Justice Department agrees to brief Dems as Trump touts "spygate"

I'll wait on Mueller to see whether or not Rosenstein is called as a witness. It's been reported that Rosenstein continues to consult an ethics adviser, and will recuse at the point it's required.

"I've talked with Director Mueller about this," Rosenstein told the Associated Press. "He's going to make the appropriate decisions, and if anything that I did winds up being relevant to his investigation then, as Director Mueller and I discussed, if there's a need from me to recuse, I will."

But legal experts say the fact that Rosenstein consulted with an ethics adviser adds more legitimacy to his decision to stay on.

It "indicates that he is intent on doing things the right way," said CNN legal analyst Carrie Cordero, who served as senior associate general counsel at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and an attorney adviser at the Justice Department.

"Based on how he has overseen the special counsel to date, and the fact that Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself on the advice of DOJ's ethics advisers, I'm inclined to think that if Rosenstein was advised by career officials that he needed to recuse himself from certain matters, he would do so," Cordero added.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/13/politics/rod-rosenstein-ethics-recusal/index.html​

If Mueller's report lists crimes, his investigation has evidence of crimes, and Congress doesn't act to remove a President that committed crimes, we have a Constitutional Crisis. We'll just have to wait to see what Mueller's report says, as to whether his main thrust is obstruction, or if obstruction is the cherry on top, and collusion is the rest of the sundae. There is every indication that Mueller is looking to charge collusion. It makes no sense for Manafort to offer Deripaska updates on the campaign if Deripaska had no interests in the campaign. That's what the Gates plea deal was all about.

 

On the Emails thing, you know where I was/am at, Comey should've prosecuted but I can't control him. And with the OIG's report, we may yet have the legal standing to once again charge for the stealing, concealing and prohibited use of classified information by Secretary Clinton. As for Benghazi, it did turn out to be a bunch of nothing and yes, that is indeed outrageous in the sense that Congress could have done something more productive.

Of course, if the Administration hadn't lied and blamed radical Jihadist violence on a third rate youtube video, then maybe there's a little less investigating.

We saw the leaked open-ended inquiry into Mueller's teams questioning, none of them were truly specific related to a crime and honestly a lot of questions read like the investigators are using sources from the media itself to formulate their questions. And that's a whole another disturbing thing if in fact they need to use the media to conduct their investigation.

Given that, it's clear that the interview is indeed little more than a perjury trap. If those are the main questions, all Trump has to do is prove that Mueller can get sufficient information without his testimony.

Why push back? Not the right question. Why is there an investigation at all? There's no formal indictment, there's no announcement that Trump is a 'target'. It's clear that Mueller seeks a constitutional remedy. But as McCarthy argues: There's no need to use Special Counsel to bolster an impeachment argument.

It's not how law was meant to work, but nothing has operated as it should since Nov 8, 2016.

 

We'll see.

Since Rosenstein is the only firewall between Trump and Mueller, I don't see him resigning, nor do I see Mueller calling him as a witness to force a recusal. Since Rosenstein has sought ethics advice or a regular basis, I don't see him choosing to resign or being forced to resign for cause. He's got a buffer with the ethics advisor. Rosenstein knows what's at stake and what would happen if he was no longer between Trump and Mueller. So does Congress. If Trump thought he had Congress' backing to do as he pleased, the Mueller investigation would have already been stopped. He ordered McGahn to fire Mueller last June.

​

 

It is time my internet friend, to put your partisan differences aside and take up the flag for what is best for our country. It is time for you to at least explore that obama was playing dirty pool. It’s ok, we will all welcome you back into the fold of being a true American. There is nothing greater in this world than to call yourself an American. America is what is best, what is true, and what is right in this world. I don’t care if you are liberal or conservative, I want you to be right. Be righteous my brother irrespective of your political bent. Oh, change your search engine from google to duck duck go. It might just open your eyes. If not, you can change it back. Google is biased, and defending obama puts you on the wrong side of America and ultimately on the wrong side of history. We can agree to disagree but divulge just where you stand. As a combat veteran, This is where I stand.

 

One person is already serving jail time. The other guilty pleas are still cooperating with the investigation. The rest of the indictments are ongoing.

 

Lying about their discussions with Russians = nothing to do with russia.

#Logic

 

Eh, Comey lacked the evidence necessary to charge Clinton. If he had had it, he would have charged her.

Kevin McCarthy told the truth about the Benghazi investigation, and it was done to damage Hillary Clinton.

Do you know who leaked the Mueller questions? The Trump team. We don't know that those are the only questions Mueller wants Trump to answer. I highly doubt that the Mueller team would have told Sekulow just exactly what they wanted. From my understanding, Mueller's team actually gave Sekulow broad areas they wanted d to ask about. In order to prepare Trump for the interview, questions were crafted.

You know what? Nobody is making Trump lie. He doesn't have to perjure himself. All he has to do is tell the truth and there is no perjury. This is an investigation being watched world wide. If Trump did something criminal, people want him to have consequences. I don't believe many are willing for "gotcha" questions to be the way Mueller goes after Trump. Some partisans do, no doubt, but not most. Impeachment is tough on a country, but worth the pain if there is actual crime to be addressed.

Stop with the "why is there an investigation at all?" Russia, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Israel, and maybe others, all tried to illegally help the Trump campaign and the Trump campaign seemed eager to accept. There was/is a reason to investigate. If the Trump team didn't do anything illegal, then pushing back only makes Trump look guilty. Influential people have told him it makes him look guilty, and he persists. That should tell you something. He's obviously reluctant to interview with Mueller and his legal team seems to think he can't make it through an interview without lying. That should tell you something too.

If it is clear to you that Mueller is looking for a Constitutional remedy, then the reason should be clear too- he sees evidence of impeachable offenses. You know, even if Mueller's report tells us he found Trump was criminal, Congress still may not impeach. They have shown absolutely no desire to exert influence on Trump so far, and 67 votes is a high Senate bar to reach.

As far as Trump being a target, there's very little difference in being a subject and being a target. Trump is a subject. That's official.

 

It's amazing how the TDs left just keeps glossing over the FACT that it was the CLINTON CAMPAIGN, that SOUGHT OUT AND PAID FOR, " Russian Interference", and LIED ABOUT IT FOR A YEAR.

That's what the TDS left calls "opposition research". ASININE.

Meanwhile, out of the other side of their mouths, the TDS left cites UNSOLICITED contacts to the Trump Campaign, made by people CONNECTED to the Obama Swamp DOJ (Veselnitskaya) , AND the Obama Swamp's cohorts in British Intel, MIFSUD, etal) are "proof of collision"!!!???

Absolute, disingenuous IDIOCY, on its face.

It's OBVIOUS who was SEEKING FOREIGN AGENT INFLUENCE IN THE ELECTION; "follow the money", as the TDS left keeps harping, which ONLY LEADS TO= THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN. $MILLIONS PAID.

It ain't rocket science, and the fact that the "protectors from Russian influence" weren't ALL OVER the Clinton Campaign over it, is absolute, undeniable proof of the glaringly partisan, corrupt, political motivations of the SPY OPS of the Obama Swamp, against the Trump Campaign.

Last edited: 15 minutes ago

 

The important difference is that Trump's criminal defense team can start with discovery, etc. In many ways, Trump is less empowered to fight this then he would be as an ordinary citizen. I didn't know the Saudis, UAE and Israel all colluded to influence an election. That's the first I've heard of it, not even CNN/MSNBC picked up that angle.

And I don't think a President should be persecuted for "potential" crimes. We KNEW there was a watergate break-in, we don't necessarily know that the Russians hacked the DNC. No, we really don't. We have to take the third-word hearsay of Misfud, who then spoonfed it to Papadoulous and then of course the IC Community droning.

That's why everyone's like: Let's see the server. Let's investigate the actual crimes involved.

Is this what would have happened under a HRC Presidency? I would be on HRC's side if the law showed that HRC was innocent and this would be railroading a HRC Presidency.

But I'll make a new supposition: Suppose Trump is guilty of colluding with the Russians, should we still impeach? I'll argue no. It was reported early January 2016, that every candidate had some form of foreign aid. So we can say all of the then-18 Republican candidates and the DNC Candidates all colluded to influence the election.

This of course, goes back to the dreaded and incorrect Citizens United decision, to open up the floodgates of foreign and shadow money. Rough equivalence isn't the most flamboyant of arguments, but it is one. The larger argument is that, it may be true that Putin put Trump there. But the greater constitutional crisis would be impeachment(or fighting impeachment). We would give Putin a greater victory than the one he already has.

My position has been the same throughout: Get to 2020 in peace. Even if it means yes, we have to look past this. That'll irk many Democrats, maybe even independents and other Republicans. But it's the right thing to do for the security and prosperity of the United States. As long as we can establish the extent to which Trump is "owned" by the Russians and isn't morally corrupted to fill the position.

 

They are not just 'technically' under the executive, they genuinely are under the executive branch. The separation of powers, mirroring the intended 'checks and balances', is an essential part of the Constitution.

Neither attended the meeting. Pay no attention to Adam Schiff.

Giuliani can say whatever he wants and it's in everyone's interest, apart from the Democrats, that the process be over. Despite 17 lawyers, and many dozens of witnesses, they've found nothing.

 

They didn't go "into a meeting"!

 

The one person served a 30 sentence and then left the country was a Dutchman by the name of Alex van der Zwaan, who had nothing to do with the Trump campaign.

Any idea why others, like General Flynn, have not gone to trial yet?

 

Why did it become important whether or not someone talked to a Russian? Why did the FBI even ask the question?

 

It's not Rosenstein's job to be a 'firewall' and he has no 'buffer'. He's a part of the executive branch.

Trump has said repeatedly he has no intention to fire Mueller, nor should he. He'll wait until after the IG's report, at least. Right now the Swamp is digging a deep hole and Trump is not going to stop them.

 

Firing Comey cannot be a crime.

 

Lying about their discussions with Russia as an incoming Administration.....doesn't mean there is collusion.

Yes.....indeed logic. When will the leftness start to apply that means?

 

No one has revealed exactly what questions asked by investigators were answered untruthfully, or quoted the response deemed untruthful. From what's been reported, neither Flynn, or Papadopoulos denied having spoken to Russians. Papadopoulos, the one case that seems to be headed for final resolution, reportedly recited an innacurate timetable during his FBI interview. Flynns specific transgression remains a mystery, which probably accounts for his case being in limbo. 2 things are clear. Both admitted they spoke with Russians, and no charges related to the contact, or content were ever filed. The FBI was obviously investigating the content of the conversation, and relationships between the parties. That being their primary objective, we can safely conclude the contacts weren't illegal, and neither was the content.

 

1. Just sad... maybe it will sink in if you read it from the mother ship?

SNIP
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and White House lawyer Emmet Flood made brief remarks during the briefings
ENDSNIP

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...aign-confidential-informant-amid-spygate.html

2. Giuliani can certainly say what he wants, and doesn't seem afraid to do so... he's literally like a waterspout of crazy.... Not sure Trump could have picked a more representative representative..... The process HAS shown a public news slow down since the Russian indictments in mid-Feb, but don't let that fool you that nothing is going on....

 

Sure it can, if his reason for firing him has a bad intent… like interfering with a criminal investigation of the President. Otherwise, the President can actually be above the law in a country where no man is above the law, not even the President.

 

Still not a crime. Do you understand the role of a special prosecutor?

 

Papa is probably going to come out OK, sentence-wise, as none of his attempts to get Trump in a meeting with Russians came about, not for lack of trying... that's probably why his sentencing procedure is starting...

Flynn's lying hits a lot closer to home and I suspect he'll be among the last to be sentenced... Don't worry, I know it's been a while and a lot has happened in between... read up on the Flynn lying charges. Those discussions with Kislyak are quite possibly illegal, taking place when they did...

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/1/16724742/michael-flynn-plead-guilty-lied-fbi

 

Tell me this- why is Rosenstein the only one that can fire Mueller directly? To fire Mueller, Trump would have to fire Rosenstein, appoint someone else to the position, and have that person fire Mueller. Rosenstein is the firewall. We've been through this before with Nixon and the Saturday Night Massacre, where Nixon repeatedly fired people trying to stop the investigation into the Watergate burglary. Trump can fire people until he finds one that will fire Mueller, but there are political consequences to that kind of behavior that should remove the President from office. Maybe Congress won't impeach, but the American people still have the vote.

Trump has repeatedly said that Mexico is going to pay for the wall. I certainly hope that Trump doesn't fire Rosenstein or Mueller, but believing Trump won't do it because of something he said isn't a really good rationale. Trump lies.

This whole "swamp" meme is ridiculous. When almost your entire cabinet is corrupt, you're not draining anything.

 

As I said, yes, the DOJ is part of the Executive flow chart, when all the parts of the government are laid out, but the function they perform is part of the Judicial branch. Because the walk the line between the two, they have remained independent, until Trump.

They did attend the meeting, but they left before the briefing. Neither of them should have even walked in the door. It was inappropriate for them to be there. Now, Guiliani says the White House wants the details of the briefing. http://thehill.com/policy/national-...ants-briefing-on-classified-meeting-thinks-it

 

Lind of like if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass when it hopped, huh?

 

Does Hoover ring a bell? So much for that crap about they have remained independent.