DOJ Initial Russia Hearings

[Danny Bateman]

Did you see where Trump tweeted Mueller is interfering in our elections and Rudy is now arguing Mueller must wrap up before midterms to avoid doing so?

So, in case you've been under a rock for the last four years or so...

1. Russia hacked our elections, screwed up voter registration, funded fake news to stir up sh#t & probably dumped money into our politics to support Republicans.
 

2. Trump wins at the behest of Russia. Trump does nothing to reprimand Russia and in fact embraces them, while calling  an investigation into his campaign & Russia a fake, rigged witch hunt that he's tried to obstruct at every turn.

 

3. Russia is reportedly going to try to sling sh#t in midterms again this year to further screw with our politics.

 

4. Mueller is actually the one interfering with the sanctity of our elections and now must capitulate to Trump & Republican's demands to end his investigation on their schedule.

 

We've officially reached the stupidest timeline. Shocking that Trump & Rudy could be this hypocritical, but no, it's really not.

[TGHusker]

12 hours ago, Clifford Franklin said:

Did you see where Trump tweeted Mueller is interfering in our elections and Rudy is now arguing Mueller must wrap up before midterms to avoid doing so?

So, in case you've been under a rock for the last four years or so...

1. Russia hacked our elections, screwed up voter registration, funded fake news to stir up sh#t & probably dumped money into our politics to support Republicans.
 

2. Trump wins at the behest of Russia. Trump does nothing to reprimand Russia and in fact embraces them, while calling  an investigation into his campaign & Russia a fake, rigged witch hunt that he's tried to obstruct at every turn.

 

3. Russia is reportedly going to try to sling sh#t in midterms again this year to further screw with our politics.

 

4. Mueller is actually the one interfering with the sanctity of our elections and now must capitulate to Trump & Republican's demands to end his investigation on their schedule.

 

We've officially reached the stupidest timeline. Shocking that Trump & Rudy could be this hypocritical, but no, it's really not.

Black is White, White is Black. Right is Wrong, Wrong is Right.  Propaganda machine at work.

[TGHusker]

Under the WITH FRIENDS LIKE THIS category:  Rudy does it again - basically stating that Muller has a good case for obstruction.

 

 

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/389885-watergate-prosecutor-giuliani-has-admitted-mueller-has-good

Quote

A former Watergate prosecutor said late Tuesday that President Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani basically "admitted" that special counsel Robert Mueller has a good case for obstruction of justice. 

Assistant Watergate special prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks said on MSNBC's "The 11th Hour with Brian Williams" that Giuliani's recent comments about limiting the questions Mueller's team could ask Trump about collusion and obstruction could be a basis for that case. 

"He said, 'Oh I'm fine with collusion because there’s no collusion, but obstruction, that’s a matter of interpretation,'" Wine-Banks said. "And it isn’t. Facts are a funny thing. The truth and the facts will come out, and I don’t think it’s going to show that it’s a matter of interpretation, but of guilt."

Wine-Banks also said that Giuliani is trying to control the public's understanding of the negotiations with Mueller's investigators, who are probing Russia's meddling in the 2016 presidential election and possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow. 

“You have unanswered accusations from Giuliani that Mueller cannot and must not answer because he’s acting appropriately,” she said. “Giuliani can say whatever he wants and then he can say, ‘And see how unfair it was, they didn’t want to agree to that, they said they would and then they wouldn’t.’"

She also argued that a New York Times report that Trump pressured Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his recusal from the Russia investigation is another example of potential obstruction. The newspaper reported on Tuesday that Trump made the request of Sessions in March 2017.

 

 

[Danny Bateman]

This is pretty significant.

 

 

Quote

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s lawyers have for months quietly waged a campaign to keep the special counsel from trying to force him to answer questions in the investigation into whether he obstructed justice, asserting that he cannot be compelled to testify and arguing in a confidential letter that he could not possibly have committed obstruction because he has unfettered authority over all federal investigations.

 

In a brash assertion of presidential power, the 20-page letter — sent to the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, and obtained by The New York Times — contends that the president cannot illegally obstruct any aspect of the investigation into Russia’s election meddling because the Constitution empowers him to, “if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon.”
 

Mr. Trump’s lawyers fear that if he answers questions, either voluntarily or in front of a grand jury, he risks exposing himself to accusations of lying to investigators, a potential crime or impeachable offense.
 

Mr. Trump’s broad interpretation of executive authority is novel and is likely to be tested if a court battle ensues over whether he could be ordered to answer questions. It is unclear how that fight, should the case reach that point, would play out. A spokesman for Mr. Mueller declined to comment.

...

The letter does not stress legal opinions by the Justice Department in the Nixon and Clinton administrations that held that a sitting president cannot be indicted, in part because it would impede his ability to carry out his constitutional responsibilities. But in recent weeks, Mr. Giuliani has pointed to those memos as part of a broader argument that, by extension, Mr. Trump also cannot be subpoenaed.

 

Subpoenas of the president are all but unheard-of. President Bill Clinton was ordered to testify before a grand jury in 1998 after requests for a voluntary appearance made by the independent counsel, Kenneth W. Starr, went nowhere.
 

To avoid the indignity of being marched into the courthouse, Mr. Clinton had his lawyers negotiate a deal in which the president agreed to provide testimony as long as it was taken at the White House and limited to four hours. Mr. Starr then withdrew the subpoena, avoiding a definitive court fight.

 

So it appears they're going with "All of this is fine; he's legally allowed to do all of this." 

 

That argument by Rudy that a President can't be subpoenaed because of opinions they can't be indicted seems destined to fail, but I'm no bird lawyer.

 

I have to admit though, this made me laugh:

 

Quote

“The president’s prime function as the chief executive ought not be hampered by requests for interview,” they wrote. “Having him testify demeans the office of the president before the world.”

 

Yeah, Mueller and his band of rogues are the ones who are demeaning the office of president before the world. Lord knows is far too busy with golf and Fox News to work this into his schedule.

[Danny Bateman]

A rational Republican goes off.
 

 

 

[TGHusker]

Boy, did Trump hire Giuliani to sabotage his own defense??  It seems that way with all of the stupid things Rudy has said recently.  This is outrageous -  

However, we shouldn't be surprise - Trump himself said he could stand in Times Square and shoot someone and his supporters would still support him.

This is almost cult like.  Just unbelievable.

 

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/390486-giuliani-if-trump-shot-comey-he-still-couldnt-have-been

Quote

 

President Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani said in a new interview on Sunday that even if Trump had shot former FBI Director James Comey, he still couldn't have been indicted.

“In no case can he be subpoenaed or indicted,” Giuliani told HuffPost. “I don’t know how you can indict while he’s in office. No matter what it is.”

The former New York City mayor went on to say that impeachment would be the course of action if Trump committed a crime, even in the extreme hypothetical circumstance that he shot Comey.

 

“If he shot James Comey, he’d be impeached the next day,” Giuliani told HuffPost. “Impeach him, and then you can do whatever you want to do to him.”The comments come one day after The New York Times obtained a letter from Trump's legal team arguing that the Constitution gives the president the authority to, "if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon."Norm Eisen, a former White House ethics lawyer under President Obama, told HuffPost that Giuliani's claims were "absurd."

“A president could not be prosecuted for murder? Really?” he told the publication. “It is one of many absurd positions that follow from their argument. It is self-evidently wrong.”

 

 

 

Quote

 

Giuliani said earlier on Sunday that Trump most likely has the power to pardon himself. 

"He’s not, but he probably does," he told ABC News. 

"He has no intention of pardoning himself," he continued. "That’s another really interesting constitutional question: Can the president pardon himself?" he added.

"It would be an open question. I think it would probably get answered by, 'gosh that’s what the Constitution says.’ And if you want to change it, change it. But, yeah.”

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

So, let me get this straight.  Giuliani is claiming there is NOTHING the President can be indicted for while in office.  So, let's say he is being investigated for murder.  An actual American lawyer is trying to say congress should impeach the President before he is ever found guilty of a crime???

 

Giuliani has totally lost his marbles.  

[ZRod]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

So, let me get this straight.  Giuliani is claiming there is NOTHING the President can be indicted for while in office.  So, let's say he is being investigated for murder.  An actual American lawyer is trying to say congress should impeach the President before he is ever found guilty of a crime???

 

Giuliani has totally lost his marbles.  

I don't think his analysis is incorrect though. The Constitution is pretty vague when it comes to this if I remember, and supreme court rulings basically err on the side of the President, so that he can perform effectively in office. Essentially the legislative branch are the judicial system for prosecuting the executive. So, he's not really wrong.

[BigRedBuster]

15 minutes ago, ZRod said:

I don't think his analysis is incorrect though. The Constitution is pretty vague when it comes to this if I remember, and supreme court rulings basically err on the side of the President, so that he can perform effectively in office. Essentially the legislative branch are the judicial system for prosecuting the executive. So, he's not really wrong.

So...We are supposed to impeach the President....thus claiming he's guilty....before he is found guilty in court.

 

So much for presumption of innocence.  

[RedDenver]

27 minutes ago, ZRod said:

I don't think his analysis is incorrect though. The Constitution is pretty vague when it comes to this if I remember, and supreme court rulings basically err on the side of the President, so that he can perform effectively in office. Essentially the legislative branch are the judicial system for prosecuting the executive. So, he's not really wrong.

The Constitution being vague is one thing. Claiming that vagueness somehow imparts immunity is crazy.

[TGHusker]

20 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

So...We are supposed to impeach the President....thus claiming he's guilty....before he is found guilty in court.

 

So much for presumption of innocence.  

What is wrong wt what Rudy says is that it is a prime set up for a strong arm dictator.  If you have a congress that is fully in the tank for the president, then there may never be an impeachment trial.  Thus, you set up a situation where the president could literally get by with murder.  I do not believe the founding fathers had that as an intent of the impeachment or judicial process.  Having lived with kings, they were not about to set up a situation and they had too much foresight to allow for Rudy's faulty interpretation.   I suspect the SC would disagree wt Rudy.  And don't be surprise if this all ends up in the SC. 

[ZRod]

26 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

So...We are supposed to impeach the President....thus claiming he's guilty....before he is found guilty in court.

 

So much for presumption of innocence.  

The President isn't a civilian, they are a Federal Officer of the US Government. Impeachment isn't a conviction, it's basically an indictment. After impeachment the Senate then holds a "trial" for the aquittal or conviction and removal from office. However, I don't think any of that process can deliver criminal punishments. Once they are removed from office, then they could undergo criminal proceeding in the court of law which is what Giuliani is referring to. So, he is actually probably pretty constitutionally correct. Maybe. Because the founding fathers meant it that way. Lol

[ZRod]

13 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

The Constitution being vague is one thing. Claiming that vagueness somehow imparts immunity is crazy.

See above. Rudy is probably correct in his analysis that he is immune while he is in office.

[ZRod]

The craziest thing is that the President could effectively pardon himself before he is removed from office and never undergo criminal proceedings. Because the founding fathers...

[TGHusker]

This article notes some pros and cons to the argument on presidential self-pardon. 

 I think this is the strongest argument:

Quote

Then-Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary Lawton wrote during the Watergate scandal: "Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the President cannot pardon himself." This is one of the most heavily-cited opinions against a presidential self-pardon, highlighted again this morning by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.).

 

https://www.axios.com/can-trump-pardon-himself-mueller-investigation-cf3d6b85-a546-4dd8-ac2a-1c6997f23a03.html

 

To my point in my previous post about setting up a strong man dictator wt a compliant congress, the article states:

Quote

Be smart: The even bigger question is whether Republicans would move to impeach Trump should he ever decide to issue a self-pardon. As Axios' Jim VandeHei wrote about the president's sway on his own party: "If you think he won't try something unprecedented — and maybe get away with it, at least with Republicans — you aren’t paying attention."