Patterico's Pontifications

9/17/2019

Corey Lewandowski Is a Giant Lying Weasel

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:02 pm



I have not watched this vile scumbag’s testimony yet, as I just got home from work, but this clip is infuriating. It shows how the Trumpists mock the very notion of truth itself. I have literally seen testimony from several criminal defendants over the years who have come across as more honest than this.

Let the whatabouts and rationalizations begin!

P.S. CNN contributor. This guy and McCabe. They hire all the best liars.

UPDATE: “I will continue to be fourth-rate.” LOL.

UPDATE x2: Pro-tip: “I care more about the political leanings of the guy who posted this video on Twitter than I do about the utter dishonesty on display in the actual video” is equivalent to saying “I am a partisan hack who doesn’t give the slightest crap about the truth because of how much I love Donald Trump and his lying sycophants.”

Not a good look. But hey, many of you don’t care about that.

UPDATE x3: LOL.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

258 Responses to “Corey Lewandowski Is a Giant Lying Weasel”

  1. Patterico (115b1f)

  2. UPDATE: “I will continue to be fourth-rate.” LOL.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  3. My only parsing that even remotely approaches a defense of Corey Lewandowski is as follows:

    Given the number of giant lying weasels already incumbent in the Senate, he’ll fit right in there.

    Gryph (08c844)

  4. Over and over Trump supporters openly tell the world that they don’t mind lying if it get’s them what they want. And that mostly what they want is to own the libs.

    Time123 (69b2fc)

  5. What’d he lie about, more from aaron ‘tractor’ rupar, i think bolduc would be a nice change of pace, but spell it out, of course if not for the outrage over levandowski no manafort, so take a bow.

    Narciso (7658f4)

  6. @5 What are you trying to say?

    Time123 (c9382b)

  7. Vox?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  8. What’d he lie about, more from aaron ‘tractor’ rupar

    It’s a goddamned video. Only a hack cares who posts a video.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  9. Vox?

    Video?

    Hack?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  10. Only a hack cares who posts a video.

    Yes; The point isn’t what the video shows. The point isn’t what the video means. The point is that by using a video from VOX you’ve shown you’re not on the right team.

    Time123 (c9382b)

  11. UPDATE x2: Pro-tip: “I care more about the political leanings of the guy who posted this video on Twitter than I do about the utter dishonesty on display in the actual video” is equivalent to saying “I am a partisan hack who doesn’t give the slightest crap about the truth because of how much I love Donald Trump and his lying sycophants.”

    Not a good look. But hey, many of you don’t care about that.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  12. Yes, they’ve been saying that over and over and over again. More and more openly.

    Time123 (c9382b)

  13. Lying to the media should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    At the very least it merits the thorough wet noodle lashing and pension restoration that awaits McCabe.

    https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/4cddf669-6d9d-4ac7-83c6-40787fb41c33

    Munroe (732181)

  14. Well vox being where at least some of think progress slithered off to, so it matters

    Narciso (7658f4)

  15. . I have literally seen testimony from several criminal defendants over the years who have come across as more honest than this.

    I have had (thankfully brief, years ago, as an intern in the PD office) experience with criminal defendants. They all at least acknowledged the difference between right and wrong, even as they evaded and obfuscated to escape responsibility. (They rarely came out with an outright lie.)

    It’s spouses in the middle of a divorce who totally abandon truthfulness.

    Kishnevi (0cb353)

  16. UPDATE x3: LOL.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  17. Well vox being where at least some of think progress slithered off to, so it matters

    IT’S A VIDEO

    Patterico (115b1f)

  18. Remember, S__T rolls down hill.

    Just remember, what you are seeing and what you are reading is not what’s happening

    Especially from Cheeto jeezus.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  19. They did interesting tv recaps as in the americans, but they are just another journolist appendage remember the journolist dont you?

    Narciso (7658f4)

  20. Lying to the media should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    At the very least it merits the thorough wet noodle lashing and pension restoration that awaits McCabe.

    https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/4cddf669-6d9d-4ac7-83c6-40787fb41c33

    I had Munroe in mind when I wrote the line about whatabouts in the post. It’s what Munroe lives for. Without “whatabout?” Munroe would have no reason to comment about anything.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  21. Here’s a link to the real version of the video. Because if it’s from Fox News it must be better…or something.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  22. I think Lewandowski is a brave man and a patriot. He’s gotten attacked more, and smeared more, than almost anyone around Trump. Look at Moncia Fields and her lies about him. Now the Democrats are trying to rehash the Mueller Report and make him look bad. Nothing is being accomplished by his testimony. In fact, you had the D Committee members in their “questions” asserting Trump- Russian collusion – as if Mueller hadn’t spent 2 years investigating that.

    Lewandowski – like trump – fights back hard. Some would rather lose, than “stoop” to such methods. Well, that’s their decision. If you don’t care about results, only about “Grand Moral Principles” you can always start a new party.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  23. I think Lewandowski is a brave man and a patriot.

    You need to meet more men.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  24. Given you appear to have learned a lesson re: CNN and the NYT, you will -in time – learn one about Vox. I watched some of the hearing before being called away for another honey-do from a list that isn’t getting shorter as fast as it should be… I don’t feel one way or the other about Lewandowski, he’s been out of the picture for well over two years now. And Nadler makes my skin crawl.

    But I did watch his statement about the Russia Collusion crap and I can’t say I disagree. My opinion.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  25. @22 the results in question are what?

    Time123 (d54166)

  26. He lied during media interviews?! Wait till Ben Rhodes, Hillary and “If you like your doctor” hear about that!

    NYT’s iconic towers of truth and Sabrina Rubin Erdley, will also be flabbergasted!

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e)

  27. Oh the sainted mueller who let four man rot in jail, for a crime he didnt commit, who tried to duin stephen hatfills life based on rumors trafficked by nick kristofs pen pals who shut down the bcci investigation into some playerz who would later fund bin laden, wrote something in the sacred scroll, is that about right?

    Narciso (7658f4)

  28. @24 no one is defending VOX, they just happened to have the clip available. Do you get that?

    Time123 (d54166)

  29. @26 nice whatabout. Are and Munroe the same guy?

    Time123 (d54166)

  30. @22 This is not meant as shade in any way and obviously you don’t have to answer, but I am curious. Are you employed in/by the Trump administration? Or maybe in/by the Republican party apparatus? Your ability to remain almost pointedly on message in the face of what would otherwise be somewhat startling and perhaps discouraging events is extremely consistent and strongly rooted.

    Nic (896fdf)

  31. Now mueller did that on the advise of ‘psycho killer’ weld in the first instance, by the aecond he should have known what he was doing, by the third enemy action, now re other mattera like the framing of sen atevens by protected witness ted stevens and his tete a tete with maryann kempner and other mattsrs

    Narciso (7658f4)

  32. another honey-do from a list that isn’t getting shorter as fast as it should be

    Haven’t you figured out yet that the honey-do list never gets shorter, it just gets new stuff to replace the old ones?

    [Evil cackle, since I am a lifelong bachelor]

    Kishnevi (0cb353)

  33. 28… yes, but it’s akin to purchasing a hand gun from teh Hell’s Angels instead of a reputable gun dealer.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  34. He did a job, he was houmded by a mob of malcontents out of the campaign manager and you emded up with manafort who had a betamax understanding of electoral mechanics, but back on the day he took up jonas savimbis cause, when the soviets were crushing everyone in sight

    Narciso (7658f4)

  35. When we were allied with south africa because we knew the anc would bring ruin, it has becoming the oligarchs

    Narciso (7658f4)

  36. @32 In observation of my parents and other married couples, as far as I can tell, the honey-do list tends to get longer or more often mentioned the more the wife is irritated by her husband’s hovering and/or non-productive presence (especially if he is hovering/non-productive while she is doing chores).

    (also unmarried)

    Nic (896fdf)

  37. Yes the grandees that followed mandela mbeki and most recently zuma, proved that aphorism about socialism, man exploiting man’

    Narciso (7658f4)

  38. So you don’t care if Team Trump lies because they want to make sure X becomes reality, and you want X to become reality.

    But if they are lying, how can you be sure they actually are trying (or even want) X to become reality?

    Put another way: the real core of Leftism is abandoning integrity in the pursuit of their political power. So conservatives who abandon integrity in the pursuit if political power are merely another form of Leftism.

    Kishnevi (0cb353)

  39. If you think this was more than a dog and pony show, go revisit Rep Sarwall’s (Sic) testimony where he taunts Lewandowski with childish insults over who should read a portion of the Mueller report and then plays Perry Mason about which notes got put in a safe!

    However, he did nail down that Cory took more than 1 dictation from Trump and always put them in a safe. So, Time well spent!

    rcocean (1a839e)

  40. The mueller report is the arbiter of truth now, just like the precious blank pages of pogrebin and co, like mayer and abramson tried to do to clarence thomas 25 years ago.

    Narciso (7658f4)

  41. Is this Vox Video Clip on youtube? I can’t play Video from Twitter.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  42. He was this close to threatening to nuke…the safe.

    Narciso (7658f4)

  43. You need to meet more men.

    I was comparing him to Liberal Democrats. A low bar, I agree.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  44. Of course it was a dog and pony show. Corey is both a dog and a horse’s azz, he’s shown it time and time again.

    It will be amusing for him to run for senate, he’ll lose by 25 points and continue to show that azz to anyone that will bothers to glance.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  45. Are you employed in/by the Trump administration?

    The white house counsel has informed me that under “executive privilege” I cannot disclose my employment status. However, my wife has informed me that typing on the internet and not getting paid for it is a waste of time.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  46. Any Republican will lose NH now. Once enough crap for brains Massachusetts Democrats moved there, the state was finished. IMO, we should simply kick New England out of the USA and tell them to join Canada. They don’t seem to like the rest of the USA, and have nothing in common with us. Imagine the USA without 11 liberal Democrat Senators (and Collins) always asking for a handout and more $$. And more globalism and more open borders.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  47. @45 Interesting choice of answer.

    Nic (896fdf)

  48. Well the third?? generation of sununus were elected, but there is are very few “live free or die’ types there anymore.

    Narciso (7658f4)

  49. Its a joke like the star wars bar scene of a committee,

    Narciso (7658f4)

  50. 32… yes, I’m good natured about it. She has been retired for 10 years and she worked hard around the house and in the yard when I was putting in 12 hour days – admittedly from home – and continues to… she always needs a project so that includes me as well.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  51. “Giant Lying Weasel”…

    Do like that phrasing BTW – has that ‘screaming-yellow-zonkers’ cadence to a seasoned media ear.

    Giant Lying Weasel shagged Ms. Hicks, too; so there’s ‘hope’ for everybody. Hasn’t been such an entertaining, crew-cutted, stonewalling rodent on the TeeVee since H.R. Haldeman testified; he was a Republican, too.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  52. He lied during media interviews?! Wait till Ben Rhodes, Hillary and “If you like your doctor” hear about that!

    NYT’s iconic towers of truth and Sabrina Rubin Erdley, will also be flabbergasted!

    WHATABOUT!

    Patterico (115b1f)

  53. Was that confirmed or more wolfesbane i though she was dating rob porter, who made himself a shiny new source for woodward.

    Narciso (7658f4)

  54. Given you appear to have learned a lesson re: CNN and the NYT, you will -in time – learn one about Vox. I watched some of the hearing before being called away for another honey-do from a list that isn’t getting shorter as fast as it should be… I don’t feel one way or the other about Lewandowski, he’s been out of the picture for well over two years now. And Nadler makes my skin crawl.

    But I did watch his statement about the Russia Collusion crap and I can’t say I disagree. My opinion.

    It. Is. A. Video.

    See UPDATE x2.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  55. star wars bar scene of a committee,

    You got that right. what a bunch of freaks!

    rcocean (1a839e)

  56. A room wall to wall with “vile scumbags” and Corey’s the one that grabs one’s attention. Must be his charisma.

    Munroe (732181)

  57. He remained unflappable, does this committee do any useful work rhetorical.

    Narciso (7658f4)

  58. When President Swalwell was grandstanding, asking Lewandowski to read his statement, he should have just read what Swalwell tweeted to a defender of the 2nd Amendment who said government attempts to confiscate semi-automatic rifles could start a war between the govt. and gun owners:

    And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes.”
    _

    harkin (8f010c)

  59. Ok, I finally saw the video. And Lewandowski wasn’t totally honest with MSNBC. OMG!

    How could anyone somewhat lie to those honest Joes and Mika’s at MSNBC. Is there any network that has given Trump a fairer shake? Another Network that is more fair and balance? This is place that had Keith Olbermann as its star news anchor and still employs Larry -I retract my statement under threat of a lawsuit – O’Donnell. Not to mention, Chris – Tip O’Neill was a lovable corrupt scamp – Matthews. That’s honesty and integrity right there. The real question is:

    Why did Lewandowski waste his time on MSNBC. Is he a paid contributor?

    rcocean (1a839e)

  60. Bin ladens favorite network till they fired keefums, then he was stuck with aljazeera.

    Narciso (7658f4)

  61. Ok, I finally saw the video. And Lewandowski wasn’t totally honest with MSNBC.

    Or congress, but who cares about that amiright. He’s got his pocket pardon, so he gets to say whatever he wants, facts be damned.

    Or are we just ignoring those lies? It’s OK to lie if it’s to “pwn the libs”, honesty is much less important than lyin’ for the lulz.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  62. @58 If we are dealing with speculation in which civilian casualties are not a concern, nukes would be overkill for a small rebellion and a dumb choice to use given the half-life of radiation. In the appropriately sized area, a gas dispersal bomb would be better, because the land is usable after the fireball. For a couple houses or a neighborhood, a tank or tank battalion would be relatively appropriately sized.

    Anybody who thinks they are going to take down the government with an AR-15 is fooling themselves or attempting to bolster their… self-esteem. Their best bet would be for the army to just lay down their arms and quit if given an illegal order to attack US citizens.

    You know, if we are indulging in stupid speculation and bravado.

    Nic (896fdf)

  63. How could anyone somewhat lie to those honest Joes and Mika’s at MSNBC. Is there any network that has given Trump a fairer shake

    Given the airtime Scarborough gave primary candidate Trump….probably not.

    Kishnevi (170c4a)

  64. Also, there’s this bit of him being truthful:

    Lewandowski sat for an April 6, 2018, interview with Mueller, according to the special counsel’s report, providing an eyewitness account of an effort by Trump to constrain Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Mueller obtained notes, emails and even LinkedIn exchanges.

    In 2017, Trump deputized Lewandowski to approach then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions and order him either to restrict Mueller’s probe to future interference by Russia or be removed from his Cabinet post. Lewandowski, though, told Mueller he didn’t want to deliver that message to Sessions, so he asked former top White House aide Rick Dearborn to pass it along instead. Dearborn never followed through, Mueller found.

    In his review of the episode, Mueller found that Trump’s actions met all the criteria that would typically result in an obstruction of justice charge. But Mueller also indicated that this team had determined at the outset not to judge whether Trump had committed a crime, owing in large part to a longstanding Justice Department opinion that says a sitting president is immune from indictment.

    Lewandowski largely confirmed the version of events contained in Mueller’s report, at times complying with Democrats’ line of questioning by agreeing with the way Mueller’s report characterized his actions and responses to Trump’s directives.

    But he’s obviously been lying about this part though, because Cheeto jeezus or something.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  65. The press is the only profession where you can lie constantly and not have to apologize. You just keep shouting “Freedom of the Press” or blame someone else. You can even call yourself a “fact checker” site and lie about that. So, I don’t care if Republicans “Lie” to the liberal press. I DO care if they lie to their supporters and the American people.

    People like Bush I and Mittens always got it backwards. They never lied to the NYT’s. Just to us. I’m still trying to figure out what Romney’s position on Immigration is, he’s lied so many times. McCain, famously lied to the people in SC that he supported the state flag, while telling his Press buddies – privately – that he was against it. He said the same about Falwell and pat Robertson. McCain only PUBLICLY labeled them “agents of intolerance” AFTER super Tuesday in 2000. But before that, he was sneering and attacking them PRIVATELY with his NYT/WaPo buddies.

    But the best way, is to simply cut out the middle man press corps and talk directly to the people. That’s why Trump’s tweets are so great.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  66. I’m not sure why I’m supposed to care whether Lewandoski talked to Sessions or didn’t talk to him. Or why its important in September 2019. But the walls are closing in on Trump. We’ve got him this time!

    rcocean (1a839e)

  67. The press is the only profession where you can lie constantly and not have to apologize. You just keep shouting “Freedom of the Press” or blame someone else. You can even call yourself a “fact checker” site and lie about that. So, I don’t care if Republicans “Lie” to the liberal press. I DO care if they lie to their supporters and the American people

    You may want to pay attention to that guy who lives in a big white house in Washington, he tells whoppers by the dozens, daily. He resembles a giant orange oompa loompa, just with less book learnin’.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  68. 56… heh… star quality?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  69. “Or congress, but who cares about that amiright.”
    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c) — 9/17/2019 @ 8:47 pm

    If Corey lied about Kavanaugh raping him, the congressional majority would be chiseling him onto Mt. Rushmore.

    Munroe (732181)

  70. I will admit that I am only slightly concerned about this display of contempt. I have seen it before, just a while back to be honest. Ahollery is not exclusive to any party or occupation. I don’t care for it much either. However, after years of this BS to unseat and obstruct, I can’t shed a tear for Ds being obstructed. The contempt is earned. It’s not new to this administration and it’s not all ancient history. What I do care about is continuing to move the country forward in the direction I felt it should have been moving for the past eighteen years, and if it requires Trump as the mechanism that facilitates that…..so be it. Johnson pissing off the Camp David balcony in the middle of the night onto SS agents didn’t kill us, neither will Trump. And I don’t understand how that make me subject to contempt for believing so.

    Rich (995a5b)

  71. We obviously need to re-examine that skimpy Mueller Report. 2 years – and 900 pages – aren’t enough to do more than skim the surface, of Trump-Russia. So, I’m glad that Nadler is getting to the bottom of things. Important questions need to be answered. Like did Lewdoski (sic) take dictation from Trump more than 1 time, and if so, how many? And did he put them all in a safe? And where was that safe? What was the combo? And did Corey keep his lunch in there? And if so, did he have fruit with his lunch?

    So many questions. And I hope this doesn’t stop the search of Trump’s tax returns or the questions of who is sleeping in Trump’s Scotland Golf Course.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  72. 64… applause for still being impressed by Robert Mueller! Go get ‘em, Sparky!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  73. The sacred scrolls, coronello or infiniti stones, looks like luring robert downey for one more…cameo

    Narciso (7658f4)

  74. @66 Given your comment history, I don’t think any really expects you to care?

    The rest of us might or might not care. IANAL or a constitutional expert or anything, so anyone should feel free to correct me. My understanding of the constitution is that the congress can impeach the president for high crimes or misdemeanors if they feel it is appropriate. My understanding is also that it is justice department policy that if the President is thought to have committed such a thing, a crime would not be charged until after the impeachment process is completed and voted on in such a way as to remove the president. Therefore, there is no recourse to law and order regarding the President that goes directly through the justice department so any judgement must first travel through the congress. Thus the current hearings are (theoretically) meant to determine if the house believes that the President may, in fact, have committed the kind of high crimes or misdemeanors that might lead them to choose to vote on impeachment and so they are interviewing Cory Lewandowski because they believe that he might have information helpful to the process, which, in this case is whether or not the President attempted to obstruct justice by threatening Jeff Sessions through the vehicle of Cory Lewandowski.

    Or if TLDR, people who care might want to know if the Pres broke the law by sending Cory to threaten to can Sessions butt if he didn’t drop any investigations that might make the Pres unhappy. And if he did, then they might want to kick the Pres’ butt out of the whitehouse in response.

    (this obviously simplifies things so as to ignore the people who want to can the president regardless of his law breaker status or who don’t want to, again regardless of his lawbreaker status, because they are partisan hacks who only care if their guys win.)

    Nic (896fdf)

  75. What underlying crime, like deadpool at the end of the film ‘go home already’ muellers back to taking honoraria from corrupt banks and tech companies that may need his services.

    Narciso (df3ce3)

  76. I have 99 98 concerns, but a lying Lewandowski will not be found on teh list.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  77. If mueller were still around, thiz teatimony would be followed by a swat team at the door asking for tea

    Narciso (df3ce3)

  78. @75 Clinton got consensually blown. Imminently legal. Not actually legal to lie to law enforcement about. The key word in process crime is crime, not process.

    Nic (896fdf)

  79. @77 obviously not, since they were essentially asking him to repeat testimony he’d already given Mueller and Lewandowski wasn’t invited to host a swat tea party back then.

    Nic (896fdf)

  80. Yeah, it’s funny how people are fine with a guy lying about trying to cover of the fact the Russians actively helped him get elected. But if only Trump got a BJ from someone other than his wife, and lied about it!!! Heaven forbid, oh wait, that happened, and happened, and happened, and he paid them to shut up about it.

    I don’t remember that part of Monica’s story, the one where she got paid $130k right before the election to hush up.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  81. 82… Leave the bitterness and disappointments of the past in the rear view mirror, you’ve got the future in front of you. It’s a healthier approach to life.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  82. The yosemite sam reaction, or alternately duck amok is amusing.

    Narciso (df3ce3)

  83. Tarnation!!!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  84. @83 Er. hm. How are we feeling about Hillary today? Are we all “Lock her up” or at a more chill “Bygones?”

    Nic (896fdf)

  85. Whatabout!!

    Munroe (732181)

  86. but hurt never trumpers crying big boy tears because mittens and his ilk have no chance of beating Trump.

    mg (8cbc69)

  87. https://top10supreme.com/butt-pillows/
    Here ya go never trump

    mg (8cbc69)

  88. Also funny when you poke the “whatabouters” and they say look, you can’t do what we do, our whatabouts are the best whatabouts because it’s in support of Cheeto jeezus.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  89. never trump donor Buck arrested

    mg (8cbc69)

  90. Poke a NeverTrumper real hard and he bleeds Smurf blue.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  91. 54… in as much of the hearing I watched, Lewandowski – who was pulled before the HJC by subpoena – gave the Left all the respect they deserve. He smacked down the nonsense tossed at him regarding the Trump-Russia Collusion garbage. People who don’t have an axe to grind have moved on.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  92. Democrats, the media (BIRM), Never Trump and the Trump Super Ankle Biters are all part of the same oozing malignancy.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  93. Three things

    1. Saying you have no obligation to tell the truth to the media means you have no obligation to tell the truth to the people watching/reading that media. The point isn’t that he lied to a reporter, it’s that he lied to all of us.

    2. No one gets the last move when we’re breaking norms. Trump is a very unpopular president and 2 of the top 3 Democratic candidates are openly opposed to our current economic model. I’m sure at some point I’ll see some Dem A-Hole pull a worse stunt and everyone on that side will say it’s justified by this. The more acceptance there is on the right, and so far this is being lauded by the leaders of the right, the less credible their objections will be to people that don’t feel much kinship with either team, which is the majority of the country, if not the majority of voters.

    3. I believe our country works best when the power of government is less than it is today. Part of what limits the power of government at the federal level are checks and balances between the branches. This pageantry today diminished one of those checks.

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  94. Although i think nadler went tazmanian, these are people who looked askance at an assaaination of an ambassador at gun running to cartels, at using the tools of state to knee cap the opposition

    Narciso (df3ce3)

  95. @96, again, what are you trying to say?

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  96. Not to take them seriously, nor literally, real crimes against the state they dont care for.

    Narciso (df3ce3)

  97. Okay. I watched the entire first clip. With the “consultant attorney”. What is that in aid of? In court, it would be struck as improper impeachment or just on a general objection of relevancy. What does what he said to MSNBC tend to prove or disprove?

    I watched the first six minutes of the big clip. That was bad faith on the part of Lewandowki with more than a tad of ineptitude on the part of Nadler. If Lewandowski is under orders from Boss Orange to testify only about what’s in the Mueller Report, then hell yes he knows or should know what’s in the Mueller Report. On the other hand, Nadler could have been better prepared for what he knew what would be a lying twatwaffle of a crapweasel of a hostile witness.

    nk (dbc370)

  98. what he knew what would be a lying twatwaffle

    nk (dbc370)

  99. Its a travesty of a mockery of a sham, so why not go all bugs bunny.

    Narciso (df3ce3)

  100. I don’t blame Corey.

    Yes, he’s a partisan hack… what’d you expect?

    However, if the Democrats are going to sit there and fling poo… don’t be surprised the poo being flung back. Just because they’re elected officials doesn’t shield them from their own bad actions.

    Yes… it’s sad that’s where we’re at in politics these days… but, this is one of those times that getting on your “high horse” just isn’t worth it.

    Reap what you sow.

    whembly (51f28e)

  101. So you have an apologist for lenin, at the post, on diversity grounds, tell me they give a fig about the russians

    Narciso (df3ce3)

  102. 98… yes. These people are not serious. The dried pastrami, bobka eating, gelatinous Nadler and crew haul Lewandowski in front of them and their media operatives for a third time… just another waste of time on the taxpayers’ dime. They get the lack of respect they deserve.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  103. Berke is a very good examiner. Experienced/good prosecutors know that just making a spectacle of yourself is not the answer.

    Usual Congressperson cross-examination:

    CHAIR: We call to order this investigation of Patterico for his sales of nuclear weapons to Kazakhstan. Congressman Otherparty has the floor.

    OTHERPARTY: Patterico, as an apple farmer, I and many of colleagues in the apple industry don’t believe your claims. We work hard for our money in Appleoosa getting up early in the morning to farm for America, and we don’t see how people like you who are trying to ruin America by selling nuclear weapons in the late afternoon – probably because you’re sleeping in at the Waldorf-Astoria – and are demeaning and hurting this nation. [11 minutes later]. My question, sir, is this: Why are you such a terrible person?

    PATTERICO: My mother loves me very much.

    CONGRESSPERSON THISPARTY: We love you too.

    OTHERPARTY: Also, what was in the suitcases you walked out with after leaving large crates labeled “Nuclear weapons,” in a Kazakhstan warehouse?

    PATTERICO: They were Samsonite suitcases from the 1970’s. They’re really cool.

    OTHERPARTY: Our state manufactures much better luggage.

    … and away we go. Non-answers can’t be permitted to work, and Congress is generally more than happy to bloviate.

    Also, Lewandowski is a completely terrible person.

    JRM (c80289)

  104. Sorry, Time123, but I have to take umbrage with

    1. Saying you have no obligation to tell the truth to the media means you have no obligation to tell the truth to the people watching/reading that media. The point isn’t that he lied to a reporter, it’s that he lied to all of us.

    Basically, we know or should know better. The media does not inform us, it misinforms us, and more purposefully, more persistently,and more regularly, than its purported sources do. It is not our Agent For Truth.

    nk (dbc370)

  105. “Media” is plural, isn’t it? “They” not “it”.

    nk (dbc370)

  106. No you ship them in babylonian statues? Like in yrue lies?

    Narciso (df3ce3)

  107. NK, This isn’t a case of “media good” and it’s not like he was part of some large complicated story.

    Maybe I worded this overly broadly.

    He lied and the media broadcast that lie far and wide. So is he talking to ‘the media’ or is he talking to the people watching and reading? There was no filter or context or larger story or narrative. This was ‘the media’ taking what was said and sharing it broadly.

    Change the sentence a little bit. I have no obligation to tell the truth to a camera. But when I say something that is recorded am I talk talking to the recording device or the people that will watch the recording?

    I get it, the media is doing a terrible job. But that doesn’t mean his lies are OK. Both can be bad at the same time.

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  108. Oh, and that’s not a crewcut, DCSCA, it’s a two-four cut. Quarter inch on the sides and back, half an inch on top. It looks like a same-length buzzcut on older men because the hair on top is thinner than the horseshoe.

    nk (dbc370)

  109. Can skippy take his skateboard home?

    https://babalublog.com/2019/09/17/beto-is-a-4-letter-word-part-2/

    Narciso (df3ce3)

  110. The thing is levandowski quit the campaign three and a half years, because of some silly tantrum we saw reflected here, now ultimately it led to kellyanne and bannon as campaign chairs and she pulled off an inside straight

    Narciso (df3ce3)

  111. The Lewandowski thing does not seem to be anything other than a game for partisan sport. Yes, there are amusing moments, but Corey L just refuses to talk about anything sustantive. Sure, he looks like a jerk. And we are treated to moments like this:

    Q. YOU AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT THAT YOU WOULD ASSERT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IF YOU BELIEVED YOU WERE IN TROUBLE, TO QUOTE YOUR WORDS TO FOX NEWS?
    A. I DON’T THINK I WAS UNDER ANY OBLIGATION WHEN SPEAKING WITH FOX NEWS TO NOT ENGAGE IN HYPERBOLE IF I SO CHOSE.

    This just becomes another chapter in our ongoing pathetic reality show unless Congress actually decides to get serious about Corey L’s refusal to talk about any conversation to Trump. If they aren’t, then Pelosi is just constructing an unsatisfactory Bread and Circuses approach to all this. Maybe that’s what she feels she needs to keep the Squad at bay, but there’s no reason to take any of this seriously, or for Corey L to do much more than be a fourth-rate performer of a bad Celeberity Apprentice script.

    Appalled (d07ae6)

  112. This inquiry was obtained by fraud, from the doosier to the fisa warrant to thd comey memo that prompted the appointment, so yes the middle finger is warranted.

    Narciso (df3ce3)

  113. That’s both dumb and factually wrong.

    Time123 (22f35b)

  114. Correction: should be dumb and unsupported by available evidence.

    Time123 (22f35b)

  115. 111… NeverTrump don’t know but the people understand.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  116. So explain it to me.

    Time123 (22f35b)

  117. The third time wasn’t the charm. The Democrats came off as the chumps they are and now they are frantically trying to change the subject as they back away from the latest horseschit pulled on Kavanaugh.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  118. NeverTrump are chumps-by-association, the weak sucks.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  119. Of course since everyone in washington is on glen simpsons speed dial, thats the only story being told, blank pages

    Narciso (df3ce3)

  120. @122, is that directed at me? Seems like it.

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  121. Okay. I watched the entire first clip. With the “consultant attorney”. What is that in aid of? In court, it would be struck as improper impeachment or just on a general objection of relevancy. What does what he said to MSNBC tend to prove or disprove?

    A statement made on TV regarding the subject matter central to your testimony, that contradicts your statements to federal law enforcement officers, would be considered irrelevant?

    Not in my court, counsel.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  122. 122… and I take no pleasure in saying it. In all its forms, this is a terribly dumb-assed phenomena.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  123. The things that bother them are overshadowed by the things that they ignore.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  124. The things that bother them are overshadowed by the things that they ignore.

    What a complete lie. I’ve said over and over again that it’s possible to be bothered by both. There are many commentators on here that have spoken out about both. For some reason you can’t seem to grasp that more than one thing can be true at the same time. For instance it can be wrong for the NYT to cock up a story about Kavanaugh in 2019 and wrong for Corey to lie to the american pubic in 2016.

    there’s no conflict between the two positions.

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  125. My comments weren’t directed at you, Time.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  126. And the newest contestant on White House Apprentice is revealed….

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-names-hostage-negotiator-as-national-security-adviser/ar-AAHtJyN

    kishnevi (9ce8ca)

  127. Not in my court, counsel.

    Shots fired…

    Dave (1bb933)

  128. Where do I get the time back I just wasted trying to understand what you were trying to say; under the apparent cloud of mind alteration; either chemical or mental illness.

    Walter (3f7341)

  129. In your court, there would be an accused and an element of a crime to be proven or not proven.

    If your interest is in the truth of the matter asserted, then what is the question trying to accomplish other than that Lewandowski’s statements to Mueller (to the effect that Trump did try to get Lewandowski to get Sessions to fire Mueller) might not be true?

    Is that what Berke was trying to do? Help exonerate Trump on that particular part of “obstruction” through Lewandowki’s inconsistent statements?

    Or did Berke want to accuse Lewandowski of lying to Mueller, a crime in and of itself, whether it exonerated Trump or not?

    Then, yes, in both instances, it is relevant.

    But is that the case here, or was Berke just trying to paint Lewandowki as a person who once lied to MSNBC?

    nk (dbc370)

  130. So remember the purported “scandal” about the Air Force making stops in Ireland that were near a Trump-owned hotel? Teh Emoluments Clause oh noes?!?!

    It appears these began under the Obama administration, as this was the most convenient and cheapest area to layover. Reporters that followed up and checked rates at the other hotels in the area, e.g., Marriot, found Trump Turnberry rates are cheaper.

    Major media outlets hyped and reported the first story and, of course, it turns out to be a fake scandal and the story disappears.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/trump-turnberry-hotel-air-force-stays-no-scandal/amp/

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  131. He didn’t just lie to msnbc. He lied to every he expected to hear what he said in the interview.

    Time123 (22f35b)

  132. CH, there’s no new info in the link. It’s just a different take on the politico pc that it quotes extensively.

    Time123 (22f35b)

  133. #136 He didn’t just lie to msnbc. He lied to every he expected to hear what he said in the interview.

    Time123 (22f35b) — 9/18/2019 @ 9:16 am

    So… just like any other politician? (in this case, a wannabe politician)

    I mean, we shouldn’t be surprised a political hack/politician lies to the public and should be confronted when caught in said lies.

    But it seems this* one is more galling to you…why?

    whembly (51f28e)

  134. 137… but… but… but teh scandal! You’ve missed the point, but no surprise…

    “The most hilarious and self-defeating detail in this morning’s BREAKING news from Politico is this: “Since 2015, the [Air Force] has lodged crews in the area 659 times, meaning up to 6 percent of those stays were at Turnberry.” Wow, 6 whole percent? I can only imagine what the president’s directive on this matter might have been. “Get Mark Esper in here now, dammit! Esper, my Scottish resort is in trouble. Take a break from saving the world and save Trump Turnberry! I want you to make sure up to 6 percent of your Air Force guys making those fuel stops in Scotland are staying at my hotel. Make it happen or you’ll be playing shuffleboard with Mattis!”

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  135. 138… because he thinks it can be used to hurt OrangeManBad!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  136. In the end, that’s really what matters most.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  137. 66. rcocean (1a839e) — 9/17/2019 @ 8:57 pm

    I’m not sure why I’m supposed to care whether Lewandoski talked to Sessions or didn’t talk to him.

    Mueller’s team seem to have asserted that if Corey Lewandowski had communicated to Attorney General Jeff Sessions what Donald Trump asked him to pass along, that would have amounted to obstruction of justice, and even the attempt to send such a message is obstruction of justice. arr and Rosenstein apparently disagree with that legal analysis, because obstruction of justice requires a corrupt motive, and while not dispositive, the fact there was no underlying crime to cover up that Donald Trump knew of, goes a long way toward arguing there was no corrupt motive on the part of President Trump.

    And besides there is also the fact that he had legitimate supervisory authroity over the Department of Justice.

    But it is a very underhanded way of exercising supervision.

    Or why its important in September 2019.

    This would enable the Democrats to assert that everything bad that anybody and everybody (especially politicians) said about Donald Trump or people connected with him is true.

    It would tend to establish that the Democrats are the truthtelllers and the Republicans are the liars, and they are corrupt and criminal and deserve to be kicked out of office and replaced by the strictly honest Democrats…and there’s an election coming up in 2020.

    But the walls are closing in on Trump. We’ve got him this time!

    They don’t want to get Doanald Trump. They just want everybody to concede that they BELIEVE in the badness of Donald Trump.

    Sammy Finkelman (8dcc71)

  138. “It would tend to establish that the Democrats are the truthtellers…”

    Who are you going to believe? The Democrats or your own lying eyes and ears.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  139. IMO The hypocrisy goes both ways. If Obama was reaping millions in hotel stays from the Air Force, you’d hear crickets from the media, and Right wingers would be losing their flipping minds.

    JRH (52aed3)

  140. Trump makes poor choices in aides, associates and employees. Most of us felt that way about Obama and Clinton, too. IMO only partisanship keeps some commenters from admitting this is true about Trump as well as Obama and Clinton. If making poor choices doesn’t matter for Trump, then why should it matter for anyone?

    DRJ (15874d)

  141. 143. If you listen enough to the Democrats, and only give credibility to the Democrats then yoou will believe that the truth is entirely on their side. Or, at least that’s their game plan. It’s maybe a hopeless game plan, (outside of heavily defended bubbles) but its the game plan that they’ve got. Because if people decide that, they can tell any lies.

    Sammy Finkelman (8dcc71)

  142. “Because if people decide that, they can tell any lies.”

    They can and do.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  143. DRJ, the streak may be continuing – if a “Demo-rat” chose a guy with this expertise, they would be called female body parts: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/461910-trump-names-robert-obrien-as-next-national-security-adviser .

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  144. now pitching his campaign site, in the middle of the hearing that was choice,

    narciso (d1f714)

  145. IMO, most Americans believe that the attempt to impeach the POTUS is ridiculous.

    Yesterday’s hearing was another ridiculous attempt – the third go-round with Lewandowski – to gin up outrage. All it really did was provide some entertainment and amusement for any watching the fiasco.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  146. No, I get your point.

    My point is that they didn’t add any new information to the original story. They just took the same info and spun it a different way.

    When I read the original report it was pretty clear that it was potentially unethical, but that more information is needed. I was happy that the original reporting indicated that the Air force would do an official review and that we could find out if it was a big deal or not. Maybe if I were a complete moron I would have come to a different conclusion. But I’m not, so I didn’t.

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  147. Hey Col. – Maybe John Dean will get another dance with Nadless!

    mg (8cbc69)

  148. 148. Because if people decide that, [then] they can tell any lies.”

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/18/2019 @ 9:48 am

    They can and do.

    No, they’re constrained.

    And also I meant, tell lies, and get believed.

    But yes, it is true, they push the envelope.

    Sammy Finkelman (8dcc71)

  149. “So… just like any other politician? (in this case, a wannabe politician)”

    Drain the swamp!

    Davethulhu (94520c)

  150. There was the October Surprise, but they had to drop that.

    Sammy Finkelman (8dcc71)

  151. So… just like any other politician? (in this case, a wannabe politician)
    I mean, we shouldn’t be surprised a political hack/politician lies to the public and should be confronted when caught in said lies.
    But it seems this* one is more galling to you…why?

    Because so many people have revealed themselves to be amoral scum who make no pretense that their statements will be factually accurate under even the most charitable interpretation and so many other’s have shown they’re no better because they don’t care. Ending the expectation that people will even try to be accurate in their statements to the public is a terrible next step.

    Harry Reid did this about Romeny’s tax returns. It was obscene. It was clear he was lying. I remember one interview where after he said it the interviewer made clear Reid had no proof, and there was no reason to believe what he was saying. More of that is bad. I want less of it.

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  152. The disdain for “Whatabout” is rather problematic.

    “We can’t be like them,” or “we must be the honorable ones,” assumes a lot.

    Imagine being on trial for some business crime, SEC related maybe, or murder, and being represented by a Romney-like lawyer. Too honorable to violate in limine orders prohibiting reference to your opponent’s felony conviction for tax evasion. Or his predeliction for really young girls. Or the alleged victim’s drug habits.

    The media is killing you in the community, reporting how deplorable you are.

    The judge ignores your in limine orders, allowing the other side to repeatedly excoriate you as rich, out of touch, whatever. Motions for mistrials are denied. The jurors are ready to decide in the box.

    At the end of a bad day, as you eye the beefy cps waiting to take you away, your Romney-like lawyer shoots his cuffs, fiddles with his cufflinks and says “We can’t be dishonorable old boy, like they are. It would mean the jungle for us all you know.” He tries to reassure you with the hazy possibility of a remote salvation: “We’ll appeal, however long and however pricey and remote of success that might be, as long as you can pay of course.”

    It occurs to you at some point that he is more mindful of his own reputation and his view of the world. Its OK to him if YOU pay the price for maintaining the world he wishes existed. He may even be willing to go down with the ship rather than fight to live.

    So you change lawyers, get a fighter and the jury decides to acquit you.

    Your Romney-lawyer writes an op-ed, lamenting the state of trials nowadays. Oh sure he wishes the judge and media had done better. But he also blames clients like you.

    When you write your side, he dismisses it as “whataboutism.”

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e)

  153. HFC

    1. There are more than two sides. So its not just us/them
    2. It is not a 1 turn game. The POV in your analogy is.
    3. I reject the assumption that the only two choices are to lose or be human garbage

    Time123 (22f35b)

  154. Sorry should be hfm

    Time123 (22f35b)

  155. I dunno Patrick.
    He only looks about 5’8″ to me, and he thinks he is a good looking weasel.
    That qualifies him for the House, not the Senate.
    People in NH like their guns though, so he might have a chance if Shaheen goes anti- second amendment.
    She needs to distance herslf from this: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/democrats-frown-on-targeting-gang-databases-with-red-flag-laws as far as humanly possible

    steveg (354706)

  156. “They just took the same info and spun it a different way.”

    What you call spin is the rest of the story… it’s how you reach a conclusion a sentient adult would.

    Where’s the story now? Has it dried and fallen from the wall? It was reported in such a breathless fashion… I mean I hesitate to impugn the honesty and even-handedness employees of major media normally display.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  157. #157

    So… just like any other politician? (in this case, a wannabe politician)
    I mean, we shouldn’t be surprised a political hack/politician lies to the public and should be confronted when caught in said lies.
    But it seems this* one is more galling to you…why?

    Because so many people have revealed themselves to be amoral scum who make no pretense that their statements will be factually accurate under even the most charitable interpretation and so many other’s have shown they’re no better because they don’t care. Ending the expectation that people will even try to be accurate in their statements to the public is a terrible next step.

    Harry Reid did this about Romeny’s tax returns. It was obscene. It was clear he was lying. I remember one interview where after he said it the interviewer made clear Reid had no proof, and there was no reason to believe what he was saying. More of that is bad. I want less of it.

    Time123 (89dfb2) — 9/18/2019 @ 10:25 am

    Okay… I agree with that sentiment, however that’s not what we have.

    We’re in a poo-flinging stage of our discourse. We need better candidates and voters need to vote for them. Until then… this is what we deserve.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  158. I wasn’t intending “spun” to be a slam. Should have said presented.

    But where’s the new info to further the story?
    Is there anything about it to report that’s more interesting than what’s being talked about now?
    I think this is much less interesting than the NYT cock up, unless there’s new information.

    Time123 (22f35b)

  159. justice is fair coronello, take the example of greg craig, um, they’ll be trying podesta and weber any day, sorry that’s the comedy thread,

    narciso (d1f714)

  160. I respect your view. It is what should be.

    But what to do with an opponent hell bent on preventing “another turn.” Not with tanks, but with weaponizing the DOJ and IRS to dampen conservative non-profits.

    Stacking the Supreme Court to overturn Citizens United. Pushing for elimination of the “arcane” electoral college.

    Vote harvesting, FISA apps to spy on an opponent, and opening the borders to dilute voting populations with benefit hungry dependents.

    Adopting motor voter laws, and welcoming 100,000 or more refugees a year.

    The “turn” you’d be getting after 8 Hillary years would vary considerably from the one you were expecting.

    And that’s aside from silently cheering or at least acquiescing in Antifa tactics in D.C. Portland and elsewhere…

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e)

  161. I thoroughly enjoy a good (3)dunce vs. (1)weasel fight

    steveg (354706)

  162. “But at the end of the day, you’re accusing a President of very high …” long pause as Mr. Collins goes slightly wall-eyed… “issues

    I don’t know why Doug Collins wanted to avoid saying “high crimes and misdemeanors” since that’s his point.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  163. ‘Without “whatabout?” Munroe would have no reason to comment about anything.’
    Patterico (115b1f) — 9/17/2019 @ 6:49 pm

    He lacked candor in a media interview. Therefore… what?

    What exactly do you want to see happen as a result? Lots of “geez, what a scumbag” comments? What else?

    Munroe (4dce03)

  164. There’s a lot you can learn from the hearing.

    For instance the point about Trump asking Lewandoski to tell Sessions [to say a ridiculous thing] was that some attempts by Trump to affect the investigation more directly had been refused, and that Don McGahn had told everyone in the White House not to contact Sessions about the investigation

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  165. At 1:22:45 an interesting exchange starts.

    Corey Lewandowski does not agree that anything Trump asked him to say to Jeff Sessions was illegal.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  166. Are you employed in/by the Trump administration?

    Lewandowski:

    The White House counsel has informed me that under “executive privilege” I cannot disclose my employment status.

    I heard that, r something very close to that.

    Now this kind of fact does not apply even for circumstances wher people who have executive privilege. It’s a basic question of does someone work for the government.

    And this privilege belongs to the president, not the witness. And the witness can disregard that – except that he might lose his job as a result.

    If “executive privilege” does apply, it only allows the witness to decline to answer the questions – it doesn’t require him to.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  167. Corey Lewandowski didn’t want to say that what he said to MSNBC was a lie.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  168. For instance the point about Trump asking Lewandoski to tell Sessions [to say a ridiculous thing] was that some attempts by Trump to affect the investigation more directly had been refused, and that Don McGahn had told everyone in the White House not to contact Sessions about the investigation

    Yes, so for the President, asking for him to do it was the crime, that Corey was warned, or knew enough not to, is irrelevant.

    Corey Lewandowski does not agree that anything Trump asked him to say to Jeff Sessions was illegal.

    As he repeated about a hundred times, he’s not a lawyer, and it was. That he didn’t act on it means he wasn’t committing a crime.

    And this privilege belongs to the president, not the witness. And the witness can disregard that – except that he might lose his job as a result.

    As is established law, there is no such thing as executive privilege for non-governmental employee’s, in fact just being a White House employee doesn’t make it so, to claim executive privilege, it must be actively claimed directly by the White House, in writing, officially. For Corey, none of those things were/are true, so no claim can be made. Well, you can claim it if the Dems don’t actually call you on it.

    If the Dem’s had…intestinal fortitude or were slightly less dumb, this could be a whole lot worse for the administration. I still think they don’t really want to impeach Trump, but just have the noise in the air, if they successfully impeached him, they’d have to run against someone not named Trump, and that would change everything, and if they swung and missed, same thing.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  169. Near the begining of teh hearing – although we were actually 59 minutes into the video of the hearing y that time – they had a roll call vote! on whether to overrule Chairman Nadler;s ruling that he was entitled to more time.

    The result was 13 ayes, and 19 nos. Then there was amotion to adjourn.

    Another roll call vote. The result was 12 ayes and 19 nos. (party line vote)

    Nadler was complaining about the claim of executive privilege.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  170. Complaining about it is nice for TV, contempt of congress is actually doing something about it, and a straight party line vote gets it. They didn’t, so small…intestines, they’re dumb, or they don’t really want it.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  171. 175. Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c) — 9/18/2019 @ 1:03 pm

    for the President, asking for him to do it was the crime,

    Not according to Attorney General William Barr and then Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

    Because there was no underlying crime, on the part of anyone involved in the campaign, or at any rate no crime that Mueller uncovered, which goes a long way to indicating the lack of a corrupt motive. You could even find a governmental purpose to that, like having Trump avoid looking like a lame duck.

    Interfering with the investigation could also be grounds for impeachment if Congress felt that way.

    That was what confornted Nixon when he fired Archibald Cox.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  172. Sheila Jackson Lee asks if he was told that McGahn had said that Sessions was not supposed to be contacted about the investigaton because of his recusal, (which was required leally) and because of serious concerns about obstruction.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  173. Congressman Jordan isn’t too bad.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  174. Althoough some of what he says has no point. A subpoena is to make sure he oesn’t back out.

    The “rules change was the re-characertization of this as an impeachment investigation. But that’s to strengthen the legal case for a subpoeba.

    Mr. Johnson finds something interesting in that trump told him to write this down when normaly he never likes anyone to take notes.

    Trump wanted to say soemthing bit wanted Sessions to say it.

    1:36

    You chickened out.

    A. I went on vacation

    (laughter)

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  175. How can you bitch about a witness lying, when the premise of all the questions are lies? President Trump and his campaign, and/or administration did not conspire with Russians or any foreign entity. President Trump did not obstruct justice. The Special Counsel was a lie, based on a lie. Mueller drug out the investigation with the intent of trapping President Trump into an obstruction trap. Except President Trump allowed ALL his staff to be interviewed, when he had the constitutional power to enact Executive Privilege. Mueller knew with in a week, the FBI had failed to create any evidence of any sort that could be used to claim a conspiricy. Every moment past 1 month, the investigation was a lie.

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  176. Trump wanted Sessions to go that Trumpp didn’t do anything wrong and he knew it because he was involved in the campaign. Being involved in the campaign is why he recused himself! Sessions could never say anything like that.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  177. Madler overruled a point of order from Sheila Jackson Lee (circa 1:42) that calling anyone an idiot does not violate the rules because calling someone an idiot does not go to motive. The rules of decorrum does not appply to that andhe wants robust debate.

    And the thing is Lenin probably never actually said “useful idiots”

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  178. iowan2 (9c8856) — 9/18/2019 @ 1:42 pm

    when the premise of all the questions are lies? President Trump and his campaign, and/or administration did not conspire with Russians or any foreign entity.

    Taht wasn’t the kind of lie told during the questioning. The Democrats never claiemd that.

    They just claimed that if Lewandowski had gone ahead and delivered the message that would have been the crime of obstruction of justice. Which is very debateable.

    President Trump did not obstruct justice. The Special Counsel was a lie, based on a lie.

    There were lies about contact with Russia.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  179. Lewandowski: I was aware of the Attorney General’s recusal.

    Q. Were you concerned in any way

    A. No

    And you don’t conduct a criminal investigate of the future

    Cngressman Deutch wants to say it is abuse of power. That probably doesn’t fit either.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  180. I think Lewandowski didn’t deliver thatmessage because he knew it would cause a terrible political reaction if Sessions delivered it, and in fact Sessions would resign rather than do that. (although part f it maybe was that he couldn’t deliver it in private)

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  181. Trump told Lewandowski to tell Sessiond that he (Sessions) would be the most popular guy in the country if he limited the investiagtion to the future. !!

    Lewandowski called Sessions but said he wanted to meet in person.

    He did not want apublic log of hsi visit to Sessions.

    Why?

    Lewandowski says that Jeff and him were friends he says. Also wanted to have a private meeting in amore relaxed atmospher and not on his turf.

    Sessions cancelled the meeeting. (did he find out something about what it was about?)

    Lewandowski didn’t necessarily think this was illegal or even wrong but just STUPID! And blatsantly self-serving for Trump. He had to think so.

    Maybe there was also the issue of bypassing the chain of commmand and that could be considered improper..

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  182. Lewandowski didn’t say he thought it was stupid or politcally damaging, and might cause Sessions to resign. But he has to have thought so.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  183. No surprise, Narciso.

    mg (8cbc69)

  184. Lewandowski called Sessions but said he wanted to meet in person.

    He did not want apublic log of hsi visit to Sessions.

    Why?

    Did not want a public log? So? That’s not illegal. If it were, almost everybody in DC could be indicted

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  185. There were lies about contact with Russia.

    Debatable, but I’ll give you that. Still nothing close to justifying a Special Counsel.

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  186. At 2:19 the hearing resumes. The video has a lot of time devoted to asign saying they will resume live coverage.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  187. The special counsel was created because Rosenstein didn’t want to leave McCabe in control of the criminal investigation of Trump for firing James Comey that he (cCabe) had just started.

    It’s not absolutely clear but he may have wanted to put Mueller back in charge of the Bureau. It culd be that when that failed he named Mueller special counsel

    Rosenstein didn’t want to shut it down. He was lookingforsomeone acceptale to both Democrats and Republicans.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  188. Rep. Swallowswell let slip what the whole ruse was about.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  189. Debatable, but I’ll give you that. Still nothing close to justifying a Special Counsel.

    iowan2 (9c8856) — 9/18/2019 @ 2:22 pm

    The president blatantly obstructed the investigation. The only problem with the investigation was the decision that they can’t indict a president.

    How can you bitch about a witness lying,

    This kind of bullcrap is the Trump defense these days. “who cares about lying, perjury, obstruction of justice! whatabout them democrats???”

    Dustin (6d7686)

  190. Hakeem Jeffries at 2:24ff

    Jeffries wants to argue that the note that Lewandowski wrote is an official record whc=c-ich shouldf have been preserved.

    He went on vacation but for on;y two weeks not the entire time between the June 19 and July 19 2017 meeting.

    He told Trump he would deliver the message soon.

    Trump also wanted to tell Sessions that if he didn’t do what he asked him to do he would be fired.

    Jeffries claims that Lewandowski is there to participate in a continuing coverup. Russia offered to help and the Trump campaign welcomed that.

    2:34 – president asked him to deliver the message.

    Q You wanted to give the presideent the impression you would follow his orders?

    A.

    1) No –

    2) executive privilege.

    He gave it to Dearborn. Didn’t tell the P that he’d already asked Dearborn..

    He tries to prove Leandowski wasn’t being honest with Trump. And wants to claim that Lewasnsdowski didn’t do it because he knew it was wrong. (maybe because he knew it was stupid?)

    Oh – what Trump said about firing Sessions was he would do it if Sessions refused to meet with Lewandowski.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  191. IS Mitt zrmney going to do anything actually> Or will he endorse the Democrat if it is Biden?

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  192. The president blatantly obstructed the investigation. The only problem with the investigation was the decision that they can’t indict a president.

    No. Another lie. Mueller was charged with presenting evidence of conspiracy, and obstruction. The make a criminal referral. Muller did not make any criminal referrals. Mueller has stated multiple times that the DoJ guidance of not indicted a sitting President WAS NOT why he could not make a criminal referral.
    You have to read Barr’s 19 page analysis on obstruction he sent to the DoJ. After reading Barrs paper, explain what he got wrong.

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  193. Racist punkin’… again.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  194. It’s kinda hard to worry about the opinions of the super partisans whose argument is ‘who cares if someone on my team lies.’

    The nation is divided between people who know Trump is a liar who obstructed justice, with an administration of liars, and people who also know all that but don’t care because they hate the democrats.

    That is a huge problem when you realize the bigger picture. The democrats are only pushed to feel the same way about ethics. Both sides have an attitude of anything goes. But the politicians don’t actually care about performance (if you haven’t noticed, immigration is a huge problem, debt is a huge problem, foreign policy is an absolute dumpster fire). The dems and GOP aren’t cutthroat in ramming through results. They just think the superpartisans are useful idiots.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  195. The last democrat with ethics – Harry S Truman.

    mg (8cbc69)

  196. The 2020 campaign should be enjoyable. With homelessness and filth out of control in Seattle, LA, the SF Bay Area and Austin (to name a few), the RNC ads almost write themselves.

    “Look what the Democrats have done to these cities. Is it wise to turn the rest of the country over to them?”

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  197. President Trump is the person in charge of the Executive Branch. All the various agencies that are under that umbrella answer to the executive. It is well within the power of the Executive to direct the DoJ to end an investigation that was started because of evidence fabricated by the FBI, CIA, the State Dept, and the DoJ. But President Trump did not stop the phony investigation. No obstruction. Under oath, Mueller stated that his investigation was never hindered and every avenue he searched, he did with no interference of any kind.

    Again. Read Barr’s 19 page analysis of obstruction of justice and explain what he got wrong in his analysis.

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  198. maybe Lee was objecting to being characterized as useful

    steveg (354706)

  199. Dustin-
    I think saying Trump “blatantly obstructed” overstates the findings

    steveg (354706)

  200. You guys miss the entire point: they made a cynical mockery of the hearing because they felt the hearing was a cynical mockery itself.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  201. Again. Read Barr’s 19 page analysis of obstruction of justice and explain what he got wrong in his analysis.

    Except for the little detail that Barr’s document was “based entirely on made-up facts“, what could he have gotten wrong.

    Paul Montagu (dfd657)

  202. The arrogance of teh layman…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  203. We should thank Mr. Lewandowski for his candor.
    When he said, “I have no obligation to be honest with the media…”, he basically conceded that none of us should take him at his word for anything he says to the media. New Hampshire voters should take note.

    Paul Montagu (dfd657)

  204. I think saying Trump “blatantly obstructed” overstates the findings

    steveg (354706) — 9/18/2019 @ 5:09 pm

    Good to know what you think, but this isn’t really even an opinion, as the findings listed ten examples. Trump did it in front of us all, so you didn’t need anyone’s findings to see it. Trump’s adminstration is corrupt. They will not indict Trump. That doesn’t mean he is innocent.

    Sure, Mueller didn’t arrest him at the end, but that doesn’t mean ‘no collusion’ or ‘no obstruction’. The lying weasels saying that it did think the people who believe them are fools.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  205. No. Another lie.

    It’s true. Trump obstructed the investigation every chance he had. You know it. The only people who deny it are the people who ask ‘why cares if they lied’. The problem with Trump’s fans is they’ve destroyed their credibility. Y’all would defend Trump under literally any circumstance.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  206. It’s true. Trump obstructed the investigation every chance he had. You know it.

    You should send a memo to Mueller. He has Testified that his investigation was complete. All of his lines of inquiry where completed to 100% of his satisfaction. Also, no person interfered or obstructed in anyway. But, what would Mueller know?

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  207. Also, no person interfered or obstructed in anyway.

    That’s not what the Mueller report concluded. The facts on obstruction are well summarized here, with a helpful graph here…
    https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/wsfsmDNZ9WmmvvWRTKfuq4VJ1Orc8oyCdiMk-pHiTk_C7jq4K4QhkVFyso-xxtG3JnPX_qRAU6fAlK3h97cXb1AYjGs-2paP6BCjt3s1aySbPDeG87CD8r50QM9I5IZC9oZRBeZ5

    Paul Montagu (dfd657)

  208. Fenton, Thank you for the reply. I understand where you’re coming from and I agree with you that many of the things the Dem’s have done or are talking about doing shouldn’t happen. I think the electoral college serves a good purpose, I think stacking the supreme court is a terrible idea and that the societal costs of our current immigration policy aren’t being distributed fairly. But the left has their list also; Republican presidents have been lost the popular vote a couple of times recently, Mitch wouldn’t give Garland a fair vote, etc
    My point is that my violation of the norm justifies their violation of the norm which justifies me violating the norm and we end up with a system that no one would think is fair. Where I see examples of this in history and in other regions what you end up with is less free, less capitalist, less democratic. Because instead of working the system and winning within the rules you win based on what you can get away with.
    Hillary was a purely corrupt creature that operated by bending and twisting and corrupting the rules. I’m happy she’s not president. She would have made the world worse in countless small and confusing ways. I wish Trump had lived up to his promise to reform the system and reduce corruption. But he hasn’t.
    Think about a left wing Trump. Think about Beato’s speech on gun confiscation. Imagine that his campaign takes off and he wins with the ardent support of 30% of the population, the partisan loyalty of another 20%, and the general good will of another 10%. This would be Trump levels of support plus a bit.
    I want systems and norms in place that will restrict and limit what he can do. I want general expectations that he’s obligation to follow the rules that have been put in place by more conservative administrations. I want the executive order he would certainly write to confiscate fire arms to seem like a huge over reach and an offense to our political norms. But it won’t, because the conversation will be in comparison to Trump’s emergency order to build the wall.

    Time123 (66d88c)

  209. The Supreme Leader’s take on Lewandowski.

    Korean Supreme Peoples Assembly holds Corey Lebowski in contempt.

    Paul Montagu (dfd657)

  210. He will be celebrated by every outlet and he will silence every opposition voice, they wont let a tea party ever rise again.

    Narciso (181de5)

  211. Today we should celebrate the noted costume enthusiast frostback of teh North!

    Three instances and counting…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  212. Trudeau wore “brownface”? That’s all I know, I have zero interest in the details.

    Well, what about when Trump bent over and asked Stormy Daniels to spank him with a Forbes magazine, and then paid her $130,000 to say they had sex so people would think that he likes having sex with women?

    nk (dbc370)

  213. Put teh Jergens down, son.

    Colonel Haiku (404947)

  214. 215
    Yes I know the talking points. President Trump is not obstructing justice when he carries out powers in article 2 of the constitution. Firing the Director of FBI is an article 2 power. Directing the DoJ to end a corrupt investigation, is an article 2 power.
    When Mueller was asked of at any time was he prevented from accessing information, he said no.

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  215. 215
    The facts are also, clear. Muller’s charging document asked of him to issue criminal referrals of found covering conspiracy, and obstruction. Mueller refused to make a criminal referral for obstruction. And, Mueller has repeatedly stated the refusal was NOT due to DoJ guidelines

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  216. 216:

    I don’t disagree with you at all. But perhaps your concern is meant for an earlier time, and a people who reward upright behavior versus punishing it. Upright Romney was slandered by Reid about his taxes, his well-taken positions wrongly disputed by a supposed debate moderator, and his life and wife were savaged by the media.

    Obama’s upright and worthy opponent in Chicago, who doubtless never imagined an unethical thing in his life, had his sealed divorce files opened, and his life savaged, by people who would have hidden JFK’s health and philandering.

    The Clintons, I think, started the process of firing US Attorneys who had performed flawlessly. etc., etc.

    At the fading end of the Roman republic, each side was taking armed guards to public speeches to fend off the other side’s street mobs. They all delighted in slandering and prosecuting each other. It finally produced armed battle between sides, and eventually, Caesar.

    They don’t seem to have known how to return to what had been. Neither do we.

    People trying to act as if times had not changed were swept aside in roman times. Times had changed. The large middle class who used to judge fairly had changed. Romans were more mob like, more exciteable, and divided, and all w/o a 24/7 news cycle.

    What would have served to end a politician’s career, then and now, was now needed to maintain it. And Caesar and Trump were not causes but symptoms. The old Romans would not have followed Caesar.

    Americans still try to judge fairly. But times have changed. I guess I see the course you propose as one few are listening to anymore.

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e)

  217. There is nothing special about the present that hasn’t happened in the past. There will always be optimists in the world and there will always be cynics.

    DRJ (15874d)

  218. 222… please don’t confuse him…

    Colonel Haiku (404947)

  219. ah prime minister Zoolander, maybe he shouldn’t have taken soul man, as a reasonable representation of anything,

    narciso (d1f714)

  220. Trump might have obstructed justice. It isn’t about his power. Obstruction depends on his intent and determining intent is a fact question for a jury or, in Trump’s case, Congress.

    DRJ (15874d)

  221. it was an illegitimate inquiry, provoked by the steele dossier, and bureau and company assets, but they all have the rolodex, so stories like this purported ‘whistleblower’ always trickle up,

    narciso (d1f714)

  222. And, Mueller has repeatedly stated the refusal was NOT due to DoJ guidelines.

    That’s 180 degrees wrong. The report cited DOJ policy regarding indicting sitting presidents and it said that Trump was not exonerated from obstruction of justice, i.e., the farthest Mueller felt bound to take it is that Trump is not not guilty.
    Pages 213-214 of the Mueller PDF well explains. A key quote: “Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.”

    Paul Montagu (dfd657)

  223. that’s why comey leaked the memos through richman and wittes, the number and content of said memos obscured,

    narciso (d1f714)

  224. 228… by all means, the Democrats in Congress should do their duty.

    Colonel Haiku (404947)

  225. 200. iowan2 (9c8856) — 9/18/2019 @ 2:54 pm

    .Mueller has stated multiple times that the DoJ guidance of not indicted a sitting President WAS NOT why he could not make a criminal referral.

    Well, what he said was that he (and his team) avoided getting to that point.

    They just didn’t evaluate whether something was obstruction of justice.

    Now when pointedly questioned by Barr, he repeatedly said like what you said – he was not saying but for the DOJ policy on not indicting a sitting president was the reason he didn’t determine that there were grounds to indict Trump. (much earlier, Trump’s lawyers had gotten Mueller to concede that, as an employee of the Department of Justice, and not a truly indepedent special counsel like Kenneth Starr had been, he was bound by DOJ policy, right or wrong, and with that, Trump;s was relieved.

    Barr and Rosenstein said there was no reason to avoid that “but for”, and what they said was that, disregarding for these purposes that DOJ memo that said that a sitting president could not be indicted, they evaluated it and came to the conclusion that there was no obstruction of justice case to be made against Donald Trump because there was no corrupt motive on his part, and a corrupt motive was a necessary element of the crime of obstruction of justice.

    As to determining whether or not there was a corrupt motive on the part of Donasld Trump, they said that the absence of any underlying crime that Donald Trump knew about that either he or anybody else in his campaign did, while not dispositive, went a long way toward arguing there was no corrupt motive in his wanting to stop the investigation. (my paraphrase or summary)

    And they even cited a few things that Robert Mueller had written to support what they wrote.

    Now Donald Trump did not in fact stop the investigation, although he contemplated doing that, and even set things in motion, that, had everyone gone along with his wishes, might have halted the investigation. At least until Congress threatened to open impeachment proceedings if he didn’t let it resume. (this is more or less what happened when Nicxon fired Archibald Cox in 1973)

    Sammy Finkelman (2e9ec5)

  226. * he [Mueller] was not saying but for the DOJ policy on not indicting a sitting president he would have determined that the presdident was guilty of a crime. He was not saying that was the reason he didn’t determine that there were grounds to indict Trump.

    Mueller, no matter how many times he was asked, would not say things straighforwarly.

    Sammy Finkelman (2e9ec5)

  227. 225:

    Too easy: What was Churchill before 1939? What was Chamberlin?

    Plus, bear in mind: sometimes things get stuck, and have to run their course before there can be change. The fall of the romans changed the world for centuries; the collapse of the USSR took a long time. To prevent that of course movement, good intentions and hectoring both sides is usually not a winning recipe.

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e)

  228. @112. You’re splitting hairs, nk; close enough for the 21st century.

    Haldeman told better jokes.

    ________

    Memo to Trudeau: Trump 101— “Imitation is the sincerest for of flattery.”

    Own it. Then trade up; you’ve qualified yourself to run for governor in any state to the South.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  229. Churchill had three strikes against him, Gallipoli, his stance on india, and probably the gold standard as ex chequer, Zoolander is a very silly person, like mayor howdy, without the military background, and identity issues,

    narciso (d1f714)

  230. Today’s Trump Quote Quiz:

    “It’s tall. It’s tough. It’s too hot to touch.”– President Donald J. Trump, 9-19-19

    a. [ ] Ivanka Trump

    b. [ ] Karen McDougal

    c. [ ] U.S./Mexican border wall

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  231. during this interview, Robin Pegrobin is asked why she is blaming Fox News for their (Pegrobin and Kelly) error. Pegrobin says she’s not blaming Fox, she only retweeted a Vox article that blamed Fox.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ITcwQoiATw

    Ya run with Vox, ya get teh scorns…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  232. Hack.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  233. they are like the energizer bunny, they say the subject, (I won’t say her name) wasn’t in a position to remember, but max stier was?

    narciso (d1f714)

  234. 200. iowan2 (9c8856) — 9/18/2019 @ 2:54 pm
    .Mueller has stated multiple times that the DoJ guidance of not indicted a sitting President WAS NOT why he could not make a criminal referral.
    ….

    Barr and Rosenstein said there was no reason to avoid that “but for”, and what they said was that, disregarding for these purposes that DOJ memo that said that a sitting president could not be indicted, they evaluated it and came to the conclusion that there was no obstruction of justice case to be made against Donald Trump because there was no corrupt motive on his part, and a corrupt motive was a necessary element of the crime of obstruction of justice.
    …..
    Sammy Finkelman (2e9ec5) — 9/19/2019 @ 11:45 am

    Clarification… the president has Article II powers to shut down any investigation for any reasons, which in itself, doesn’t meet the definition of obstruction of justice. Even for corrupt reasons. The DOJ, as subordinate officers, cannot be the entity to prosecute the president in this regard as the president can simply order his subordinate to shut it down. It would be up to Congress to impeach/remove the POTUS if those corrupt reasons (ie, it’s political rather than penal reasons) is substantial enough to warrant removal. That is the political process in this regard.

    That doesn’t mean the DOJ couldn’t prosecute a former President if the obstruction of justice acts fell outside of his Article II powers (ie, suborning perjury, bribing, witness tampering, etc…).

    What Barr/Rosenstien argued, additionally, is that the POTUS had legit non-corrupt reasons to shut down the investigation, such that getting a guilty verdict (either in court or the Senate) would be difficult.

    Generally, prosecutors has fiduciary duty to only bring cases that they are likely to succeed in court and not use the legal process as a punitive cudgel in the event that a successful prosecution is unlikely.

    I think right now, much of Trump’s critic, want some sort of legal exercise (in court or in Congress) just to be punitive towards a disfavored politician. I would ask these same critics this – are you sure you want to normalize this? I mean, absolutely sure? If so, then be prepared for the ‘new normal’ from here on out in future administrations. Our politics these days amount to a lot of “tit for tat” maneuvers… just like the escalations between the parties over the judicial nomination process.

    whembly (51f28e)

  235. no it won’t be because republicans rarely press the offensive, even less likely have the means to do so:

    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/462234-federal-judge-blocks-california-law-requiring-trump-tax-returns

    narciso (d1f714)

  236. What Barr/Rosenstien argued, additionally, is that the POTUS had legit non-corrupt reasons to shut down the investigation, such that getting a guilty verdict (either in court or the Senate) would be difficult.

    No, they didn’t say that.

    They said (using other words) it could hamper his ability to conduct foreign policy

    Nothing like it would be fruitless.

    That’s an argument for Nancy Pelosi.

    Barr and Rosenstein did hold that a president could not be indicted but they said that, in this case, there is no case for obstruction of justice anyway. (so no reason to refer him for possible d impeachment)

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  237. Clarification… the president has Article II powers to shut down any investigation for any reasons…

    That’s a direct contradiction of the Mueller report, starting on page 219 of the PDF. It’s also a contradiction of historical precedent, starting with Nixon.

    Paul Montagu (dfd657)

  238. 247

    Clarification… the president has Article II powers to shut down any investigation for any reasons…

    That’s a direct contradiction of the Mueller report, starting on page 219 of the PDF. It’s also a contradiction of historical precedent, starting with Nixon.

    Paul Montagu (dfd657) — 9/19/2019 @ 4:19 pm

    The legal theory pushed by Mueller is a novel theory. Please do read this full article:
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/the-olc-guidance-against-indicting-a-sitting-president/

    But the germane point is this:

    Because they were smart enough to know they couldn’t make the criminal case in court, and that the best way to hurt Trump was to get their work to Congress, where it might fuel an impeachment push and would surely damage the president politically.

    Why couldn’t they make the criminal case? That brings us to an issue more central than the OLC guidance: the law of obstruction.

    Mueller’s staff and the Justice Department, particularly under Barr, disagree fundamentally about what conduct may constitute an obstruction offense against a president. And there is a corollary: When there is a difference of opinion at the Justice Department, someone gets to decide. In this instance, that someone was Barr, not Mueller. That is, the special counsel could recommend an obstruction indictment, but it would be up to the attorney general to determine whether to follow the recommendation.

    To summarize, Mueller’s staff operated under an expansive construction of obstruction, claiming that any presidential act — including legitimate exercises of a president’s constitutional prerogatives, such as firing or considering firing such subordinates as the FBI director and the special counsel himself — could be grounds for an obstruction charge if a prosecutor (i.e., an inferior executive official) decided the chief executive’s motive was corrupt.

    Barr, by contrast, hews to the traditional understanding that a president is only liable for a criminal obstruction charge if he engages in blatantly corrupt conduct that is not within his constitutional prerogatives — e.g., bribing witnesses or destroying evidence. Importantly, that does not mean a president is immune from accountability for abusing executive powers; rather, in our system, it is for Congress, not an inferior executive official, to second-guess the legitimacy of the chief executive’s acts — i.e., Congress can impeach the president.

    whembly (4605df)

  239. What Barr/Rosenstien argued, additionally, is that the POTUS had legit non-corrupt reasons to shut down the investigation, such that getting a guilty verdict (either in court or the Senate) would be difficult.

    No, they didn’t say that.
    Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 9/19/2019 @ 3:32 pm

    It was in Bill Barr’s congressional testimony (and I believe in a news interview) where he alluded to this.

    whembly (4605df)

  240. Sharyl Attkisson for the timely reminder amidst all the distraction…

    “What will Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s latest investigation reveal? Will Congress hold hearings about it? Will former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe actually get indicted? After all, it’s said that a motivated prosecutor can “indict a ham sandwich” if he really wants to.

    We’re so wrapped up in the daily tick-tock, we could be losing sight of a big picture that’s come into focus over the past two years. For the first time in our nation’s history, an inspector general — one appointed by President Obama — has determined that at least two men who sat in the top spot at the FBI committed multiple violations that warrant possible prosecution. That in itself is a scandal with national implications deserving of headlines, congressional hearings and promises to overhaul a broken system.

    Of course, the complicating factor in the whole mess is that the government entities responsible for addressing any wrongdoing are the same ones inextricably tied to the alleged wrongdoing.”

    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/461599-weve-lost-sight-of-the-real-scandal

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  241. whembly (4605df) — 9/19/2019 @ 5:43 pm

    It was in Bill Barr’s congressional testimony (and I believe in a news interview) where he alluded to this.

    He may have said something about that, but that wouldn’t be anon-corrupt reason to shut down the investigation.

    Here we have:

    “If the president is being falsely accused, which the evidence now suggests that the accusations against him were false, and he knew they were false, and he felt that this investigation was unfair, propelled by his political opponents, and was hampering his ability to govern, that is not a corrupt motive for replacing an independent counsel,”

    Here is Mueller’s report:

    https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf Page 220.

    He says a corrupt motive would be shielding himself from criminal punishment, or avoiding financial liability or preventing personal embarrassment. It is action with an intent to secure an improper advantage “inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.”

    Barr found something else: hampering his ability to govern.

    Sammy Finkelman (9a15c6)

  242. Here is somebody writing about this issue.

    https://www.lawfareblog.com/cooperation-and-corrupt-intent-barrs-obstruction-analysis

    Sammy Finkelman (9a15c6)

  243. The legal theory pushed by Mueller is a novel theory.

    I’ve read more Andrew McCarthy than I’ll ever want. He’s a hyperpartisan hack. There’s nothing “novel” about this. The policy has been in effect since 1973, and the underlying laws applying to obstruction of justice and OLC guidelines are well documented in the Mueller report.

    Paul Montagu (dfd657)

  244. What about all the unfair attacks and false accusations Trump has made against more people than he ever had hair on his mange-raddled head? Eh, what about that? Why should anybody care if he is being “unfairly investigated” instead of everybody “fairly turning a blind eye” to all the evidence that he is a Russian asset?

    nk (dbc370)

  245. Trump wasn’t a Russian asset – but Putin thought he could plant people in his campaign, and possible future administration who could become ones.

    The question is: How was that managed? How did Mike Flynn and Paul Manafort get such high ranking positions.

    Sammy Finkelman (9a15c6)

  246. about anteher hearing.

    Mark Meadows is just being stupid, and that’s what you can get when you use somebody else’s talking points. It’s easiier to find a false contradiction than a true problem. So we must be wary of talking points.

    But there is a question as to why the Inspector General didn’t think on his feet and point out that there’s no contradiction. The obstruction of justice case that Comey helped start was not started by him because he was no longer at the FBI at that time.

    A lot of bad arguments can just pass by without getting rebutted. And too many people in Washngton don’t care enough to do so. THEY JUST IGNORE WHAT THE OTHER “TEAM” SAYS. (they want everybody else to)

    Some Democrat on that commmittee might have reakized it (on the other hand it’s still not complementary to Comey)

    Sammy Finkelman (9a15c6)

  247. #251 whembly (4605df) — 9/19/2019 @ 5:43 pm

    It was in Bill Barr’s congressional testimony (and I believe in a news interview) where he alluded to this.

    He may have said something about that, but that wouldn’t be anon-corrupt reason to shut down the investigation.

    Here we have:

    “If the president is being falsely accused, which the evidence now suggests that the accusations against him were false, and he knew they were false, and he felt that this investigation was unfair, propelled by his political opponents, and was hampering his ability to govern, that is not a corrupt motive for replacing an independent counsel,”

    Here is Mueller’s report:

    https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf Page 220.

    He says a corrupt motive would be shielding himself from criminal punishment, or avoiding financial liability or preventing personal embarrassment. It is action with an intent to secure an improper advantage “inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.”

    Barr found something else: hampering his ability to govern.

    Sammy Finkelman (9a15c6) — 9/19/2019 @ 7:02 pm

    Yes, that’s what I was trying to drive at here… thanks.

    whembly (51f28e)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6275 secs.