Rosenstein Resigns
In his resignation letter to Trump, Rosenstein praised the president for his personal charm and policy goals. “As I submit my resignation effective on May 11, I am grateful to you for the opportunity to serve; for the courtesy and humor you often display in our personal conversations; and for the goals you set in your inaugural address: patriotism, unity, safety, education, and prosperity, because ‘a nation exists to serve its citizens,’ ” Rosenstein wrote.
He ended his letter with a sentence that asserted the Justice Department’s independence, before closing with a phrase from Trump’s campaign: “We keep the faith, we follow the rules, and we always put America first.”
Here’s an example of Trump’s courtesy and humor, as well as putting the rules first:
New York Post asked Trump why he tweeted a meme of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein behind bars. "He should have never picked a special counsel," Trump said. https://t.co/1g0bp5zXVo
— Josh Dawsey (@jdawsey1) November 29, 2018
Courtesy! Rule following! It’s what Trump is all about.
[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]
mr. trump the president also known as donald has always been a class act and that’s why i love him so much
nk (dbc370) — 4/30/2019 @ 7:17 amI know you miss him. Curiously, I don’t.
Patterico (115b1f) — 4/30/2019 @ 7:20 amOf Rosenstein and Trump, only one was actually trying to put the other behind bars, and only one signed off on a bogus FISA application. Rules!
Munroe (1b112d) — 4/30/2019 @ 7:21 amI’m pleasantly surprised that he “landed the plane” and got out on his own terms without surrendering character or principle. I’d like to see him back when the environment becomes less politically hostile.
Paul Montagu (7968e9) — 4/30/2019 @ 7:28 amRosenstein’s appointment of Mueller (and giving him a blank check to look into Obstruction). Was an outrage. Was his comment about wearing a wire really a joke? And to top it off, he’d only been DAG for 3 weeks! He should have been fired. Or reigned in by Sessions. Sadly for us, Sessions was a Joke AG – who cared more about Diane Feinstein liking him, than protecting Trump and the causes he believed in.
After a while, of course, there was no point in firing Rosenstein. And keeping him on, after November 2018, was the best thing. Now, maybe Barr can appoint a DAG who actually supports Trump, as opposed to sabotaging him.
rcocean (1a839e) — 4/30/2019 @ 7:34 amRosenstein’s departure was in the works at the beginning of the year, a soon as Barr was confirmed:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/09/politics/rosenstein-out-justice-department/index.html
nk (dbc370) — 4/30/2019 @ 7:40 amThat Trump… he’s gotta go! Release the hounds!
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/30/2019 @ 7:41 amSigh. It’s “Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of Covfefe!”
nk (dbc370) — 4/30/2019 @ 7:43 amArnold Stang is gone!
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/30/2019 @ 7:47 amSigh. Is it so difficult for each party to find decent men and women to run for office? I know that, historically, things have always been tinged the way we see it today. But we *have* gotten meaner and snarkier and more hypocritical. All of us.
You know, this scene used to make me laugh, Patterico:
https://youtu.be/3Ctgn7kKYHo
It doesn’t, any longer.
Simon Jester (e67ea7) — 4/30/2019 @ 8:00 am10. Maybe that’s the whole problem. Maybe the system is so broken, sociopathy is a requirement for running for office.
Gryph (08c844) — 4/30/2019 @ 8:02 amNow that the dust has settled, Rosenstein was proven wrong. Moreover, his actions damaged the country. It may have been unwittingly but I have my doubts. The attacks against Trump by high-level DOJ/FBI/CIA officials were political. These attacks were undertaken by an unholy alliance of these corrupt officials and the media. They defend their actions by pointing to indictments and convictions that resulted from this witch hunt. The results, however, include nothing to support the narrative that Trump’s relationship with Russia was treasonous.
We now are in extra innings with the House and the media continuing to abuse the Constitution in order to overturn the election of 2016. Clinton beat impeachment with a supportive media. Trump will not have such an advantage. On the other hand, Trump’s ability to push back in today’s dynamic media world will even the playing field. That aggressive aspect of his personality that rubs people the wrong way might be what saves him. Or maybe not. We shall see how far the demigods of the House and media take it. They don’t fear losing an impeachment fight because they see it as an opportunity to throw mud.
AZ Bob (885937) — 4/30/2019 @ 8:03 amRosenstein was complicit in attempting to drive Trump out of office using false evidence. He forced Trump to waste his time defending himself. He is scum.
Corky Boyd (3c237c) — 4/30/2019 @ 8:03 amThe thing that I simply cannot get my progressive friends to see is that the rules they want to apply to DJT can be applied to candidates they like. It’s like talking to a brick wall. I remind them of what happened to Robespierre and they look at me blankly.
Simon Jester (e67ea7) — 4/30/2019 @ 8:08 amYou left out telling it like it is!
Dave (1bb933) — 4/30/2019 @ 8:09 amIf all that matters are the results because everyone knows who are the good/bad guys, why bother to have investigations? If someone you support wins an election, no investigations allowed!!
Of course, no one will feel this way the next time a Democrat gets elected.
DRJ (15874d) — 4/30/2019 @ 8:11 am“If all that matters are the results….”
As if NeverTrump has any intention of just taking the L.
Munroe (2673ab) — 4/30/2019 @ 8:17 amWatch this one-minute video for why Trump might have wished he had found an Arnold Stang in Rod Rosenstein, besides his looks. (Although he might have finally found him in Stephen Miller, despite his looks.)
nk (dbc370) — 4/30/2019 @ 8:18 amYou are mistaken, Munroe.
DRJ (15874d) — 4/30/2019 @ 8:37 amI know everything here is determined by like or dislike of Trump, but if we can be serious a moment.
He ended his letter with a sentence that asserted the Justice Department’s independence
Where, exactly, in the Constitution is that? Because my read of the Constitution is that the entire Executive branch is subordinate to one elected official, the President. (The Constitutions of some states do provide for a separate office of the Attorney General, and some are elected. Not so in the U.S. Constitution.)
Now let me follow up on that. Suppose, hypothetically, that Mr. Rosenstein, or for that matter, Mr. Comey or Mr. Mueller, did a poor job in their respective positions. Who were they ultimately answerable to? Who was authorized to fire them, in the extreme?
If the answer is, no one, then we do not have a government of the people, we have a government of unelected bureaucrats.
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 4/30/2019 @ 9:54 am@16 Criticizing one investigation isn’t criticizing them all. Are you referring to a specific comment?
Frosty Fp (e5f48a) — 4/30/2019 @ 9:56 am@20 We’re only about 5 minutes away from someone suggesting that the DOJ from the previous administration always investigate the incoming administration.
Frosty Fp (e5f48a) — 4/30/2019 @ 10:01 amI’m running into this as well and it’s surreal. They don’t understand the precedent they’re pushing in the zeal to get Trump.
whembly (b9d411) — 4/30/2019 @ 10:05 amEasy answer: They can be impeached by Congress like any other officer of the United States.
More complicated answer: Even though the Attorney General, FBI Director, and Special Counsel are under the command of the President, their positions were created by Congress, which Congress also delineated their powers and their duties. So there’s a tension there. The President has the right to command them but they can only do what Congress authorized them, and is paying them, to do.
nk (dbc370) — 4/30/2019 @ 10:06 am@20 Bored Lawyer, It’s in there under the parts about right to due process and equal protection under the law. We’ve determined that the way to ensure those constitutional principles is for LEO not to act as political instruments for the executive branch.
Time123 (d1bf33) — 4/30/2019 @ 10:08 amRemoving someone that’s doing a poor job is fine. Removing someone who is doing their job properly, in accordance with department policy and faithfully following the law isn’t fine. Removing them because you think the investigation makes you look bad is very much wrong.
I think this is where we’re at already… not sure if that’s a good or bad thing.
whembly (b9d411) — 4/30/2019 @ 10:08 amEasy answer: They can be impeached by Congress like any other officer of the United States.
But this means that once confirmed, the President can never remove any officer. While the Reconstructionist Congress thought that was the case (and impeached President Johnson for that reason), it is simply a misreading of the Constitution. The officers, thought confirmed by the Senate, are answerable to the President. He has the right to fire them without Congressional approval. Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926).
More complicated answer: Even though the Attorney General, FBI Director, and Special Counsel are under the command of the President, their positions were created by Congress, which Congress also delineated their powers and their duties. So there’s a tension there. The President has the right to command them but they can only do what Congress authorized them, and is paying them, to do.
But that is not my question. Yes, the Executive branch can only execute the laws passed by Congress. But that, by necessity, is pitched at a high level of generality. The DOJ is charged with investigating and prosecuting federal crimes (among other things). How it goes about doing it, and what to prioritize, are Executive branch decisions.
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 4/30/2019 @ 10:19 am@ 5 @14 and @23
A crime was committed that had a noticeable impact on our Presidential election. There was some evidence that people involved in the campaign may have been involved in some way.
The President fired the head of FBI and stated ON TV that part of the reason was to stop the investigation of that crime.
A respected former head of the FBI, a lifelong member of the president’s party and a decorated war veteran, was appointed special counsel to investigate the crime and anything related to that crime.
The report of that investigation found minimal evidence that the President was involved in the crime but laid out significant evidence that the president tried to obstruct the investigation and obliquely stated that congress should consider that evidence.
Seems pretty above board to me.
If you want Trump to investigate Hillary you should Tweet him. Personally, I wouldn’t mind one bit so long as it’s carried out fairly and according to existing policy. IIRC the IG already looked into the previous investigation and didn’t find any improper actions but maybe Barr will see it differently.
Time123 (d1bf33) — 4/30/2019 @ 10:22 amBored Lawyer, isn’t the logical conclusion of your position that the president can use the justice department in any way they please? Let their friends get away with crimes, maliciously prosecute their enemies? Etc?
Time123 (d1bf33) — 4/30/2019 @ 10:24 amIt’s in there under the parts about right to due process and equal protection under the law.
Nonsense. Federal officers (appointed ones, I mean) do not have a vested right in their positions. They can be fired at any time. Perhaps if a president fired someone because of his race, there might arguably be an Equal Protection issue, but most firings do not come under that.
We’ve determined that the way to ensure those constitutional principles is for LEO not to act as political instruments for the executive branch.
Who is “we?” Where was that “determined?” Not in my Constitution.
Removing someone that’s doing a poor job is fine. Removing someone who is doing their job properly, in accordance with department policy and faithfully following the law isn’t fine. Removing them because you think the investigation makes you look bad is very much wrong.
These are fine moral sentiments, but that avoids the question of who makes the judgment call.
Your certainly concede that if the President and a cabinet officer disagree about a policy issue, the President gets his way. If the President and the Secty. of State disagree on the best Iran policy, for example, the President gets the final call. The SOS can always resign.
Same applies to the DOJ. What priorities should be made in prosecution? How should the DOJ deal with the conflict in marijuana laws of the U.S. and many states? These are all policies issues which, ultimately, are the President’s to make.
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 4/30/2019 @ 10:25 amBored Lawyer, isn’t the logical conclusion of your position that the president can use the justice department in any way they please? Let their friends get away with crimes, maliciously prosecute their enemies? Etc?
Morally, no. Legally, yes, subject to impeachment, re-election, and, in the case of prosecution, review by the Court system (including, in theory, the grand jury, which I recognize today is a joke.)
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 4/30/2019 @ 10:28 amLegally, yes, subject to impeachment, re-election, and, in the case of prosecution, review by the Court system (including, in theory, the grand jury, which I recognize today is a joke.)
I don’t disagree, because that could have been the scenario here as well. Trump could have put the kibosh on the special counsel appointment from the get go, fired Rosenstein for even thinking about it, fired Sessions for recusing himself, ordered his new FBI Director to investigate only who was responsible for the fake Steele dossier, and taken his chances in the courts (either now or when he left office), and in the political arenas of both the public and Congress. But he did not.
nk (dbc370) — 4/30/2019 @ 10:41 amI don’t disagree, because that could have been the scenario here as well. Trump could have put the kibosh on the special counsel appointment from the get go, fired Rosenstein for even thinking about it, fired Sessions for recusing himself, ordered his new FBI Director to investigate only who was responsible for the fake Steele dossier, and taken his chances in the courts (either now or when he left office), and in the political arenas of both the public and Congress. But he did not.
Which suggests that these other checks do have some significant weight in the real world.
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 4/30/2019 @ 10:43 amI was unclear. Because the target of investigations have the right to due process and equal protection under the law the United States has operated with an independent Federal Law Enforcement apparatus. There may be other ways to achieve this, but it’s the one that’s been used during my lifetime.
Seems like a messy solution for Congress to impeach the president any time they don’t like something the Justice department does/doesn’t do. Probably easier to continue the tradition of law enforcement not being quasi-independent. Especially since I don’t want the next Democratic president criminalizing social issues they don’t like.
Time123 (b87ded) — 4/30/2019 @ 10:43 am3 and 13, but I suspect you guessed that.
DRJ (15874d) — 4/30/2019 @ 11:11 amSeems like a messy solution for Congress to impeach the president any time they don’t like something the Justice department does/doesn’t do.
But mere disagreement is not what we are talking about. First of all, Congress does have control over the DOJ both in terms of substantive law and budgeting. If Congress were to legalize marijuana, say, then nothing the AG or DOJ thinks is going to help — no criminal law, no prosecution.
We are talking about acting corruptly (in the loose moral sense). And that Congress can impeach someone for.
Especially since I don’t want the next Democratic president criminalizing social issues they don’t like.
Except that, again, Congress has to act. The President can’t make up crimes.
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 4/30/2019 @ 11:11 am“A crime was committed that had a noticeable impact on our Presidential election.”
I’m curious… why do you think the 0bama Administration all but ignored this dastardly crime? Dereliction of duty? Incompetence? Malevolence? All the above?
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/30/2019 @ 11:25 am18… a bonus from the archives! The guy was much loved back then, nk.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/30/2019 @ 11:27 amBored Lawyer, Can the president order that the Justice department repeatedly investigate a political opponent for random crimes? For the same of the example lets assume that there is no probably cause to investigate.
Can the president order them not to investigate a specific crime where there is probable cause?
I don’t mean through a policy such as stating that marijuana possession or insider trading won’t be prosecuted due to higher priorities.
I mean specifically saying that a individual won’t be investigated / prosecuted. Let’s make it very easy and assume that there is very good probably cause for the investigation and that the investigation finds very good evidence of a crime.
Time123 (d1bf33) — 4/30/2019 @ 11:31 amMy God, Orange Man Bad! https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1122565401509072897
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/30/2019 @ 11:33 amI don’t know if “all but ignored” is an accurate characterization, but he didn’t do enough. He didn’t do nearly enough.
I think it was cowardice and political considerations.
I’ve read in several places that Obama went to GOP congressional leadership looking for bi-partisan support before he took action / made a public statement. McConnel refused to go along and Obama went soft because he was afraid that it would give Trump an excuse to say the election wasn’t fair. Obama should have manned up, gone public with the information and pushed back hard on Russia. But he didn’t because he feared the reaction from Trump and the GOP.
I think it’s easy to find examples of where Obama lacked political courage. In most cases I think this was a good thing since it held him back. In this case I think he royally screwed up.
Time123 (b87ded) — 4/30/2019 @ 11:38 amFortunately our government is not, in fact, a monarchy, “your read of the Constitution” notwithstanding.
Neither the Department of Justice nor the Attorney General nor any Deputy Attorney General are mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Like every other department and officer of the executive branch, apart from the President and Vice President, they are all the creations of Congress and its laws.
Dave (1bb933) — 4/30/2019 @ 11:44 amRosenstein: “I am grateful to you for the opportunity to serve; for the courtesy and humor you often display in our personal conversations.”
No contradiction.
He said “in our personal conversations.” He didn’t say “in your tweets.”
And he didn’t say “always,” he said “often.”
As for “We keep the faith, we follow the rules” the “we” refers to the Department of Justice.
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 4/30/2019 @ 11:47 amFortunately our government is not, in fact, a monarchy, “your read of the Constitution” notwithstanding.
That is curious, since in my read of the Constitution, there are three co-equal branches of government, each of which check the other. There are many things a President cannot do — declare some activity a crime, for example. Or put someone in jail for a crime without a trial before an Article III court and a jury.
The issue here is who controls the Executive branch? Who determines that someone is not doing their job, and can either order him or her to do something else, or be fired?
It’s easy for some bureaucrat to say, we put America first. Sorry, everyone thinks their visions of what is good for America is the best. That is why we have elections. If you don’t like what the President is doing, then say so, and then if not, resign.
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 4/30/2019 @ 11:53 amDemocrats say $2 trillion for infrastructure agreed to after meeting with Trump
Two or three times the size of Obama’s Porkulus! Woo-hoo!
Dave (1bb933) — 4/30/2019 @ 11:53 amBored Lawyer, Can the president order that the Justice department repeatedly investigate a political opponent for random crimes? For the same of the example lets assume that there is no probably cause to investigate.
Can the president order them not to investigate a specific crime where there is probable cause?
I don’t mean through a policy such as stating that marijuana possession or insider trading won’t be prosecuted due to higher priorities.
I mean specifically saying that a individual won’t be investigated / prosecuted. Let’s make it very easy and assume that there is very good probably cause for the investigation and that the investigation finds very good evidence of a crime.
Same answer I gave before. Yes, and yes. Subject to impeachment, re-election, and court review in the case of criminal prosecution (or even civil action, for that matter).
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 4/30/2019 @ 11:54 amWhile citing this is a logical fallacy (tu quo quo) but you are probably going to hear about it:
You know, Joe Biden didn’t just want to, didn’t just try, but actually got a prosecutor who, among other things, was going after his son * fired. And boasted about it. Maybe he was a malicious proecutor but Trump also claimed it was witch hunt.
* The public criticism of the prosecutor had been that he was protecting corruption but he now claims one of his probes possibly involved his son.
The catch is, that was not a U.S. prosecutor but a prosecutor in Ukraine.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/04/report-biden-forced-ouster-of-prosecutor-investigating-his-sons-firm.php
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 4/30/2019 @ 12:02 pm5. rcocean (1a839e) — 4/30/2019 @ 7:34 am
McCabe had just opened up a criminal investigation into Trump.
His alternatives were:
1. To shut down the investigation, and be accused of an unheard of interferenece by a political appointee into a criminal investigation by the FBI, or maybe even of obstruction of justice himself.
2. To let Andrew McCabe remain in charge of the investigation he had started as to whether Trump firing Comey was obstruction of Justice.
3. To hope Trump nominated someone perceived to be above reproach to be the FBI Director who would know enough to take McCabe off the case.
He (probably) tried to get Trump to name Mueller. failing that, he put Mueller in charge of thsi anyway.
Was his comment about wearing a wire really a joke? And to top it off, he’d only been DAG for 3 weeks! He should have been fired. Or reigned in by Sessions. Sadly for us, Sessions was a Joke AG – who cared more about Diane Feinstein liking him, than protecting Trump and the causes he believed in.
After a while, of course, there was no point in firing Rosenstein. And keeping him on, after November 2018, was the best thing. Now, maybe Barr can appoint a DAG who actually supports Trump, as opposed to sabotaging him.
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 4/30/2019 @ 12:09 pm“The thing that I simply cannot get my progressive friends to see is that the rules they want to apply to DJT can be applied to candidates they like. It’s like talking to a brick wall. I remind them of what happened to Robespierre and they look at me blankly.“
Judging by some of the Antifa etc. idiots I’ve seen I’m sure some are looking forward to our version of The Terror.
harkin (a741df) — 4/30/2019 @ 12:19 pm_
While citing this is a logical fallacy (tu quo quo) but you are probably going to hear about it
It is only a fallacy if you use what Biden did to justify what Trump did. It is not a fallacy if you ask those who attack Trump why they are not equally disturbed by what Biden did (and openly admitted to).
In a prior post I said, that Biden’s slogan can be: Vote for the Other Dirty Old Man.
We can add to that: Vote for the Other Dirty Old Man and Conniving Crook.
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 4/30/2019 @ 12:21 pm23. whembly (b9d411) — 4/30/2019 @ 10:05 am
Those Democrats, or the ones creating the talking points, think they know how to manipulate the system so that doesn’t happen.
I mean it’s not happening now.. Why should it happen with another Republican President other than Trump?
I am still waiting for someone to open an investigation into the Waco fire.
There was a leaked inside story about what people in DOJ were hearing that was printed on April 26, 1993 that I think we can safely say was a lie (there was no clearly audible tape in which the Davidians can be heard spilling accelerants, just an “enhanced” tape which was very unclear.
https://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/26/us/last-hours-in-waco-a-special-report-inside-the-cult-fire-and-terror-on-final-day.html
It probably can be proven to be a pack of lies.
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 4/30/2019 @ 12:23 pmThe “talk’ his followers supposedly admire usually revolves around immature tantrums and acerbic tweets defaming those who oppose him or his vain attempts to substantiate his paranoid conspiracy theories. His existence is unmolested by the rumblings of a conscience or soul and is in collusion with what is the worst in us. Which lastly brings us to ask exactly what values and principles of ours is he actually protecting and preserving from the left when his actions prove he obviously hasn’t any?
But then again he is known to have said “I love the uneducated”
The Conservative Curmudgeon (c118b3) — 4/30/2019 @ 12:24 pmThe thing that I simply cannot get my progressive friends to see is that the rules they want to apply to DJT can be applied to candidates they like. It’s like talking to a brick wall. I remind them of what happened to Robespierre and they look at me blankly.
Did not see this, but this is the rub. All of the supposed rules and norms that Trump broke mostly seem to be ad hoc, and easily discarded when the next Democrat is elected. Hardly anyone seems to want to agree on a set of rules that apply equally to everyone.
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 4/30/2019 @ 12:28 pm“But he didn’t because he feared the reaction from Trump and the GOP”
Thanks for your response. 0bama wasn’t known for a desire to secure bi-partisan support for much of anything and he would most likely savor, not fear…
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/30/2019 @ 12:32 pmIn this Trump serves the useful purpose of demonstrating why government NEEDS to be limited. Not only should we stress this, but the GOP members in Congress should use this opportunity to join with the Democrats and reduce Presidential powers. Because the day may come when AOC, or someone like her, is President.
Kevin M (fa633b) — 4/30/2019 @ 12:32 pmExactly. That’s why JFK made RFK his Attorney General. Its why LBJ put his buddy in the office. Its why Nixon gave it to John Mitchell. Its why Alberto Gonzales and Eric Holder got appointed. According to the Mueller report Trump kept bringing this up, and his backstabbing AG and WH Counsel kept being horrified. The DoJ isn’t supposed to break the law because they POTUS tells them to. But they aren’t a fourth branch of Government and their legal beagle interpretations of the DoJ regulations don’t supersede what the Boss of the Executive branch wants.
Ask a lawyer what the Constitution means, and you get three opinions. Please stop acting like the POTUS isn’t the boss of DoJ just because of your “legal Interpretation”. We can all read History and the Constitution.
rcocean (1a839e) — 4/30/2019 @ 12:37 pmI’m still angry over James Comey. The Chutzpah of that guy! As POTUS, Trump calls him up in April 2017, and says “Hey, you’ve told me I’m not the target of the investigation, Could you PLEASE tell the public that? Its hurting my relations with other Countries”.
And Comey says “We’ll see what we can do” Then Two Weeks later, Trump calls him back and says “Hey, done anything about getting the word out that I’m not the target?”
And Comey – according to his own notes – tells Trump not to call him again. Tells Trump that he only takes orders from the DAG, and that if Trump wants to pursue the matter, Trump should have his lawyer call the DAG. The arrogance of this Guy – telling the POTUS not to talk to him directly!
I would have fired him right then and there.
rcocean (1a839e) — 4/30/2019 @ 12:42 pmHere’s the mistake the founding fathers made. They thought the 3 branches would balance each other. They assumed no branch would give up power to the other 2 without a fight. They never expected the Congress and POTUS to “offload” issues they didn’t want to deal with to the Judiciary. Or for that Congressmen would scam their constituents by telling them they were going to do X, while putting Judging in charge who would do NOT X.
Now, we even have the lawyers acting like DoJ is a 4th Branch and can tell the POTUS what to do. Incredible!
rcocean (1a839e) — 4/30/2019 @ 12:47 pm@53
All of the supposed rules and norms that Trump broke mostly seem to be ad hoc, and easily discarded when the next Democrat is elected. Hardly anyone seems to want to agree on a set of rules that apply equally to everyone.
The last D weaponized the IRS and corrupted the DOJ. The next D will do all of the things they are worried about Trump doing. We’ve already seen this story. The last D complained loudly and often about the previous R droning people, torturing people, going to war, spending too much money, etc. and then he stepped right into the role and droned more people, kept torturing people, expanded the wars, and spent more money.
The norms aren’t.
Frosty Fp (e5f48a) — 4/30/2019 @ 12:49 pm@57 winner winner chicken dinner.
I fail to understand how someone can know about Comey and still consider him an honorable person. Comey is the poster child for why the DOJ is rotten at the core.
Frosty Fp (e5f48a) — 4/30/2019 @ 12:57 pmI don’t think it precisely was a joke. I think the way to understand what Rosenstein has said was that it was a rhetorical question.
The business about the 25th amendment has been specifically said to not be at all the way that conversation went. Rosenstein couldn’t have been counting up votes, except as a way to argue with Mccabe or whoever.
Rosenstein keeps too much confidential. It would help if he actually went into what precisely happened. Anyway Rosenstein convinced Trump that the leak about it was an attempt by bad people to get him fired.
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 4/30/2019 @ 1:28 pmI looked more carefully about that Biden pressure and it seems like it is not at all clear that Biden had any idea his son was apotential target – or that he in fact was.
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 4/30/2019 @ 1:30 pmI don’t see this as a coup attempt, I see it as the predictable result of a half century of “political reform”, where political activity increasingly became rule-bound. There is a suffocating legal edifice, where an increasing number of decisions that politicians, bureaucrats and other government employees are defined by law, regulation or other rule. It was inevitable that Trump would run afoul of this.
We may have a balance of power that makes it difficult to pass new laws, but it is TRIVIAL to pass new regulations, and overturning a regulation takes a new law. Presidential power over the executive agencies is being reduced every year by courts, sometimes Congress, and often by the regulators themselves. This doesn’t reduce GOVERNMENT’S power, just our ability to affect it. Only when the minders in the system agree, is Presidential action acceptable. One can create rights for “Dreamers” by EO, but cancelling the same is blocked.
So our politics becomes more and more extreme and polarized as we attempt to change the course of a government that is further and further from our control.
Trump fired Comey and it was not clear if he had violated this edifice of rules, because his yap was open. So, as a denizen of this edifice, Rosenstein was obligated to do what the rules called for in this situation, and appoint a special prosecutor, who would make sure that all concerned were toeing all the lines.
Trump, of course, was elected to smash many of these rules (so, btw, was Obama) but unlike Obama he had no training in, or respect for, said rules. It is unsurprising the edifice tried to crush him, like good T-cells would.
The Deep State is not the people, it’s a system that was created following the scandals of the 70’s, so that government could do no wrong, but instead makes it hard for government to change or even act to deal with new conditions. Trump is not the ideal person to bring this structure down, as he is more likely to remain tangled in the web, but someone has to, and soon.
It is now 25 years since Philip K Howard wrote the seminal “Death of Common Sense” (use Patterico’s link) describing this problem, and we are now 25 years further adding to the problem.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 4/30/2019 @ 1:30 pmRosenstein “asserted the Justice Department’s independence…” unlike that of the previous administration.
AZ Bob (885937) — 4/30/2019 @ 2:03 pmWhat he actually said was: the FBI director doesn’t decide whether publicly announce that someone is or isn’t under investigation – that is the Attorney General’s job. I’ll ask the acting AG for his decision on this.
And when Trump called back, Comey said that he had done what he agreed to do, hadn’t received instructions from the Acting AG to issue any statement, and that since he (Comey) was not the one who would make the decision, Trump should have the WH Counsel contact the people at DOJ who would make the decision.
Dave (26d9bf) — 4/30/2019 @ 2:03 pmMeanwhile….
BNO News
@BNONews
BREAKING: CNN International has been taken off the air in Venezuela
__ _
David Burge
@iowahawkblog
They warned me that an illegitimate puppet regime colluding with Russia would mow down the resistance and take CNN off the air, and they were right
_
harkin (a741df) — 4/30/2019 @ 3:02 pmWhat I want to know is: Is the attempt today in Venezuela to topple Maduro, well planned, or a Cuban trap, or neither? It’s still going on so it’s probably not a Cuban trap. Maybe the people who attempted it drew some inspiration and hope from Sudan. But Sudan’s army was the only force there. Maduro has Cubas and Russians and whatnot, but not too many. Or maybe we should say the Cuban government (and its clients) have him. Maduro brings no skills to this. We could get a standoff. (Maduro will lose a Civil War because other countries could intervene when foreign forces are used.)
In other news: ISIS head Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi resurfaces in a video with a bedraggled beard, unlike the way his beard was in 2014. I think this is attempt by state sponsers to create what appearsd to be a credible source of blame, and was hastily arranged.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/baghdadi-alive-shows-new-isis-video/588313/
There’s no way any organization like ISIS can do anything now in secret without one or more state sponsers. How does this video get out without anybody knowing anything about how? Especially since publicity efforts is probably one thing that led to warnings to Sri Lanka.
Baghdadi is probably in Pakistan now and he’s not making any decisions, if he ever was, although he may be consulted as an expert on certain things. I don’t think he’s in Iran – too much of a hot potato. Pakistan is stuck with him, even if it has allies.
Rush Limbaugh had more about Biden. There’s the Orwellian way he’s speaking about Anita Hill (more people did not believe her after her testimony than before, and she told numerous lies) and Bidens’s family has a record of drug use and even worse. (His surviving son, in the process of getting a divorce, spent much of the money in the joint account on women and eventually married his brother’s widow. His daughter had a drug problem for a while. A niece embezzled $100,000 because of a drug habit. This is all old news.)
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 4/30/2019 @ 3:09 pmhttps://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2019/04/30/the-real-history-of-the-thomas-hill-hearings/
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 4/30/2019 @ 3:22 pmOT. Manslaughter verdict in the killing of Justine Diamond in Minneapolis. Better than nothing, and my sincere praise to the prosecutors. The kind of people who show up for jury duty don’t want to be convinced that Officer Friendly will just up and shoot them for no reason other than that he can.
nk (dbc370) — 4/30/2019 @ 3:44 pmI’m quoting almost exactly from his 3-30-17 memo on the telephone. I don’t what you’re quoting.
rcocean (1a839e) — 4/30/2019 @ 4:09 pmHuh? That’s not in the 4-10-17 memo. Comey tells Trump “he’d passed on his request to the DAG”. IOW, he’d done absolutely NOTHING on Trump’s request in 10 days and wasn’t going to do anything until he heard from the DAG. IOW, he didn’t care what Trump said.
Comey then said the “the way to to handle it” was to have WHC call the DAG and “Make the request”. IOW, Trump SHOULD NOT ask Comey anything – but go through the DAG. This is exactly what I wrote.
Imagine this in the Army or Corporate America or any large organization. Your bosses boss, calls you up and asks “Hey, can you do something on this matter?” and ten days later he calls you AGAIN. And ask: “What’s up with that request?” And then you tell him “Oh, I asked my boss, your subordinate, and he never got back to me, so I did Zilch, and yeah, don’t talk to me directly again. Go through my Boss.
You’d hear from your boss the next, Message: You’re Fired!
rcocean (1a839e) — 4/30/2019 @ 4:20 pmRosenstein is right, and Bored Lawyer is embarrassingly, flailingly wrong.
Of course the Department of Justice is part of the Executive Branch, subject to the authority of the POTUS, including the authority to fire. Of course the POTUS can and must set policy for the DoJ. Of course it is through the POTUS in the first instance (only only distantly through the Congress’ impeachment power) that it is held responsible to the public, giving it legitimacy.
But its lawyer employees in particular, and indeed all of its employees in general, have separate commitments to act as officers of the court in the furtherance of the Rule of Law, including ethical obligations beyond that which any other executive department personnel have. We saw a recent example when former Attorney-General Sessions quite properly recused himself — per a crystal-clear DoJ regulation directly on point, which in turn was drawn from the Canons of Ethics rather than any POTUS — rather than continuing to function unethically as the government lawyer ultimately in charge of investigating a political campaign to which he had been a senior adviser and spokesperson.
Moreover, there is a long, long tradition that the POTUS steers clear of decision-making in individual cases, to avoid fostering a public impression that individual prosecution decisions are being made on the basis of politics or other improper considerations.
It is not simply routine, but in the modern era universal that senators, in deciding whether to consent to the nomination of a new Attorney General, will question him or her closely on this very subject of independence, which is how we can find Bill Barr quoting himself:
This is not a surprise to any government prosecutor. It shouldn’t be a surprise to Bored Lawyer either, and I suspect, in fact, that it’s not.
Beldar (fa637a) — 4/30/2019 @ 4:29 pmThisis what James Comey wrote in his advance prepared testimony before the Senate about the March 30, 2017 phone call: (boldface mine)
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/os-jcomey-060817.pdf
So Comey says he said nothing to Trump about how to get the word out, or that Trump needed to ask the deputy attorney general and he held back what he said was the chief reason for not saying he was not investigating Trmp personally.
Then two weeks later he mentioned or claimed that he had passed the buck. Then he told Trump that what he wanted to do was the right way to do it except that what he said was even more indirect. He probably knew that the request would be ignored.
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 4/30/2019 @ 4:30 pmRE: Venezuela:
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says that Maduro was preparing or prepared to leave the country but was persuaded not to do so by Russia. Meanwhile the Foreign Minister of the Maduro government is claiming Mike Pence is in charge of the coup. (because Trump is supposed to be pro-Russia?)
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 4/30/2019 @ 4:33 pm@ rcocean, who wrote (#71):
The Department of Justice is not like the Army or Corporate America or any other large organization, because its job, among other things, includes making decisions about whom to prosecute. It therefore has long had policies — which were explained to Trump many times, but which Trump has nevertheless ignored — to prevent short-circuiting of responsibilities, precisely including phone calls from the POTUS to operational-level staff in the DoJ about individual cases — which don’t exist in the Army or Corporate America or any other large organization.
Beldar (fa637a) — 4/30/2019 @ 4:39 pmThe Attorney General has very special obligations, unique obligations. He holds in trust the fair and impartial administration of justice. It is the Attorney General’s responsibility to enforce the law evenhandedly and with integrity. …
If only it was so. Eric Holder was the chief defender of the Obama White House, and his successor colluded with Bill Clinton to fix the deal with Hillary’s scandals. No charges were brought in a number of scandals, such as the massive data breach at OPM where people should have hanged.
The current NY State Attorney general calls the NRA “terrorists” and is on a fishing expedition through Trump’s business accounts. Kamala Harris was anything BUT impartial as CA’s AG, blatantly writing ballot titles and summaries to hinder or help, depending, then certified “micro-stamping” as an available handgun technology when no one offers or empolys it. The certification means that no new semi-automatic handgun models can be sold in CA.
So, it’s a really nice aspiration, but it seems to be dishonored more than honored. Maybe it’s different in Texas.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 4/30/2019 @ 4:57 pm@ Kevin M: You can argue that individual AGs and POTUSes have fallen well short of the traditional independence exercised by the DoJ, and I will join you.
But one cannot argue that there’s no historical policy of DoJ independence.
At their confirmations, when questioned about their independence as prospective AGs, Holder and Lynch said the same thing as Barr. Democrats now will say that Barr is doing as bad a job of staying independent in prosecutorial decisions as Republicans said that Holder and Lynch did. But this isn’t a new standard, a made-up standard, or a nonsensical standard. In terms of personally implicating — and then forcing from office — the 37th President of the United States, his impingement on DoJ independence in the Saturday Night Massacre played a much bigger role than the actual Watergate break-in, and I agree with the verdict of history that that was a very good thing.
Beldar (fa637a) — 4/30/2019 @ 5:09 pmYes, we need to elect better presidents than Obama or Trump.
Beldar (fa637a) — 4/30/2019 @ 5:10 pmIf Trump had actually fired Sessions for refusing to un-recuse, I would have been leading the parade down Pennsylvania Avenue calling for Trump’s immediate impeachment. Ditto had he directed Sessions or Rosenthal to fire Mueller without a showing of good cause (of which, there’s not the slightest whiff). Either would have been utterly incompatible with the Rule of Law, and a willful, intentional breach of the POTUS’ duty to well and faithfully execute the Constitution and laws of the United States; either would have been per se obstruction of justice.
Trump wanted to do both of these things, to not just breach but wholly destroy, and subvert to his own selfish whim, the independence — in the UK they call it “independent aloofness,” which I actually prefer — of the prosecutorial decisionmakers. He was unsuccessful in accomplishing either because responsible, ethical people like McGahn and (on the un-recusal issue) Sessions ignored his orders, leaving Trump no choice but to acquiesce (as he did) or fire them (which even he could figure out would be “Bad for Trump!”).
Beldar (fa637a) — 4/30/2019 @ 5:19 pmBreaking- per WAPO: Mueller “bayonets” Barr; AG’s “memo” mischaracterizes the Mueller Report.
Film at 11.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 4/30/2019 @ 5:22 pm#72. The fact that lawyers have ethical duties is not an excuse to dodge Constitutional authority. If your boss asks you to do something unethical, then your recourse is to resign, not stay on and use his authority to undermine him.
I am reminded of Justice Scalia’s dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey:
The notion that lawyers can use their ethical duties to hijack Constitutional authority and undermine the elected president appears to be one more example of lawyers arrogating power to themselves. It is both noticed and resented by many. It is one of the reasons that Trump (whom I despise) was elected.
As for Bill Barr’s quote, any pretense of non-political DOJ went out the window when Hillary Clinton was let off. Anyone with an ounce of honesty can see that, were she someone else, she would be prosecuted, and perhaps her husband and the then-AG for obstruction. That is not going to happen.
Bored Lawyer (423ce8) — 4/30/2019 @ 5:23 pmBut one cannot argue that there’s no historical policy of DoJ independence.
I don’t. Which it’s an ideal that all AGs at least profess to. It’s just that lately I see the system breaking down. I don’t much care for Jeff Sessions, but his recusal was not on my list of transgressions. I did think that he was woefully inactive in the office, though, and could well have appointed a special prosecutor to look into at least one Obama-era IG’s complaints. Plus the forfeiture thing.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 4/30/2019 @ 5:27 pmhis impingement on DoJ independence in the Saturday Night Massacre played a much bigger role than the actual Watergate break-in,
Well,it would have to, since Nixon had nothing to do with the break-in itself. His massive obstruction to hide a crime (I think this should at least be an enhancement) was the thing that made the PUBLIC give up on Nixon. And it was the loss of public support that cause his resignation (and would have allowed the GOP Senators a free vote).
Kevin M (21ca15) — 4/30/2019 @ 5:30 pmIf, however, Sessions had not recused, and refused to appoint the prosecutor, Trump would have been home free legally, but his Presidency would have lived under a cloud forever.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 4/30/2019 @ 5:34 pmNow let’s get more to the soecific point. The Mueller report quotes Trump as saying this:
Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m f—-d. Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me.
This expresses the very real concern that the very process of a special counsel investigation would impede the Constitutional function of the Presidency.
One might add that experience has shown that the end result of most of these investigations is little in the way of substantive prosecution and a lot of process crimes created by the investigation itself.
So if Trump had any level of sophistication (and not be a narcissistic man-child) he could well have justified firing the lot for this very reason – that the process of investigation would impede his presidency. I have a very hard time seeing how that possibly could be obstruction.
True, this is a self-serving assessment easily used as an excuse to cover real crime. That is why, in my view, the president and other high-level persons cannot be investigated by the Executive branch. The better procedure is to have Congress have an agent to conduct investigations and report to it.
Bored Lawyer (423ce8) — 4/30/2019 @ 5:35 pmTrump does not compare well to either Clinton or Obama.
Both Clinton and Obama rose from disadvantaged beginnings to the Presidency, on brains, education and ambition, and they kept that up as Presidents.
Trump was a spoiled little rich kid who had everything done for him by others, and he’s still depending on others to do everything for him, and that just does not work out all that well when you’re the President of the United States.
Self-made billionaire. lol
nk (dbc370) — 4/30/2019 @ 5:38 pmIt would be unfair not to point out that Clinton and Obama also both had intelligent, educated, and ambitious wives, who were real help-meets and not just eye candy.
nk (dbc370) — 4/30/2019 @ 5:41 pm@83. Kevin, there’s no certainty to the Big Dick’s lack of ‘direct knowledge,’ — hell, he could have erased it in that 18 minute gap; [“Damn, Bob, I never should have told them to go in to the DNC, just Brookings… how’s that ketchup taste with your uh, cottage cheese?!],
And he did create the climate for it with nods and winks for underlings to pick and choose who nd where to do his dirty work.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 4/30/2019 @ 5:48 pmBored Lawyer wrote above (#):
No, if you’re a lawyer — we’re talking here about lawyers, not about executive branch employees in general — your recourse is to tell your boss you can’t execute his instruction because it’s unethical, and that if he persists in his instruction, you will refuse it and instead resign.
When your boss wimps out and backs down — or, put more flatteringly to Trump, though he doesn’t deserve it — heeds the wisdom of your advice and warning, you’re under no further obligation to resign. Instead you continue to serve at your boss’ pleasure.
Exactly as Don McGahn did. As I read things, he’s probably more responsible for Trump escaping serious impeachment & Senate-conviction jeopardy than any other individual. He was star witness #1 in the “How Trump Was Too Incompetent to Succeed in the Overt Acts He Otherwise Would Have Undertaken In the Obstruction of Justice.”
Why you call that “undermining” Trump, I cannot fathom.
Beldar (fa637a) — 4/30/2019 @ 6:01 pmIt seems to me that Trump was able to do his job unimpeded, but he put a crimp in Mueller doing his.
Paul Montagu (7968e9) — 4/30/2019 @ 6:01 pm@ nk (#87): Don’t forget how much Trump relies on Ivanka.
Beldar (fa637a) — 4/30/2019 @ 6:07 pmGood grief, Beldar! He is a pig.
nk (dbc370) — 4/30/2019 @ 6:17 pm@89 Would that Comey had done the honorable thing. Instead he leaked info through a friend for the purpose of triggering a special counsel investigation.
Frosty, Fp (c141b1) — 4/30/2019 @ 6:26 pmA good question from Angelo Codevilla:
https://amgreatness.com/2019/04/29/why-are-clapper-and-brennan-not-in-jail/
Things that make you go hmm.
NJRob (4d595c) — 4/30/2019 @ 6:31 pm@90 It might be too early to tell on that. It certainly seems like Mueller wasn’t really obstructed in any meaningful way. At least the current narrative is that Trump was too incompetent to accomplish any obstruction. But we’ll need to see what a year or so of Trump without Mueller looks like. It’s possible what we’ve been seeing is the tiptoeing Trump.
Frosty, Fp (c141b1) — 4/30/2019 @ 6:31 pmMaybe we see mostly process prosecutions from Special Counsels because Presidents have broad political influence and pardon powers, and that may convince some of their underlings not to fully cooperate with the investigations.
DRJ (15874d) — 4/30/2019 @ 6:39 pmGiven what I have read elsewhere, I suspect that your liberal progressive friends (and mine) are of the opinion that this particular set of rules was already in effect and had been previously applied against Democrats.
Nic (896fdf) — 4/30/2019 @ 6:39 pm94… that case is overstated, Rob, to say the least.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/30/2019 @ 6:52 pmActually, it isn’t. The two of them need to be held accountable, the lying pricks.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/30/2019 @ 6:54 pm@94 There’s still time
Frosty Fp (c141b1) — 4/30/2019 @ 7:01 pmThere hasn’t been much interest in the alleged malfeasance perpetrated by the IC leadership expressed here by anti-Trump commenters… at least I don’t recollect any.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/30/2019 @ 7:14 pmHmm, remind me again, who investigates alleged malfeasance perpetrated by the IC leadership?
nk (dbc370) — 4/30/2019 @ 7:17 pmGolly. AG Barr lied to Congress?!
“Well, that’s the end of this suit!” – ‘Blazing Saddles’ 1974
DCSCA (797bc0) — 4/30/2019 @ 7:19 pmA correction to my OT Comment #69. Noor was found guilty of third degree murder:
nk (dbc370) — 4/30/2019 @ 7:23 pmDrawing on precedent from the Starr investigation and the Fitzgerald investigation, in which Bill Clinton and Bush-43 cooperated through voluntary appearance within agreed-upon parameters, Mueller wanted Trump to sit for questioning; Trump, through counsel, refused. That’s the main thing that Mueller wanted to do that Trump prevented.
However, Mueller chose not to press the point through a grand jury subpoena — a legal fight that he likely would have won, but that would have added many months, perhaps more than a year, to the process. I’m relatively sure by that time that Mueller already knew that the conspiracy-with-the-Russians allegations had no real substance, and that Trump was restraining himself or being restrained from completing actions that might have qualified for obstruction of justice (as viewed in Senators’ eyes; in criminal prosecutions of obstruction of justice, the failure of the attempts to obstruct isn’t a defense, but enough GOP senators would treat it like one to make Senate conviction impossible). Mueller would of course have needed Rosenstein’s or Barr’s permission to undertake the court battle, but apparently never asked for it, and thus he was never overruled by either.
Otherwise — and this was the precise argument of Trump lawyers like McGahn — Trump generally cooperated, within negotiated boundaries, in producing both administration documents and witnesses, foregoing in the process at least some potential executive privilege claims that probably would have stood up had Trump tested them in court.
So no, overall, I don’t think there’s any reason to claim that Trump obstructed Mueller in any important particular.
I do not doubt for an instant that the Trump Administration in general, and Donald J. Trump in particular, have been incredibly distracted by the entire matter, or that his partisan opponents have been vigorous to the point of lunacy in trying to bring Trump down through the Mueller investigation. Fortunately for Trump, they didn’t run the Mueller investigation, and even more fortunately for Trump, Mueller himself stayed above the public fray and didn’t react to Trump’s near-daily trolling, baiting, and abuse.
But I place 100% of the responsibility for this on Trump. Had he reacted as Dubya did during the Fitzgerald investigation, his administration would have been no more inconvenienced than Dubya’s during Plamegate, and all of the differences in approach are attributable directly to Donald J. Trump, who was often fanning the very flames he complained of.
Beldar (fa637a) — 4/30/2019 @ 7:28 pmTo complete a thought in #105:
So no, overall, I don’t think there’s any reason to claim that Trump succeeded in obstructing Mueller in any important particular. Trump tried repeatedly to do so, but failed or was blocked from doing so.
Beldar (fa637a) — 4/30/2019 @ 7:31 pmWhat do you mean?
whembly (f68468) — 4/30/2019 @ 7:35 pm102… apparently, it’s the ruling class and the laws don’t apply to them. But perhaps they should.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/30/2019 @ 7:41 pmNothing illustrates the inequity inherent in the system more than when a billionaire, the son of a multi-millionaire, becomes President of the United States and is still a second class citizen.
nk (dbc370) — 4/30/2019 @ 8:17 pmOR
nk (dbc370) — 4/30/2019 @ 8:22 pmNothing illustrates more than Trump why some rich jerkoffs should remain only rich jerkoffs and not get political power because they have have no idea how to handle it.
Remember when Trump promised to drain the swamp? He never says it anymore.
DRJ (15874d) — 4/30/2019 @ 8:51 pmI guess he is the swamp now.
DRJ (15874d) — 4/30/2019 @ 8:51 pmThe only thing keeping his head above water in that swamp is the ability to stand on the backs of the plethora of lawyers who inhabit the soupy mess.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/30/2019 @ 9:07 pmI think you are trying to be mean or sarcastic because you know some lawyers comment here, but taking you seriously: Trump isn’t ready or qualified to be President because it is no surprise to find lawyers in government and politics. Trump presented himself as knowledgeable about government, and able to handle the challenge of DC politics. But he is the one in over his head.
DRJ (15874d) — 4/30/2019 @ 9:18 pmWe have a government of laws so it isn’t surprising to find lawyers in DC. Anyone who wants to be in government needs a basic understanding of how our laws work. Trump doesn’t have that understanding so he lurches from one mistake to another, and then complains when things don’t go how he wants.
DRJ (15874d) — 4/30/2019 @ 9:38 pmTrump has gotten through his whole life on the backs of other people, not just Washington lawyers.
nk (dbc370) — 4/30/2019 @ 9:54 pmIt would be unfair not to point out that Clinton and Obama also both…
…did everything they could do to increase the power of the state over the individual.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 4/30/2019 @ 10:04 pmKevin, there’s no certainty to the Big Dick’s lack of ‘direct knowledge,
It looks like in the two minutes you took to type that, you became absolutely convinced. But that never came out, nor did Nixon testify to that when he was under oath later.
But heck, there is no certainty, and certainly no proof, that you are not a giraffe.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 4/30/2019 @ 10:06 pmThe whole thing here misses the only real impeachment charge you cold convict Trump on: that he is unfit for office. Trying to make up something legalistic just strains credulity. The reason people right-of-center oppose him is that he’s stupid, has immense opportunity costs, and is an all-around sleaze. So many people are convinced that impeachment needs a legal reason, or at least a legal fig leaf. But it is purely a political act. Impeach him for being too stupid. It’s valid.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 4/30/2019 @ 10:13 pmDRJ, if I could snap my fingers and deliver a Jeb Bush or Kasich presidency would that cheer you up? It has taken a long time, but I’m finally realizing what a waste of precious time this has become. No offense intended.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/30/2019 @ 10:26 pmThe American people were never going to support Impeachment of Trump because (1) he fired Mueller and replaced him with someone else OR (2) had Sessions un-recuse and fire Rosenstein OR (3) had Sessions rewrite the “scope” of the review to deal with Russia Collusion only.
No one’s ever explained why the FBI probe into Russian-Trump campaign collusion along with TWO Congressional investigation wasn’t enough. There was NEVER a need for a special prosecutor except to look into obstruction – which never happened. And when I say “never happened” I don’t mean in some technical legal sense that lawyers will haggle over. You can find a lawyer that will say anything is a crime or not a crime. Y’see if just look at Case law, blah blah. I mean an obvious open and shut CRIME -that could be sold the American people as something worthy of punishment. Given that Clinton LIED UNDER OATH and tried to get other witnesses to LIE UNDER OATH and was forgiven and almost become 1st Gentleman, shows Trump was never going to be impeached.
rcocean (1a839e) — 4/30/2019 @ 10:44 pmHave you not noticed that if the opposing party to the president is in power in congress, no amount of investigations is enough? The Dems investigated the heck out of Iran-Contra. The Republicans investigated Whitewater and various offshoots for forever during the Clinton administration, plus travelgate and whatever else. The dems investigated the Plame issue. The Republicans investigated fast and furious and Bengazi and emails. The Dems are investigating Russian influence and obstruction. There were probably any number of investigations before that (including watergate), but Iran-Contra is the first I remember personally. It’s part of the modern (at least) process, the trick is who can stay focused on their agenda despite it. Of those I’ve named, I have to say that Trump has failed the most, but it’s not that the investigation is any worse or different, it’s that he doesn’t have the self-discipline to stay focused on other things.
Nic (896fdf) — 4/30/2019 @ 11:32 pm@118. You’ve been in that hole on a few threads, K; stop digging.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 4/30/2019 @ 11:38 pmI’m curious, rcocean: In what way do you think (#121) that Sessions could have “rewrit[ten] the ‘scope’ of the review to deal with Russia Collusion only.”
Was Sessions to purport to repeal, with a stroke of his pen, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 on making false statements? Or 18 U.S.C. ch. 73 on obstruction of justice? Or, for that matter, 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a), which specifies that every special counsel’s jurisdiction automatically includes, regardless of any other specifications, “the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses”?
You seem to have the idea that the Attorney General has a magic wand he can wave at Trump’s bidding to make the law just … not apply. Or that he can instruct his subordinates, “We’re not going to consider these crimes whenever the POTUS is involved.”
No, sir. That could never have happened. That is a Trumpian fantasy which bears no correspondence to the actual law or the AG’s actual powers. Any Attorney General’s.
Trump is used to thinking that he can bark an order at a subordinate to the effect of “Make this problem go away!” That actually didn’t work so well in the business world (which is among the reasons why he bankrupted so many businesses), but it certainly can’t work in the White House, whose occupant is subject to constitutional checks and balances and the Rule of Law. Bottom line, your assumption comes down to Trump telling Sessions, “I’m above the law, don’t apply it to me.” And that’s the system despots have in Venezuela, sir, not in the United States of America.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/1/2019 @ 2:25 amIn addition to what beldar wrote (great comment btw), how would it have worked politically for sessions to have said “we will investigate Russian interference but will not exam any crimes that may have been committed by Trump or his campaign”?
Time123 (694718) — 5/1/2019 @ 4:06 amIn obstructing Mueller’s investigation, Trump corruptly attempted to cover-up multiple crimes committed by Russian military personnel during their attack on the United States, whose express purpose was to influence the 2016 election to his advantage.
While the special counsel could not establish that Trump himself was aware of, or abetted, those crimes while they were taking place, there is indisputable evidence that his three closest advisors were, and did.
Dave (1bb933) — 5/1/2019 @ 5:09 amI’ll answer for me. It wouldn’t cheer me up if some other person were doing the same things Trump has done.
For instance, he ran on Draining the swamp and holding Hillary accountable. He’s done neither and i don’t see any evidence that he’s tried very hard.
I’ll toss off some ideas on ways he could have gone after it.
-Tell AG sessions to prioritize financial crimes such as insider trading. Staff and fund to support.
-Tell the Treasury department to prioritize policing charitable foundations to ensure that they’re being run properly and not being used as a way to shield income from taxes and enrich family. (How much was the Clinton Foundation paying Chelsea again?) Staff and fund accordingly.
-In both cases ask for a report to be prepared on where existing law and precedent allow bad outcome.
-Increase the staffing and funding of the IG offices. Have them go to town on appearance of impropriety.
-Ask for a report on how the IG process could be improved to be more robust.
-Run all of the above in an impartial and non-partisan way. Don’t offer aid and comfort to political allies that get caught up in it.
-Use the bully pulpit to help drive the whole thing and keep the media focused on what it’s turning up.
I’m not expert on this stuff and I’m sure all of that needs revision, but I work for a big company. Changes takes time and a lot of focus.
I don’t see him doing anything even close to trying anything like that above.
He is unsurprisingly defining “drain the swap” as “Make sure republicans get away with the stuff we think Dems got away with.”
Time123 (80b471) — 5/1/2019 @ 5:39 amLike you guys at Hadron don’t hide all the Hot Wheels when the CFO comes by to discuss next year’s budget, Dave.
nk (dbc370) — 5/1/2019 @ 6:34 amLike the time machine which lets thanos dreadnought go through.
Narciso (82140b) — 5/1/2019 @ 6:55 am@101 There hasn’t been much interest in the alleged malfeasance perpetrated by the IC leadership expressed here by anti-Trump commenters
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Frosty Fp (c141b1) — 5/1/2019 @ 7:26 amThe IC leadership is the President of the United States.
nk (dbc370) — 5/1/2019 @ 7:31 am@126 I’m trying to unwind this; you’re saying there is indisputable evidence people close to Trump abetted multiple crimes committed by Russian military personnel during their attack on the United States.
Who and which crimes? The Mueller report has the GRU involved in the hacking of the DNC. People close to Trump knew about the DNC hack before it happened and assisted in it?
Is there anything in the Mueller report about Trump, or people close to him, assisting in the DNC hack? Or does the report show that they encouraged the release of the info after the hack?
Frosty Fp (c141b1) — 5/1/2019 @ 8:20 amTrump went ballistic on Twitter over the endorsemnt of Joe Biden by a firefighter’s union. he tweeted about oher things too, including how he is stopping the Defense Department from scrapping an aircraft carrier built in 1998.
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 5/1/2019 @ 9:44 amBaghdad Barr’s [copyright pending, NBC News] Term Of The Day:
“Snitty.”
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/1/2019 @ 12:50 pmRush Limbaugh listened to bits of questioning of William Barr and almost couldn’t contain himself he said.
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2019/05/01/trump-didnt-obstruct-justice-hes-tried-to-protect-the-truth/
I think the Veselnitskaya thing was actually an attempt to peddle some lies about Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump Jr telling him to keep it hush hush only they found too many people were going to be in the meeting. The Russians postponed the meeting and then went ahead. They didn’t know anything bad about HRC that they were willing to tell.
More from Rush Limbaugh today:
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2019/05/01/hirono-spews-the-hatred-that-has-poisoned-democrats/
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 5/1/2019 @ 2:13 pmhttps://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2019/05/01/barr-testifies-mueller-complained-about-media-coverage/
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 5/1/2019 @ 2:14 pmhttps://www.nationalreview.com/news/william-barr-reviewing-whether-steele-dossier-was-russian-disinformation/
There was also an op-ed in the Wall street Journal where someone has a theory as to why Russia (Putin) did this.
I think they all lose sight of the fact that the Russians thought Steele was working only for someone in the UK.
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 5/1/2019 @ 2:32 pm@133 One of the common complaints I’ve seen online about the union comment is some version of:
If the firefighters were not unionized they wouldn’t be paid a working wage. Unions are needed to keep the corrupt employers from keeping all of the profits for themselves. Something you might know about.
Other than this being standard union propaganda; in my area the firefighters work for the county government. I’m too lazy to look it up but doesn’t CFD and NYFD work for the city? And what profits are firefighters not being able to keep for themselves?
Frosty Fp (c141b1) — 5/1/2019 @ 2:57 pmYes.
The conspiracy to defraud the United States by unlawfully influencing the election to Donald Trump’s advantage.
The DNC hack was one prong of the Russian attack. We know that the plan as a whole, and its objective, was known to Trump Jr, Kushner and Manafort, because their Russian handlers discussed it openly with them:
(emphasis added)
Trump Jr’s entirely nonchalant reaction (“Thanks Rob I appreciate that”) to the bombshell revelation that a hostile foreign dictatorship was actively interfering in the election on his father’s behalf makes it clear that this was not the first time he was hearing about this plan, and he strongly encouraged the Russians to continue with their criminal acts. Neither Kushner nor Manafort expressed any surprise or reluctance about the Russian interference either.
As for the hacking, Trump’s infamous press conference where he publicly called on the Russian intelligence agencies to illegally obtain information damaging to his opponent and release it appears to be one of those rare instances where he accidentally blurts out the truth.
In any case, Trump’s caporegimes were all well aware of Russia’s plan to interfere in the election, and they encouraged it.
Dave (1bb933) — 5/1/2019 @ 3:56 pm“As for the hacking, Trump’s infamous press conference where he publicly called on the Russian intelligence agencies to illegally obtain information damaging to his opponent….”
Dave (1bb933) — 5/1/2019 @ 3:56 pm
I always liked the host’s take on this:
“Bullsh!t.”
Munroe (fc8c86) — 5/1/2019 @ 4:20 pmhttps://patterico.com/2016/07/27/big-media-distorts-trumps-appeal-to-russians-to-find-hillarys-emails/
@140 You don’t think you’re mixing several things that may or may not be crimes with people who may or may not be Russian military under the umbrella of abetting which could be encouragement or assistance?
If it is a clear cut as you describe why didn’t Mueller conclude that and why isn’t the House starting impeachment?
Frosty Fp (7540e9) — 5/1/2019 @ 5:04 pmHave you even read the report?
Regarding the Trump Tower meeting, Mueller said it violated the law, but that the defendants could argue that they were too stupid to know accepting contributions from Russian intelligence agencies was against the law.
Regarding obstruction, Mueller decided he would not charge Trump with any crime, no matter how much evidence there was.
Concerning impeachment, the GOP senate (corrupted by Trump) will cover for his crimes rather than endanger their own offices.
Dave (1bb933) — 5/1/2019 @ 5:48 pm@143
could argue that they were too stupid to know
That is a biased read of that section but knowing it was a crime was an element of the crime.
Mueller decided he would not charge Trump with any crime, no matter how much evidence there was
That wouldn’t have prevented him from concluding a crime was committed and it wouldn’t have prevented other people with being charged with obstruction.
the GOP senate
That wouldn’t prevent the House from starting impeachment?
Frosty Fp (7540e9) — 5/2/2019 @ 9:12 amHillary Clinton: ‘China, if you’re listening, why don’t you get Trump’s tax returns?’
LULZ!
Dave (1bb933) — 5/2/2019 @ 12:32 pmLock her up!
nk (dbc370) — 5/2/2019 @ 12:37 pmNot in the least. I didn’t vote for either.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 5:34 amWhat would cheer me up is for you to discuss topics without rancor.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 5:35 am