Republicans put out pro-impeachment ad

[Spike Trader]

Enter Trump.

Rudi wants to sue Mueller for $17 Million , he wants to get the money back 'for the government'.



Rudy Giuliani threatens $17 million legal action against Robert Mueller during Fox News interview

Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump’s television defense attorney, said he was considering bringing a $17 million legal action against former special counsel Robert Mueller.

Giuliani was incensed that Mueller did not come to a prosecutorial conclusion on Trump’s obstruction of justice. Mueller laid out over ten instances of such obstruction but said he was prevented from bringing charges due to a Department of Justice regulation.

“It was a dereliction of duty,” Giuliani claimed.

“Why do you appoint an independent counsel, a special counsel? Theoretically there’s some kind of conflict, they are supposed to make a decision,” the former New York City mayor said.

Giuliani said he was considering a $17 million legal action against the special counsel.

“I think I might bring a qui tam action to get that money back for the government,” he said.

A qui tam action is a legal mechanism that allows a whistleblower exposing fraud to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the federal government.

“What a joke. I think Mueller has made a complete fool out of himself,” Giuliani said, unironically.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Rudi wants to sue Mueller for $17 Million , he wants to get the money back 'for the government'.



Rudy Giuliani threatens $17 million legal action against Robert Mueller during Fox News interview

Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump’s television defense attorney, said he was considering bringing a $17 million legal action against former special counsel Robert Mueller.

Giuliani was incensed that Mueller did not come to a prosecutorial conclusion on Trump’s obstruction of justice. Mueller laid out over ten instances of such obstruction but said he was prevented from bringing charges due to a Department of Justice regulation.

“It was a dereliction of duty,” Giuliani claimed.

“Why do you appoint an independent counsel, a special counsel? Theoretically there’s some kind of conflict, they are supposed to make a decision,” the former New York City mayor said.

Giuliani said he was considering a $17 million legal action against the special counsel.

“I think I might bring a qui tam action to get that money back for the government,” he said.

A qui tam action is a legal mechanism that allows a whistleblower exposing fraud to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the federal government.

“What a joke. I think Mueller has made a complete fool out of himself,” Giuliani said, unironically.

Trump and Giuliani deserve each other.

 

[maximumpossiblesuffering]

You did not read the article. It provided specifics.

My response to this article is inline below:

As Michael Cohen was reporting to a federal prison in upstate New York on Monday, the start of a three-year sentence on charges of tax evasion and campaign-finance violations, Donald Trump was thoroughly enjoying himself, awarding a Presidential Medal of Freedom to the golfer Tiger Woods. The contrast between the fates of the fixer and his former boss could hardly have been more stark. But for the fact that he is sitting in the Oval Office, Trump could well be facing a criminal indictment on the same campaign-finance violation that sent Cohen to prison, which arose from payoffs made to the adult-film star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. And as Trump was bestowing the honor on Woods, who, perhaps coincidentally, has agreed to design a course at a new Trump development in Dubai, hundreds of former federal prosecutors were signing an online letter that says the President’s behavior toward the Russia investigation more than justified another indictment—for obstruction of justice.
Why the “flavor” text? Ah, I get it, the author has a political agenda. However, no evidence of a crime here. An accusation or insinuation, maybe. But that’s it.

The letter, which was posted on the Web site Medium, could hardly be more straightforward or damning. Its second paragraph states, “Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.” When the letter was posted, it already had about three hundred and seventy signatories. By Tuesday morning, the number had grown to more than six hundred and fifty. Although some of the signatories were former prosecutors and Justice Department officials who were appointed by Democratic Presidents, a number of Republican lawyers and prosecutors had also signed up, including Bill Weld, the former governor of Massachusetts who is challenging Trump in the Republican Presidential primary, and Donald Ayer, who served as Deputy Attorney General in the Administration of George H. W. Bush.
Still looking for specific evidence of a crime. I can get a 1000 people to sign a petition to demand that you be charged as a child molester, but is doesn’t not make you guilty, right?

Could it be possible these “Federal Prosecutors” be aligned with a certain political Party?

If the evidence of a crime were so strong, why the petition, and not the evidence? Because the evidence is weak and trial by press is safer, perhaps?

Frederick Foresight: You appear to lack critical reasoning skills. May I suggest you go to or back to school and take the appropriate courses. Tell the guidance counselor that you want to improve your critical reasoning skills and you will be on your way.

Please don’t spend too much time at the playgrounds and once your courses are complete, you will realize how badly you have been intellectually molesting the concept of “Independent thought”.

• John Cassidy has been a staff writer at The New Yorker since 1995. He also writes a column about politics, economics, and more for newyorker.com.
  
  Read more »

• 
  More:
• Donald Trump
• William Barr
• Obstruction of Justice
• Robert Mueller
• Russia Investigation

Subscribe to John Cassidy’s newsletter to get the latest on politics, economics, and the news.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

My response to this article is inline below:

As Michael Cohen was reporting to a federal prison in upstate New York on Monday, the start of a three-year sentence on charges of tax evasion and campaign-finance violations, Donald Trump was thoroughly enjoying himself, awarding a Presidential Medal of Freedom to the golfer Tiger Woods. The contrast between the fates of the fixer and his former boss could hardly have been more stark. But for the fact that he is sitting in the Oval Office, Trump could well be facing a criminal indictment on the same campaign-finance violation that sent Cohen to prison, which arose from payoffs made to the adult-film star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. And as Trump was bestowing the honor on Woods, who, perhaps coincidentally, has agreed to design a course at a new Trump development in Dubai, hundreds of former federal prosecutors were signing an online letter that says the President’s behavior toward the Russia investigation more than justified another indictment—for obstruction of justice.
Why the “flavor” text? Ah, I get it, the author has a political agenda. However, no evidence of a crime here. An accusation or insinuation, maybe. But that’s it.

The letter, which was posted on the Web site Medium, could hardly be more straightforward or damning. Its second paragraph states, “Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.” When the letter was posted, it already had about three hundred and seventy signatories. By Tuesday morning, the number had grown to more than six hundred and fifty. Although some of the signatories were former prosecutors and Justice Department officials who were appointed by Democratic Presidents, a number of Republican lawyers and prosecutors had also signed up, including Bill Weld, the former governor of Massachusetts who is challenging Trump in the Republican Presidential primary, and Donald Ayer, who served as Deputy Attorney General in the Administration of George H. W. Bush.
Still looking for specific evidence of a crime. I can get a 1000 people to sign a petition to demand that you be charged as a child molester, but is doesn’t not make you guilty, right?

Could it be possible these “Federal Prosecutors” be aligned with a certain political Party?

If the evidence of a crime were so strong, why the petition, and not the evidence? Because the evidence is weak and trial by press is safer, perhaps?

Frederick Foresight: You appear to lack critical reasoning skills. May I suggest you go to or back to school and take the appropriate courses. Tell the guidance counselor that you want to improve your critical reasoning skills and you will be on your way.

Please don’t spend too much time at the playgrounds and once your courses are complete, you will realize how badly you have been intellectually molesting the concept of “Independent thought”.

• John Cassidy has been a staff writer at The New Yorker since 1995. He also writes a column about politics, economics, and more for newyorker.com.
  
  Read more »

• 
  More:
• Donald Trump
• William Barr
• Obstruction of Justice
• Robert Mueller
• Russia Investigation

Subscribe to John Cassidy’s newsletter to get the latest on politics, economics, and the news.

Seriously, who chews your food for you?

From the article:

...In making the case that Trump obstructed justice, the letter singles out three of his alleged actions that are detailed in the Mueller report: his effort to get Don McGahn, the White House counsel at the time, to fire the special counsel; his attempt to limit the scope of the inquiry by instructing his former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, to carry a message to then Attorney General Jeff Sessions; and his repeated efforts to tamper with witnesses, including Cohen and Paul Manafort, by, among other things, raising the prospect of pardons.

 

[maximumpossiblesuffering]

Seriously, who chews your food for you?



From the article:

...In making the case that Trump obstructed justice, the letter singles out three of his alleged actions that are detailed in the Mueller report: his effort to get Don McGahn, the White House counsel at the time, to fire the special counsel; his attempt to limit the scope of the inquiry by instructing his former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, to carry a message to then Attorney General Jeff Sessions; and his repeated efforts to tamper with witnesses, including Cohen and Paul Manafort, by, among other things, raising the prospect of pardons.

I see it now. Don’t know how I missed it or why it did not paste with the other paragraphs of this article.

Even allowing these allegations are true, significant obstruction would not proven.

Ok, let’s break it down:

Three alleged actions:
1) Attempt to fire special council: Even if the attempt was successful, this is not legitimate obstruction as the investigation would not be irrevocably harmed. This did not cause destruction or loss of evidence, like a wiped hard drive or deleted email and all evidence of it ever existing on any server would.

2) Attempt to limit scope of investigation: Who doesn’t? This is seen on probably every civil and criminal pretrial hearing in the United States. As it is, fulfilling the typically allowed scope is burdensome on both parties.

3) Witness tampering: This is a bit concerning if true. Also, the question of what is appropriate to discuss with one’s attorney who is also under investigation may be another issue. Weren’t these witnesses offered a negotiated settlement in exchange for their cooperation? Can it be said, under the circumstances, an offer of a negotiated settlement was a conflict of interest here? Were not one these witnesses an attorney compelled to testify against his client? Did not this same attorney make public statements designed to politically harm his client? Does not attorney-client privilege extend to at least the lifetime of the client? Smell a rat, yet?

Even if Trump is not completely clean, neither is the other side. How is it justice when the side that does the investigating cheats (Commits crimes) attempting to catch an alleged cheater (Criminal)?

The underlying case of the Russia Collusion Investigation was not materially harmed by the alleged attempts and alleged actions by Trump or his representatives.

This is what a witch hunt is: The underlying charge failed and an alternative charge is proposed based on normal conduct of individuals subject to an investigation, almost like when driving and slowing down when you see a police officer.

However, if Democrats think this is enough for impeachment, I say go for it. Either way, the people will decide which course to take when it is time to mete out justice. At the polls, that is.

 

[viruscore1]

The guy who makes all of his products in China is putting locals back to work? Wow..I think you just went full

I guess you're not familial with branding. You think someone at Trumps level actually sells product. You need to go back to college before you comment.

 

[El OchoCinco]

It is not just his name blindly on it...his company oversees all of it and he is the man in charge. He is 100% aware that all of his clothing line is made in China, it is not a secret and he does not hide it. Stop being so fucktarded. Trump talked a good tla about bringing so many jobs from overseas back here but it is just bullshit that many swallowed.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Ok, let’s break it down:

No, let's not. Why don't you take your case to the hundreds of former federal prosecutors, of both Democrat and Republican persuasion, and tell them where they're wrong?

They have so much to learn from you.

 

[Tony Stark]

I see it now. Don’t know how I missed it or why it did not paste with the other paragraphs of this article.

Even allowing these allegations are true, significant obstruction would not proven.

Ok, let’s break it down:

Three alleged actions:
1) Attempt to fire special council: Even if the attempt was successful, this is not legitimate obstruction as the investigation would not be irrevocably harmed. This did not cause destruction or loss of evidence, like a wiped hard drive or deleted email and all evidence of it ever existing on any server would.

2) Attempt to limit scope of investigation: Who doesn’t? This is seen on probably every civil and criminal pretrial hearing in the United States. As it is, fulfilling the typically allowed scope is burdensome on both parties.

3) Witness tampering: This is a bit concerning if true. Also, the question of what is appropriate to discuss with one’s attorney who is also under investigation may be another issue. Weren’t these witnesses offered a negotiated settlement in exchange for their cooperation? Can it be said, under the circumstances, an offer of a negotiated settlement was a conflict of interest here? Were not one these witnesses an attorney compelled to testify against his client? Did not this same attorney make public statements designed to politically harm his client? Does not attorney-client privilege extend to at least the lifetime of the client? Smell a rat, yet?

Even if Trump is not completely clean, neither is the other side. How is it justice when the side that does the investigating cheats (Commits crimes) attempting to catch an alleged cheater (Criminal)?

The underlying case of the Russia Collusion Investigation was not materially harmed by the alleged attempts and alleged actions by Trump or his representatives.

This is what a witch hunt is: The underlying charge failed and an alternative charge is proposed based on normal conduct of individuals subject to an investigation, almost like when driving and slowing down when you see a police officer.

However, if Democrats think this is enough for impeachment, I say go for it. Either way, the people will decide which course to take when it is time to mete out justice. At the polls, that is.

 

[piezoe]

I see it now. Don’t know how I missed it or why it did not paste with the other paragraphs of this article.

Even allowing these allegations are true, significant obstruction would not proven.

Ok, let’s break it down:

Three alleged actions:
1) Attempt to fire special council: Even if the attempt was successful, this is not legitimate obstruction as the investigation would not be irrevocably harmed. This did not cause destruction or loss of evidence, like a wiped hard drive or deleted email and all evidence of it ever existing on any server would.

2) Attempt to limit scope of investigation: Who doesn’t? This is seen on probably every civil and criminal pretrial hearing in the United States. As it is, fulfilling the typically allowed scope is burdensome on both parties.

3) Witness tampering: This is a bit concerning if true. Also, the question of what is appropriate to discuss with one’s attorney who is also under investigation may be another issue. Weren’t these witnesses offered a negotiated settlement in exchange for their cooperation? Can it be said, under the circumstances, an offer of a negotiated settlement was a conflict of interest here? Were not one these witnesses an attorney compelled to testify against his client? Did not this same attorney make public statements designed to politically harm his client? Does not attorney-client privilege extend to at least the lifetime of the client? Smell a rat, yet?

Even if Trump is not completely clean, neither is the other side. How is it justice when the side that does the investigating cheats (Commits crimes) attempting to catch an alleged cheater (Criminal)?

The underlying case of the Russia Collusion Investigation was not materially harmed by the alleged attempts and alleged actions by Trump or his representatives.

This is what a witch hunt is: The underlying charge failed and an alternative charge is proposed based on normal conduct of individuals subject to an investigation, almost like when driving and slowing down when you see a police officer.

However, if Democrats think this is enough for impeachment, I say go for it. Either way, the people will decide which course to take when it is time to mete out justice. At the polls, that is.

That was just a summary that F. Foresight posted. There are elaborated details in the Mueller report, which is available on line. You should read it. You don't have to read the entire thing. There is a table of contents. You can pick and choose the topics that interest you most. There is ample evidence of criminal behavior in the report. Enough to send Trump to jail. It is only the 1970s opinion of staff DOJ attorneys written in an attempt to please their boss at the time, Nixon, that stands between Trump and his indictment. There is no law protecting him, just rather poorly informed opinion. Mueller did not pass judgement on the long-standing, DOJ opinion. He merely stated that as a DOJ employee he believed he was obliged to follow DOJ opinion regarding the indictability of the President. This is why if there was any possibility that an investigation of Russian interference into the 2016 election could implicate anyone in the Trump campaign with wrong doing, and there clearly was based on Mueller's directions received from Rosenstein, an "independent counsel," rather than a "special counsel," should have been appointed. This investigation was flawed because it incorporated a high probability of conflicts of interest arising. Mueller, in his Press conference, stated in unambiguous terms that had they concluded the President did not violate the law, they would have told us so.