innocent until proven guilty anymore. So if there was accusations and they don't like a person. They must be guilty. That is why the moderate Democrats do not know what to do. Follow the communist mob or not.
So, in essence, Barr lied about the conclusions of the Mueller report? And congress has seen the Mueller report, yet still not acted on impeachment? That's what you're going with in order to say there were 11 obstruction of justice charges?
You know how the progressive liberals work. If you are accused you are guilty. They do not believe in innocent until proven guilty anymore. So if there was accusations and they don't like a person. They must be guilty. That is why the moderate Democrats do not know what to do. Follow the communist mob or not.
Moderate Democrats are smart and won't fall for this crap.
Notice you don't hear much from them these days? They are quiet and trying not to lose their jobs to this vindictive mob.
So, in essence, Barr lied about the conclusions of the Mueller report? And congress has seen the Mueller report, yet still not acted on impeachment? That's what you're going with in order to say there were 11 obstruction of justice charges?
You know how the progressive liberals work. If you are accused you are guilty. They do not believe in innocent until proven guilty anymore. So if there was accusations and they don't like a person. They must be guilty. That is why the moderate Democrats do not know what to do. Follow the communist mob or not.
Thanks for that. You seem to have all dems/libs/lefties figured out and well labeled... Guilty until proven innocent, huh? Why not just say what's really on your mind? You don't want to hear the truth because you have bought the Fox/Trump/Barr stories hook line and sinker! For you to find out that Trump actually did obstruct justice would be similar to having a bowl of steaming crap served to you for dessert after thinking your meal was the best ever.
So, in essence, Barr lied about the conclusions of the Mueller report? And congress has seen the Mueller report, yet still not acted on impeachment? That's what you're going with in order to say there were 11 obstruction of justice charges?
You know how the progressive liberals work. If you are accused you are guilty. They do not believe in innocent until proven guilty anymore. So if there was accusations and they don't like a person. They must be guilty. That is why the moderate Democrats do not know what to do. Follow the communist mob or not.
Thanks for that. You seem to have all dems/libs/lefties figured out and well labeled... Guilty until proven innocent, huh? Why not just say what's really on your mind? You don't want to hear the truth because you have bought the Fox/Trump/Barr stories hook line and sinker! For you to find out that Trump actually did obstruct justice would be similar to having a bowl of steaming crap served to you for dessert after thinking your meal was the best ever.
Please present your case, Mr procecutor. Do try to use facts. I'm still waiting for these 11 instances. They're almost as secret as those 11 herbs and spices.
"The Campaign's response to reports about Russian support for Trump." "Conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn." "The President's reaction to the continuing Russia investigation." "The President's termination of Comey." "The appointment of a Special Counsel and efforts to remove him." "Efforts to curtail the Special Counsel's investigation." "Efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence." "Further efforts to have the Attorney General take control of the investigation." "Efforts to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel removed." "Conduct towards Flynn, Manafort, [REDACTED]." "Conduct involving Michael Cohen."
Well it's definitely been proven that dems are now the law and order party. They are the only adults in the room. The don't play the victim nearly as often as the right, and the do believe in due process while still seeking the truth and justice.
You included Kavanaugh, Trump, and Jr. If fully allowed to investigate with proper cooperation, all 3 would be in jail.
So, in essence, Barr lied about the conclusions of the Mueller report? And congress has seen the Mueller report, yet still not acted on impeachment? That's what you're going with in order to say there were 11 obstruction of justice charges?
You know how the progressive liberals work. If you are accused you are guilty. They do not believe in innocent until proven guilty anymore. So if there was accusations and they don't like a person. They must be guilty. That is why the moderate Democrats do not know what to do. Follow the communist mob or not.
Thanks for that. You seem to have all dems/libs/lefties figured out and well labeled... Guilty until proven innocent, huh? Why not just say what's really on your mind? You don't want to hear the truth because you have bought the Fox/Trump/Barr stories hook line and sinker! For you to find out that Trump actually did obstruct justice would be similar to having a bowl of steaming crap served to you for dessert after thinking your meal was the best ever.
Please present your case, Mr procecutor. Do try to use facts. I'm still waiting for these 11 instances. They're almost as secret as those 11 herbs and spices.
Show me where I said 11 instances please? You can't. But there were and apparently you can't read them and understand or you refuse to even try. You're that thirsty horse that has been led to water and still won't drink.
11 moments Mueller investigated for obstruction of justice
As laid out in his report, special counsel Robert Mueller investigated 11 different incidents of possible obstruction of justice by President Donald Trump.
Mueller, whose full report with redactions was released Thursday, ultimately did not reach a final conclusion on the topic, saying the case raised “difficult issues” on whether the president should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice. Instead, he presented multiple instances in which Trump’s actions were “capable of exerting undue influence over [the investigations].”
Here’s a look at the 11 specific obstruction-related actions that Mueller investigated and what the report found, along with a key passage for each section — and the page number in the PDF — to make reading the document easier.
1. What Trump knew and what he denied about Russia and WikiLeaks (pages 228-236)
Here, Mueller looks at Trump’s efforts to negotiate a Trump Tower deal in Moscow even as he told reporters in 2016 that he had no business dealings with Russians. It also addresses WikiLeaks and the hacked emails it published from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign officials.
What Mueller found: Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen testified that Trump told him in 2016: “Why mention [our work on a Russian hotel] if it is not a deal?” On WikiLeaks, onetime Trump deputy campaign manager Rick Gates testified that Trump specifically mentioned that he knew more damaging Clinton material would be coming.
2. Did the president try to cover up Michael Flynn’s phone calls with the Russian ambassador or protect him from prosecution? (pages 237-259)
This section includes Trump’s alleged remark to then-FBI Director James Comey to “let go” of the investigation into Flynn, who served briefly as national security adviser. Flynn was fired for lying to senior Trump administration officials about his contact with Sergey Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador to the United States.
What Mueller found: Mueller found evidence establishing that the president connected the Flynn investigation to the FBI’s broader Russia investigation. Mueller also wrote that Trump believed, as he told former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, that terminating Flynn would end “the whole Russia thing.”
Some evidence suggests that Trump knew about the existence and content of Flynn’s calls with Russia when they occurred. But the evidence is inconclusive, and could not be relied upon to establish the president’s exact knowledge of the nature of Flynn’s contacts with Russia.
3. Trump’s repeated urging of top administration officials to deny he was under investigation (pages 260- 273)
Mueller points to the president’s entreaties to several key officials, including Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers and Comey, asking them to publicly deny that he was under investigation.
What Mueller found: Mueller concluded the evidence does not show the president was trying to interfere with the investigation when he spoke with top intelligence officials about his potential involvement. But the report noted that his actions here are relevant in understanding his overall view that the investigation was a significant threat.
4. Why the president fired Comey (pages 274 – 289)
Mueller weighed the president’s decision to fire Comey in May 2017 and concluded that “substantial evidence indicates that the catalyst for the President’s decision to fire Comey was Comey’s unwillingness to state the president was not personally under investigation” and that the evidence does not similarly support the president’s other stated rationales, including his argument that Comey was fired for mishandling the Clinton investigation. Mueller states that the president decided to fire Comey and later directed Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to write a letter recommending the action.
What Mueller found: “Firing Comey would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural and probable effect of interfering with or impeding the investigation … substantial evidence indicates that the catalyst for the President’s decision to fire Comey was Comey ‘s unwillingness to publicly state that the President was not personally under investigation. The evidence does not establish that the termination of Comey was designed to cover up a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia.”
5. Trump’s efforts to fire Mueller (pages 289-302)
The report states that the president repeatedly directed officials to pressure the Justice Department to remove Mueller. Former White House Counsel Don McGahn told Mueller’s team the president told him that “Mueller has to go” at least twice, and on June 17, 2017, told McGahn to call Rosenstein to have the special counsel removed. McGahn did not follow through, “deciding that he would resign rather than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre.”
What Mueller found: “This evidence shows that the President was not just seeking an examination of whether conflicts in the Mueller team existed but instead was looking to use asserted conflicts as a way to terminate the Special Counsel. Instead of relying on his personal counsel to submit the conflicts claims, the President sought to use his official powers to remove the Special Counsel.”
6. Did Trump direct the White House counsel to lie about his order to fire the special counsel? (pages 325-332)
This section revolves around testimony by McGahn, who stated that Trump asked him to deny that the president had ordered him to fire Muller. As noted above, McGahn clearly recalled being ordered by the president to fire Mueller. In his report, Mueller weighs the possibility that the president may have sincerely been trying to correct inaccuracies in news stories reporting that he had tried to fire Mueller and was not asking McGahn to lie. In the end, Mueller seems to conclude that McGahn’s account is the more consistent.
What Mueller found: “Evidence indicates that by the time of the Oval Office meeting the President was aware that McGahn did not think the story was false and did not want to issue a statement or create a written record denying facts that McGahn believed to be true. The President nevertheless persisted and asked McGahn to repudiate facts that McGahn had repeatedly said were accurate.”
7. Trump’s order to limit Mueller from investigating him (pages 303-310)
Here, Mueller writes some of his most sharp and clear conclusions about the president’s actions. The report found that Trump directed his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski in July 2017 to tell Attorney General Jeff Sessions that he must block Mueller from investigating the president or his campaign. Lewandowski asked another White House official to deliver the message, but that official did not follow through.
What Mueller found: “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s efforts to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation … was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”
8.Trump’s push for Sessions to reverse his recusal and take over the investigation (pages 319-325)
During 2017 and 2018, the president repeatedly tried to have the attorney general take control of the special counsel’s investigation, though Sessions recused himself on March 2, 2017. In addition, the president repeatedly asked or directed Sessions to launch an investigation of Hillary Clinton.
What Mueller found: “A reasonable inference from those statements and the President’s actions is that the President believed that an unrecused Attorney General would play a protective role and could shield the President from the ongoing Russia investigation.”
9. The June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Trump officials and a Russian lawyer (pages 310-319)
Mueller confirmed news reports that the president personally directed a misleading press statement, to be attributed to his son Donald Trump Jr., about the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between top campaign staff and a Russian lawyer. The meeting was the result of emails offering Donald Trump Jr. damaging material about Clinton. Mueller concluded that the president’s actions to conceal the truth about the meeting was a “press strategy” and does not meet the definition of obstruction of justice.
What Mueller found: “Each of these efforts by the President involved his communications team and was directed at the press. They would amount to obstructive acts only if the President, by taking these actions, sought to withhold information from or mislead congressional investigators or the Special Counsel. But the evidence does not establish that the President took steps to prevent the emails or other information about the June 9 meeting from being provided to Congress or the Special Counsel.”
10. Did the president witness tamper or offer pardons to Flynn, Manafort and an unnamed person? (pages 332-345)
This section looks at whether the president tried to influence witnesses, including with the promise of pardons, to remain loyal to him or not cooperate with the investigation. This includes public and private statements directed to Flynn and Manafort. For example, Manafort’s onetime deputy, Rick Gates, testified that Manafort told him that “he had been in touch with the President’s personal counsel … and ‘we’ll be taken care of’” though the word pardon wasn’t used. Mueller drew separate conclusions here regarding Manafort and Flynn.
What Mueller found on Manafort: Trump “intended Manafort to believe that he could receive a pardon, which would make cooperation with the government as a means of obtaining a lesser sentence unnecessary. We also examined the evidence of the President’s intent in making public statements about Manafort at the beginning of his trial and when the jury was deliberating. Some evidence supports a conclusion that the President intended, at least in part, to influence the jury.”
What Mueller found on Flynn: “Evidence concerning the President’s intent related to Flynn as a potential witness is inconclusive. Also, sequence of events could have had the potential to affect Flynn’s decision to cooperate, as well as the extent of that cooperation. Because of privilege issues, however, we could not determine whether the President was personally involved in or knew about the specific message his counsel delivered to Flynn’s counsel.”
11. Trump’s conduct with Michael Cohen (pages 346-368)
In the longest section on obstruction, Mueller looks at whether the president directed his longtime attorney and fixer Michael Cohen to lie to Congress, and whether Trump tried to influence Cohen’s testimony when he later cooperated with the special counsel. Mueller writes that the president knew Cohen was lying to Congress, but it is not clear if he ordered him to do that.
What Mueller found: “The evidence concerning this sequence of events could support an inference that the President used inducements in the form of positive messages in an effort to get Cohen not to cooperate, and then turned to attacks and intimidation to deter the provision of information or undermine Cohen’s credibility once Cohen began cooperating.”
“With regard to Cohen’s false statements to Congress, while there is evidence, described below, that the President knew Cohen provided false testimony to Congress about the Trump Tower Moscow project, the evidence available to us does not establish that the President directed or aided Cohen’s false testimony.”
The PBS NewsHour’s Yamiche Alcindor reported for this story.
So there it is detailed and brief. Now you can argue about one or more if you like, but any one of the eleven is enough to impeach. That's why Barr will not provide the full report.
Show me where I said 11 instances please? You can't. But there were and apparently you can't read them and understand or you refuse to even try. You're that thirsty horse that has been led to water and still won't drink. [/quote]
Okay. Now we're getting somewhere. So, charge him.
Fools rush in... Can't charge him until the facts are released/out and fully understood by John Q Public and more importantly GOP Senators. Then and only then does impeachment hold any weight. Why impeach in the current atmosphere of mistrust and muddy waters? The only thing that would do is hand Trump a political victory.
Dems have a responsibility to get the facts then decide rather or not to impeach based on the fats. Let it play out and I think you will see an impeachment before 2020.
John Q Public doesn't need to know jack squat about it.
The facts are out. Congress has seen them. Charge him, or shut up.
Dude, since day 1 you've been harping on "just wait for the Mueller report". Constantly. Incessantly. Report came out. You didn't like it - even though you read all 400 some pages..........now you want more investigation. You've become a joke.
John Q Public doesn't need to know jack squat about it.
The facts are out. Congress has seen them. Charge him, or shut up.
Dude, since day 1 you've been harping on "just wait for the Mueller report". Constantly. Incessantly. Report came out. You didn't like it - even though you read all 400 some pages..........now you want more investigation. You've become a joke.
Congress hasn't seen them at all. They've seen what I sent you a link to see for yourself. You seem to be having a problem following facts that don't mesh with the Trump/Barr agenda of make this go away.
Show me where I said 11 instances please? You can't. But there were and apparently you can't read them and understand or you refuse to even try. You're that thirsty horse that has been led to water and still won't drink.
And then, 2 posts later, you list 11. Hmmm....[/quote]
MSNBC host presses GOP lawmaker on why he didn't read Mueller report
Rep. Rob Woodall (R-Ga.) says he “trusted” Robert Mueller to do his job when pressed on why he didn’t read the special counsel's full report.
On MSNBC Sunday night, host Kasie Hunt pushed Woodall on why he didn’t read the 448-page report, which summed up a nearly two-year-long investigation on Russian interference in the 2016 election.
"I said when we started this conversation that I trusted Mr. Mueller — he took a lot of slings and arrows throughout this process, but every U.S. attorney I knew said this is a man of great integrity. He’s gonna lead this investigation."
“So why not read the report?” Hunt asked.
“Well, I have a concern when you put the entire power of the United States Justice Department behind anything. You can achieve an agenda, you can drive a message."
"So you think the Mueller report was just driving an agenda?" Hunt continued. "There's nothing there that's worth figuring out?"
Ultimately, Woodall said, “obstruction is not a political issue, it is a criminal issue,” adding that Congress isn’t obligated to review the report, which did not bring any charges against President Trump but did not exonerate him.
“The constituents I represent don't want to see criminal activity at any place,” he said, “but they also don't want to see folks grinding their political axes when there are important economic issues, family issues, education issues that need to be handled."
"Folks are looking to turn that page," Woodall added. "I know people are pouring through that Mueller report looking for something to talk about again tomorrow and next week and the month after that."
Woodall said he “didn’t read the Bill Clinton report, either. I didn't follow any of that salacious news.”
“You weren’t in Congress at the time,” Hunt responded.
So, really, after some 2 years of investigation, and the final report given, you're trying to tell me congress has only seen what you claim to have seen? And nothing more?
Come on man, really? After years of you saying "wait for the mueller report", "any day now", etc ad nauseum.........NOW you say "well, we didn't see it all"???
After you just listed 11 'obstruction' charges? And congress hasn't done a thing?
You, sir, are a running 2 year joke. And it gets better and better as the time goes on.
Bad facts, twists and turns,... anything to try and provoke a reaction. Either you are a very incompetent reader or you are looking to start an argument. Either way, I'm not going to play your little games.
I do hope somebody helps you with your slipping mental faculties.
4. The evidence does not establish that the termination of Comey was designed to cover up a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia.”
5. “This evidence shows that the President was not just seeking an examination of whether conflicts in the Mueller team existed but instead was looking to use asserted conflicts as a way to terminate the Special Counsel. Instead of relying on his personal counsel to submit the conflicts claims, the President sought to use his official powers to remove the Special Counsel.
Number 5 is one of my personal favorites. It doesn't matter, as the special council was allowed to complete their inquiry. No crime, unless we start procecuting thought crimes.
6. He said, he said. No evidence of a crime, unless we procecute thought crimes.
7. “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s efforts to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation … was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”
How is this a crime? Would any of you want a procecuter to have unfettered access to sift through your psst to find a crime? Could any of you stand up to that kind of scrutiny? Trump did. He might be the cleanest president we've ever had.
8. “A reasonable inference". If it's reasonable, it can't be a crime.
9. But the evidence does not establish that the President took steps to prevent the emails or other information about the June 9 meeting from being provided to Congress or the Special Counsel.” Evidence dies not establish. No crime.
10. These are both speculative statements. If speaking to the press is a crime for the president, they should also go after every commentator that said words like 'treason'.
11. the evidence available to us does not establish that the President directed or aided Cohen’s false testimony.” I think that says it all.
The job of the senate is to bring bills on the floor and vote on them. Not put them on a shelf and refuse to follow the process. The new green deal wasn't even a binding piece of legislation. But the right sure wasn't saying that. They made it sound as of it was a binding measure. It wasn't.
No, wrong.
Ultimately, a law can only be passed if both the Senate and the House of Representatives introduce, debate, and vote on similar pieces of legislation. ... Once each chamber has approved the bill, the legislation is sent to the President. The President then makes the decision of whether to sign the bill into law or not.
Their job is not to simply approve the junk the House has sent them.
That's how it's supposed to work, but you got a dimwit like McConnell who won't even allow votes or discussion on the floor of the senate... Is he afraid they might get passed?
You have a wise man like McConnell who knows when a piece of junk bill is DOA. He doesn't waste everyone's time on garbage.
He keeps them busy approving Trump's Judges to the Federal Bench as Democrats ground that process to a halt.
He's a dimwit who just got $78 million generated by his wife. He's a crook.. Liar and has his head so far up trumps butt, he can't think straight.
As for not allowing a vote, that's not his job, his job is to allow senate Members to see, debate and vote on bills and other issues.
He's not supposed to be a road block for anything.
Do you have a link to a semi credible source? I googled it and found nothing at all. Redstate doesn't strike me as all that reliable, and I'm trying to be as kind as possible about that.
Do you have a link to a semi credible source? I googled it and found nothing at all. Redstate doesn't strike me as all that reliable, and I'm trying to be as kind as possible about that.
That's because your liberal sites don't report news they don't like. Are you trying to say that's a fake quote. That's from a DOJ site.
Do you have a link to a semi credible source? I googled it and found nothing at all. Redstate doesn't strike me as all that reliable, and I'm trying to be as kind as possible about that.
That's because your liberal sites don't report news they don't like. Are you trying to say that's a fake quote. That's from a DOJ site.
I'm saying the words "Mueller's retraction" never appear in that article and the author uses the term "backtrack", then goes on to say it's basically his opinion with:
Quote:
Now, some will take issue with the use of the word backtrack in this article. I think it’s accurate.
So, basically you have nothing. That's what I'm saying. You put 1+1 together and got 3.6 somehow ...
So how about some credible reporting to prove yourself right... smh
It's fake news... not the Trump type of fake news, where for example there are protests raging all over London during his visit and he says there's no protests and reports of same are 'fake news' ... this is real to goodness G.e.n.u.i.n.e fake news. The commentator/hack -- much like Barr -- invented meaning and reason and put words into Mueller's mouth that he never said and never meant. Got to love a good opinion piece posted as fact.
Dem committees win new powers to investigate Trump
The House voted Tuesday to grant new legal powers to a key committee investigating the Trump administration, handing Democrats another tool in their battle to bore deeper into Robert Mueller's report on Russia's election meddling and potential obstruction by President Trump.
The 229-191 vote broke down strictly along partisan lines with no defectors from either party, highlighting the entrenched divisions on Capitol Hill between Democrats accusing Trump of conducting a "cover-up" related to Mueller's findings, and Republicans fighting to protect their White House ally from what they consider a political "witch hunt" heading into 2020.
The resolution empowers the House Judiciary Committee to go before a federal court in seeking the Department of Justice's (DOJ) compliance with subpoenas for disputed materials and witness testimony. Two figures are named explicitly in the text: Attorney General William Barr, who has refused to release some parts of Mueller's report and the underlying documents; and Don McGhan, the former White House counsel who has defied a Democratic subpoena to appear before the committee.
But in a late-debate twist, Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) announced Monday that he's reached a deal with DOJ officials to access "Mueller's most important files."
The surprise 11th-hour agreement has tempered some of the long-running tensions between Democrats and the administration. And leading up to the vote on Tuesday, Democratic leaders simultaneously hailed the resolution as a necessary and aggressive expansion of their constitutional oversight powers, while also suggesting they might not ever need to use it.
"The timeline will, in part, depend on whether the DOJ continues to cooperate with our legitimate Article I powers of oversight and investigation," said Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Caucus.
"If they continue to cooperate with us, I would expect that we will not race to the courthouse."
That appeasement does not extend, however, to McGahn. And Democrats are suggesting they'll use the new legal powers provided by Tuesday's resolution to go after the former White House counsel in the not too distant future.
"Seems to me that Mr. McGahn is in a particularly vulnerable situation as a private citizen," Jeffries said. "He should either begin to cooperate immediately, or face the consequences."
The vote comes as a growing number of liberal Democrats are endorsing the launch of an impeachment inquiry targeting Trump — a move opposed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other top Democrats, who have political concerns about taking such a drastic step without a greater show of public support.
“There is nothing as divisive in our country, in my view, than impeachment,” Pelosi said Tuesday during an event in Washington, delivering a familiar refrain.
At least 56 rank-and-file lawmakers are backing impeachment, according to a tally kept by The Hill, and Pelosi is under growing pressure to show that her preferred strategy of aggressive investigations is getting results.
The language adopted by Democrats in describing Tuesday's resolution hints at the eagerness of top Democrats to project an image of going tough on the scandal-plagued administration, even as they're opting against even sterner legal measures at their disposal.
Indeed, Democratic leaders are labeling the resolution one of "civil contempt." But the measure makes no mention of contempt. And the language is much softer than another resolution, passed through the Judiciary panel last month, to hold Barr and McGahn in criminal contempt of Congress — a step that carries steep penalties, including heavy fines and up to a year in prison.
"We're calling it contempt, for short, because the courts obviously would have to find the executive branch in contempt in order to, sort of, render the orders to comply," said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a member of the Judiciary Committee and former constitutional law professor.
"So it's, generally speaking, not contempt."
There is some disagreement among the Democrats as to why they didn't pursue the criminal contempt resolution. Jeffries and Nadler both cited the DOJ's recent decision to share more Mueller files as the reason they softened their position.
"We began to see yesterday, in the face of the possibility of either a criminal contempt citation, or proceeding with inherent contempt, that they began to see things differently all of a sudden," Jeffries said.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) suggested the decision was rooted in more practical considerations, noting the unlikelihood of DOJ attorneys prosecuting the head of the agency.
"I understand contempt is not in the resolution — it's essentially civil contempt —and ... it authorizes the committee to go to ... have the courts enforce the subpoena," Hoyer said Tuesday. "We think that's a much more productive route than pretending that a U.S. attorney appointed by Donald Trump is going to pursue the attorney general — his boss — for contempt."
Separately, Democrats are still negotiating for the testimony of Mueller, who had indicated last month that he'd prefer not to appear before Congress to discuss his findings. Nadler has taken the lead on those talks, but has declined to give updates on their status.
The drawn-out timeline has frustrated a growing number of lawmakers, who want the special counsel to clarify a host of questions still lingering around his report, particularly his reason for not recommending obstruction charges against the president.
"That is the view of the overwhelming majority of the House Democratic Caucus," Jeffries said. "Bob Mueller has a duty to the American people to bring those conclusions to light in public testimony before the United States Congress."
DISCLAIMER: I wrote this while having a few beers so if I sound aggressive, ignore. Still I'm impressed I cooked this up so here you all go!
I'm in this weird camp anymore where I:
Feel very confident Trump has obstructed justice after reading the executive summary
Believe the Democrats were massive idiots believing Mueller would find high crimes and handcuff the President
Democrats thought they'd have Trump talking to Putin. If they knew anything about criminal organisations, they don't do face to face meetings! It all happens via courier. The news media played it up, the democrats ate it up, the conservatives are enjoying them eat crow now. I swear Nancy Pelosi is the only strategic Democrat in the whole dang party.
It's easy to say gay people can get married and make that the policy/law of the land. It's going to be darn near impossible for the party to wake up and realize the Republicans do not share the Democrats goal. It used to be that political parties existed because many people shared a way to improve life for their people. Some group gets together for human rights, or better business laws. We eventually ended up with two parties, who had very different ways to improve life, but each party knew the other was not an enemy, just someone with a different point of view. That maybe if we can find common ground we can help advance each other.
That doesn't exist anymore. It does for the Democrats. They want to advance their improvements for the people. But all the Republicans care about is getting more government power. They only advance improvements if it helps them get more power. Sharing improvements by its nature diffuses power, not build it.
But the Democrats don't know this. They just feel the Republicans are advancing their ideas of pro life, pro guns, and pro business. Yet pro life, pro guns, pro business only helps the powerful people build more power. Pro business because business thrives off the multiples of individuals labor. Pro guns because convincing bad guys and good guys that the other side has guns just makes everyone buy guns, and keeping them worried about their fellow man. Not the powerful. Pro life because business people need as much labor as they can. They don't care about your life story or if your mother was raped by a family member. They just care if you can do your job.
So until the Democrats realize that their sparring partner downright hates America they will get nowhere. Why do I think the GOP hates america? Before I explain that, let me be clear: I do not think GOP supporters intrinsically hate america. I believe most GOP supporters love america more than their liberal patrons do actually. But the GOP platform and those who benefit directly from the GOP platform certainly act like they do. The America of Lincoln is an America Of the people, by the people, and for the people. The GOP spits on this concept. The GOP only cares in concentrating its power in the few.
President Trump’s former aide Hope Hicks has agreed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee behind closed doors, the panel announced Wednesday afternoon.
Hicks has agreed to submit to a transcribed interview before the committee next Wednesday. The committee had originally subpoenaed her for public testimony on June 19.
“It is important to hear from Ms. Hicks, who was a key witness for the Special Counsel. Ms. Hicks understands that the Committee will be free to pose questions as it sees fit, including about her time on the Trump Campaign and her time in the White House,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said in a statement.
Nadler said he planned to release the transcript publicly ”promptly" after her testimony.
Hicks’s testimony will be significant, as she is the first former White House staffer to appear before the Democrat-led committee as part of its sprawling investigation into allegations of obstruction of justice and other abuses of power by Trump and his associates.
The White House has thus far blocked former officials such as ex-White House counsel Don McGahn from turning over documents and delivering testimony before the committee pursuant to subpoenas.
Earlier this month, the White House instructed Hicks and Annie Donaldson, McGahn’s former deputy, to decline to turn over documents related to their time in the administration. White House counsel Pat Cipollone argued that the documents remain under control of the White House and implicate executive branch confidentiality interests and executive privilege.
Hicks did provide the committee with some files related to her time on the Trump campaign, but she deferred to the White House order for documents related to her time in the administration.
The subpoenas to Hicks and Donaldson, issued together on May 22, also sought testimony from Hicks on June 19 and a closed-door interview from Donaldson on June 24.
Nadler, who has been battling with a White House that he says is stonewalling his committee’s legitimate oversight requests, also noted that he will work with Hicks to resolve any executive privilege issues that arise during the closed-door interview.
"Should there be a privilege or other objection regarding any question, we will attempt to resolve any disagreement while reserving our right to take any and all measures in response to unfounded privilege assertions," Nadler said. "We look forward to her testimony and plan to make the transcript promptly available to the public.”
Hicks served in prominent roles in the Trump campaign and later in the White House, resigning from her post as the president’s communications director in February 2018.
She provided testimony to special counsel Robert Mueller, details of which are included in his exhaustive 448-page report laying out contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia and exploring potential obstruction of justice by Trump.
Mueller ultimately did not reach a conclusion on whether Trump obstructed the probe, saying the Justice Department policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted prevented him from doing so.
Still, the special counsel has made clear that his investigation did not exonerate Trump of allegations of obstruction, and Democrats have taken his report and recent public comments as a green light to drill forth on their own investigations into Trump’s conduct.
Attorney General William Barr has said the evidence laid out in Mueller’s report is insufficient to accuse Trump of a crime.
Hicks will be the first fact-based witness the panel will hear from as part of its investigation, with her appearance coming two months after the release of the special counsel’s report.
Earlier this week, the committee hosted a panel with former White House counsel John Dean, a known Trump critic and a pivotal figure in the Watergate scandal during the Nixon administration in the 1970s, to hear testimony on obstruction.
Meanwhile, a deal for Mueller’s own testimony continues to evade the committee; Mueller indicated in his public remarks on May 29 that he is unwilling to testify publicly before Congress about the investigation. Nadler says he will subpoena Mueller if necessary.
Nadler, however, teased Mueller’s possible testimony in an interview with MSNBC on Tuesday evening, saying he would testify “way before” the end of summer, without providing further detail.
The announcement of Hicks's scheduled testimony comes one day after the House Democrats voted to give committee chairmen more power to go to court to seek civil enforcement of their subpoenas for individuals who do not comply with them.
George Conway pens op-ed calling for Trump impeachment proceedings
Lawyer George Conway and law professor Neal Katyal penned an op-ed published in The Washington Post on Wednesday calling for impeachment proceedings against President Trump to begin.
Katyal and Conway, the husband of White House counselor Kellyanne Conway and a frequent critic of Trump on Twitter, say Trump’s court filing arguing he cannot be investigated by Congress is the most recent indicator that lawmakers should begin impeachment proceedings.
Trump “filed a brief in the nation’s second-most-important court that takes the position that Congress cannot investigate the president, except possibly in impeachment proceedings. It’s a spectacularly anti-constitutional brief, and anyone who harbors such attitudes toward our Constitution’s architecture is not fit for office,” the two men wrote.
The two lawyers wrote that the brief “is nothing if not an invitation to commencing impeachment proceedings that, for reasons set out in the Mueller report, should have already commenced.”
Conway and Katyal are referring to an appeals brief filed by Trump’s lawyers in the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that argues against the House Oversight and Reform Committee’s ongoing probe into Trump’s business ventures and whether he broke the law by committing financial and tax fraud.
Trump "argues that Congress is 'trying to prove that the President broke the law' and that that’s something Congress can’t do, because it’s 'an exercise of law enforcement authority that the Constitution reserves to the executive branch,'" Conway and Katyal wrote.
The drumbeat of Democratic lawmakers calling for impeachment proceedings to begin has been growing, particularly increasing after special counsel Robert Mueller gave his only public comments regarding the findings of his report.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has tempered the conversation about impeaching Trump, pointing to the lack of Republican support outside of Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) who has been the only Republican to publicly support opening impeachment proceedings.
“Congress could investigate Trump’s finances in an impeachment proceeding, but it can do so without launching the formal process of impeachment,” Conway and Katyal wrote, concluding that “Trump’s brief can be construed as an invitation to commence impeachment proceedings. In those proceedings, Trump’s attitudes toward our Constitution’s checks and balances, in addition to evidence of obstruction of justice, must play a key role.”
Trump “filed a brief in the nation’s second-most-important court that takes the position that Congress cannot investigate the president, except possibly in impeachment proceedings. It’s a spectacularly anti-constitutional brief, and anyone who harbors such attitudes toward our Constitution’s architecture is not fit for office,” the two men wrote.
One by one, the Dems are knocking down Trump's obstructions and getting to the facts. Hicks will testify to avoid jail for contempt.
I hope she testifies and I hope she tells the truth... I have serious doubts that it's going to be some smoking gun like you seem to think it is... it will likely be somewhat vague and then both sides will pick and choose the parts that fit their narrative and the fight will rage on...
It will, however, give congressmen a great chance to grandstand and try to appear tough and argumentative for their constituents..
We can only hope. Maybe something good will come out of a very public thorough investigation. And if Trump is actually innocent, even though I can't fathom how he could be, then he would be innocent. That does not include impeachment where the Senate acquits simply on party line. That would only inflame matters.
We can only hope. Maybe something good will come out of a very public thorough investigation. And if Trump is actually innocent, even though I can't fathom how he could be, then he would be innocent. That does not include impeachment where the Senate acquits simply on party line. That would only inflame matters.
There is absolutely nothing that anybody could say or do at this point that is going to lead the majority of democrats to come to the conclusion that Trump is innocent... For two reasons.. one, that would require proving the negative, that he didn't do something, which is almost impossible to prove... two, he's almost assuredly NOT completely innocent and the evidence that is out there that SOMETHING happened, is too much.. democrats aren't going to ever let this go and no amount of testimony is going to change that.
On April 18, 2019, Swish posted on Facebook that the results of the Mueller report were coming out and that he was prepared to live with the findings... a bunch of folks in the comments agreed with him, IIRC... see how far that has gotten us?
Edit - Swish, know that this is not a dig at you.. I believe you were/are sincere.. just stating that these things very rarely actually reach a conclusion that the majority can agree on..
We can only hope. Maybe something good will come out of a very public thorough investigation. And if Trump is actually innocent, even though I can't fathom how he could be, then he would be innocent. That does not include impeachment where the Senate acquits simply on party line. That would only inflame matters.
There is absolutely nothing that anybody could say or do at this point that is going to lead the majority of democrats to come to the conclusion that Trump is innocent... For two reasons.. one, that would require proving the negative, that he didn't do something, which is almost impossible to prove... two, he's almost assuredly NOT completely innocent and the evidence that is out there that SOMETHING happened, is too much.. democrats aren't going to ever let this go and no amount of testimony is going to change that.
On April 18, 2019, Swish posted on Facebook that the results of the Mueller report were coming out and that he was prepared to live with the findings... a bunch of folks in the comments agreed with him, IIRC... see how far that has gotten us?
Edit - Swish, know that this is not a dig at you.. I believe you were/are sincere.. just stating that these things very rarely actually reach a conclusion that the majority can agree on..
Hard to judge Swish on that one since we still don't have the full report and Barr spun the thing falsely for a month before any Dem got a glimpse of it.
We can only hope. Maybe something good will come out of a very public thorough investigation. And if Trump is actually innocent, even though I can't fathom how he could be, then he would be innocent. That does not include impeachment where the Senate acquits simply on party line. That would only inflame matters.
There is absolutely nothing that anybody could say or do at this point that is going to lead the majority of democrats to come to the conclusion that Trump is innocent... For two reasons.. one, that would require proving the negative, that he didn't do something, which is almost impossible to prove... two, he's almost assuredly NOT completely innocent and the evidence that is out there that SOMETHING happened, is too much.. democrats aren't going to ever let this go and no amount of testimony is going to change that.
On April 18, 2019, Swish posted on Facebook that the results of the Mueller report were coming out and that he was prepared to live with the findings... a bunch of folks in the comments agreed with him, IIRC... see how far that has gotten us?
Edit - Swish, know that this is not a dig at you.. I believe you were/are sincere.. just stating that these things very rarely actually reach a conclusion that the majority can agree on..
Hard to judge Swish on that one since we still don't have the full report and Barr spun the thing falsely for a month before any Dem got a glimpse of it.
Like I said, I'm not judging him, I honestly think he was sincere... just a little too optimistic that there was actually going to be some kind of a conclusion in it.
Then the way it was rolled out, with editorial, rebuttal, innuendo, speculation, bits and pieces.. without just throwing the whole report out there for public consumption.. has only served to make it a freaking nightmare.
And then there are people who were actually OK with the SC's findings and are still OK with congress proceeding apace. That is how it's set up. I for one am OK with letting the process play out.
The froth of the news media treating every morsel as a thanksgiving dinner didn't help one bit. The report is as I expected, and I think anyone who has read the executive summary and came away thinking Trump is innocent has problems with reading comprehension. Most people haven't read the report OR the summary and just go off their preferred "news" source. An unfortunate side effect when news is a money business. Compare the BBC to our news outlets and its a night and day difference.
And that's the real problem here. Nobody has actually bothered to read it or even read the breakdown of the points made in it regarding obstruction.
They'd rather regurgitate what their talking heads say over and over again.
And I think it's far more a side effect of the people not really caring about knowing the actual truth and becoming sheeple. I mean the media plays its part but it's the people who no longer desire to actually look at things for themselves anymore.
I stay as far away from cable news as I can get. They all sound the same, making the game: pick your flavor and run with the bull you like to smell.
Me too. At my gym, there is a bank of TVs in front of the cardio equipment when you first walk in the door. Fox News and CNN are always right beside each other.... many times I've walked in, read the headlines of what both are talking about and the way it is phrased, chuckled, and gone about my workout...
