James Comey

[soonernvolved]

pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/dems-have-vastly-more-to-fear-from-full-mueller-report-than-gop/

Dems Have Vastly More to Fear from Full Mueller Report than GOP (UPDATED)
BY ROGER L. SIMON APRIL 3, 2019

Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler is huffing and puffing away about his committee's subpoena-in-waiting lest Attorney General William Barr not be sufficiently forthcoming about the details of the Mueller Report.

“But if we cannot reach an accommodation, then we will have no choice but to issue subpoenas for these materials,” Nadler warned. "And if the department still refuses, then it should be up to a judge — not the president or his political appointee — to decide whether or not it is appropriate for the committee to review the complete record.”
Methinks the chairman doth protest too much. In other words, it's all a charade for the faithful. He doesn't really want to do anything. Likely Nadler is secretly praying Barr redacts the whole damn thing or ties things up in the courts for long enough for the investigation to disappear at least somewhat down the memory hole.

The full text of the Mueller report is a booby-trap for the Democrats. And many of them not named Schiff must know or suspect it.

Sure there will be one or two tidbits to keep the heavy breathers at CNN distracted as their ratings continue to fall through the basement, but largely the report will be four hundred pages demonstrating what we all now know did not happen — i. e. collusion between Trump or anyone on his campaign and the Russians (not that we didn't know that over a year ago).

The natural question will then be — what was all this for? Cui bono? A full airing of the report, what Nadler claims he wants, will instead "open the door," as they say in court, more than ever for an investigation of why this probe was launched in the first place, by whom and for what reason. The results of that investigation will be quite scary, if not humiliating, for Democrats because they will lead close to, if not over, their highest doorstep — the portals of the Oval Office during the previous administration.

Over the next few months we will be seeing the fight of our political lives to keep that threshold from being crossed. The skirmish over the report is but a relatively tame preamble. Nadler has to be very careful not to anger Barr too much because the attorney general has within his control the ability to appoint a special counsel and make life miserable for the Democratic Party straight to the election of 2020 and beyond.

Meanwhile, besides whatever Barr decides to do, several other vectors are pointing at the Democrats and their DOJ/FBI/media allies. One is obviously hearings from the Senate Judiciary Committee under chairman Lindsey Graham. The second is the investigation into the provenance of the Russia probe and the attendant FISA court decisions (Steele dossier, etc.) to spy on U.S. citizens by inspector general Michael Horowitz. He is supposed to be working in concert with John Huber, a U.S. attorney appointed by Jeff Sessions ages ago with the power to carry out in the courts the results of Horowitz's discoveries and who has since been silent.

Many are skeptical of both of these men, whether they have the backbone to follow through. That may have been true in the past, but I would caution, however, that times change, situations change. The misfire of the Muller investigation creates a different world. So many unanswered questions are sitting there crying out for answers. Even the most reluctant investigator or prosecutor may be constrained to deal with them or face historical disdain. And remember, Mueller was a hero to the Democrats for two years until just a couple of days ago. The same thing can happen with Huber in reverse. We just don't know.

But we do know there are all those unanswered questions, most of which only point in one direction. Ex-CIA director John Brennan, who assured us on myriad occasions that Trump was virtually Putin's lackey, now tells us he may have been misinformed by his "sources." Were I a reporter anxious to make my reputation, I might ask Mr. Brennan who those sources were and what they said.

He is unlikely to answer, but, yes, we do have some media on our side who can find out and they are more powerful than conventionally thought. (John Solomon and Sara Carter to name two, Catherine Herridge for another). In fact, they are very powerful because, in concert with events, they are changing public opinion.

And there is proof that is happening, if we are to believe Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale, who reported -- talk about game-changers -- that an astounding 34 percent of those attending the massive Trump rally in Michigan on March 31 were Democrats. Parscale smartly used cellphone numbers to get an accurate read on how people voted.

No, the Republicans have little to fear. As Chairman Mao would put it, let a hundred Mueller reports bloom.

UPDATE: I see the NYTimes has made its latest salvo against Trump in re: Mueller. As almost always with the paper, the article relies on anonymous sources, just as did in its now discredited Pulitzer Prize reporting on the subject. At question of course is whether Trump "obstructed" justice in a crime it is now admitted never happened. The Kafkaesque nature of this accusation is obvious. It's hard to imagine Donald Trump, of all people, as Joseph K., but those are times in which we live. Remember Trump complaining loudly a couple of years ago that he was "wiretapped" and the media uniformly dismissing him as paranoid? Kafka indeed.

Roger L. Simon - co-founder and CEO Emeritus of PJ Media - is an award-winning novelist and an Academy Award-nominated screenwriter.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/some-on-muellers-team-see-their-findings-as-more-damaging-for-trump-than-barr-revealed/ar-BBVB0HE

[kcrufnek]

Apr 4, 2019 15:10:22 GMT -6 soonernvolved said:

Don't they need to have a reason to look at them? What is with all this investigating the person until we find something wrong? Remember how anything about Obama's background - especially his education - was off limits? Clinton's medical records? You could dig apart the life of the Pope and find something. 

[soonernvolved]

Cummings, along with Democrat Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff, D-Ca, and Chairwoman of Committee on Financial Services Maxine Waters, D-Ca, addressed the letter to Richard D. Fairbank, the Chair, Chief Executive Officer, and President of Capital One Financial Corporation.

“We ask that Capital One Financial Corporation provide the requested materials no later than March 25, 2019,” the Democrats stated in their letter, which contained an attachment listing 17 specific entities, accounts or financial holdings. “To expedite our review, we ask that you provide responsive materials, as they are identified, rather than waiting to submit them all of them at one time.”

Brent M. Timberlake, Vice President, Senior Associate General Counsel Card Litigation, Subpoena and Intake at Capital One, responded to Cummings demands on March 21.

Timberlake said get a “subpoena.”

[soonernvolved]

freebeacon.com/politics/liberal-dark-money-group-to-receive-private-briefing-from-house-dem-jerrold-nadler/

The Austin gathering is smaller than Democracy Alliance retreats in the past, with organizers deciding to hold a more “partner-centric” event, the agenda explains.

“There are fewer faces around because many of you asked for the opportunity for more intimate strategic conversations with other donors, and we hope the format of this Partner-centric retreat will allow for a deeper dialogue and focused debate on the critical work that lies ahead,” Democracy Alliance president Gara LaMarche and chair John Stocks explain in a welcome letter for the conference.

The more critical work ahead for the donor group is defeating Trump in 2020, they explain, and also making investments to “build progressive political power and sustain it.”

“Our conversation here in Austin will focus on understanding the critical role that the DA must play in the short term to lay a foundation for 2020 victories and make the long-term, multi-year investments to build progressive political power and sustain it,” they write. “We know that the next election is of overriding importance, so we are dedicating Thursday morning to all things 2020 and welcome policy experts and political strategists to discuss with us what it takes to defeat Trump.”

Additional conference materials indicate the group plans to inject nearly $300 million into liberal infrastructure to prepare for the 2020 elections.

[soonernvolved]

www.axios.com/michael-cohens-attorney-says-testimony-spurred-more-investigations-604fdc59-44e4-4738-b5c1-578931d9f04c.html

Michael Cohen’s recent public and closed-door testimony to Congressional committees has triggered additional areas for investigation by law enforcement authorities and the Congress. In fact, Mr. Cohen has recently obtained a hard drive with 14 million files from his computers and phones over the past 10 years, which we believe has significant value to the various congressional oversight and investigation committees. Yet Michael Cohen is the only person in the Trump organization who has been prosecuted. The actions against Mr. Cohen appears to be selective prosecution and the sentence imposed is a disproportionate one. For him to surrender in 30 days would be a detriment to committees search for truth, as well as a miscarriage of justice.”

[kcrufnek]

I'm still waiting to see what their cause is for all of this.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/04/04/cnn-nadler-demands-doj-communications-between-mueller-and-barr-regarding-the-report/

Thursday on CNN’s “The Lead,” host Jake Tapper reported Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has demanded the communications between the Justice Department and special counsel Robert Mueller’s office be turned over.

Tapper said, “We begin with some breaking news in our politics lead. Just moments ago, the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler, demanded that the Justice Department turn over all communications between special counsel Robert Mueller’s office and Attorney General Barr’s office regarding the Mueller report.”

He continued, “This move coming as sources tell CNN that investigators from the special counsel’s team are complaining that Attorney General Barr’s four-page summary of the Mueller report, which the President has heralded as a complete exoneration, underplays the reality of the 400-plus page report and what they say is damaging and derogatory information they compile, particularly when it comes to allegations against the President of obstruction of justice. According to a source familiar with the investigation, a member of the Mueller team have also voiced frustration they cannot publicly address what they see as discrepancies between Barr’s summary and Mueller’s actual findings.”
........

It would be hilarious if Nadler & the Democrats kept going & finally ticked Barr off to the point he appoints a Special Prosecutor to investigate their collusion with Russia in obtaining the dossier, etc.

[soonernvolved]

Russian historian:

Hmmm, the NYTimes knew they were lying:

[soonernvolved]

Hmmmm, interesting plot twist. Do as I say, but not as I do. Seems to be a trend for liberals/Democrats.

dailycaller.com/2019/04/04/house-ways-and-means-chair-refused-to-release-tax-returns/

House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal, who has demanded President Donald Trump release his tax returns, claimed he had released his own returns in the past. But according to previous reports, Neal had not released these documents when previously asked.

Chairman Neal sent a letter Wednesday to IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig requesting Trump’s personal and business returns for 2013 through 2018. It is the first time in 45 years, such a demand has been made of a sitting president. (RELATED: House Chairman Asks IRS For Six Years Of Trump Taxes)

Neal claims to be ready to issue a subpoena if the documents are not sent over. President Trump previously claimed he could not release his tax returns because he was being audited.

“Until such time as I am not under audit, I will not be doing that, thank you,” Trump told reporters Wednesday.

Neal himself, however, has not released his own tax returns when the press requested them. He previously claimed early last month, according to The Washington Times, that he would release his own returns “down the road,” but his returns have yet to surface. Chairman Neal’s office did not respond to the Caller’s request for comment.

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/apr/4/richard-neal-own-tax-returns-will-come-down-road/

road, sure — that’s nothing,” he said. “I’ve done that in the past, by the way.”

However, in 2017, New England Public Radio reported Neal ignored five different requests for his tax returns from the outlet.

www.nepr.net/post/reps-neal-and-mcgovern-no-transparency-tax-returns#stream/0

hurt Neal when he files his personal income taxes, in June we asked his office for a copy of his last two tax returns,” the radio station said. “Then we asked again in July, August and September; and again in October, when Neal appeared in Springfield at an unrelated press conference.”

Neal responded to New England Public Radio’s requests for his taxes by saying, “I think we should all jump together. I think that’s the best way to approach it.” Neal went on to say that if others released their taxes he would, as well.

Six months prior, Roll Call asked each member of Congress to if they would release their tax returns. Of the 530 members, only 37 responded to Roll Call’s inquiry and Neal was one of the members who had not only not responded but not released his returns either.


media.cq.com/media/congress-tax-returns-2017/
Back in 2012, when McClatchy requested each member release their tax returns or give some information about the returns, just 17 lawmakers responded with any information and Neal was a member that did not respond at all to their request.

hurt Neal when he files his personal income taxes, in June we asked his office for a copy of his last two tax returns,” the radio station said. “Then we asked again in July, August and September; and again in October, when Neal appeared in Springfield at an unrelated press conference.”

Neal responded to New England Public Radio’s requests for his taxes by saying, “I think we should all jump together. I think that’s the best way to approach it.” Neal went on to say that if others released their taxes he would, as well.

Six months prior, Roll Call asked each member of Congress to if they would release their tax returns. Of the 530 members, only 37 responded to Roll Call’s inquiry and Neal was one of the members who had not only not responded but not released his returns either.

Back in 2012, when McClatchy requested each member release their tax returns or give some information about the returns, just 17 lawmakers responded with any information and Neal was a member that did not respond at all to their request.

[soonernvolved]

[oilsooner]

Mar 26, 2019 7:15:56 GMT -6 xingtherubicon said:

Can Brennan be more of disgusting person?

On top of everything else, guess where he attended college...

If that motherfucker isn’t a traitor, I don’t know the meaning of the term.

Lock that treasonous POS up.

[oilsooner]

Apr 5, 2019 5:12:10 GMT -6 soonernvolved said:

Russian historian:

Hmmm, the NYTimes knew they were lying:

The NYT and WaPo and CNN and MSNBC have known they were lying for YEARS. (They lied for profit...modern day snake oil salesmen, only they are also un-American and borderline treasonous as well.)

They’ve had an unredacted copy of the FISA since 2017, when that Natsec moron gave it to his lover/reporter.

[kcrufnek]

Apr 5, 2019 11:00:51 GMT -6 soonernvolved said:

She should have gotten a Pulitzer too. She too has been on this the entire time.

[kcrufnek]

http://instagram.com/p/Bv4lxFQlskW

[soonernvolved]

www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-senators-alert-barr-to-allegations-that-mueller-team-misrepresented-emails

Fox News is told Grassley and Graham wanted Barr to have this material before he reviewed the Mueller report, out of concern some emails were selectively quoted to give a “nefarious” impression.
That court filing said Papadopoulos emailed another campaign official in May 2016 with the subject line, “Request from Russia to meet Mr. Trump.” The document said the email stated that Russia “has been eager to meet Mr. Trump for quite sometime and have been reaching out to me to discuss,” adding in a footnote that the official forwarded the email to another campaign official asking to discuss: “We need someone to communicate that DT is not doing these trips. It should be someone low level in the campaign so as not to send any signal.”

[soonernvolved]

dailycaller.com/2019/04/05/green-greenwald-called-out-nyts-piece-criticizing-barr/

The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald, in a Friday interview with Tucker Carlson, criticized the New York Times’ Wednesday report alleging that Attorney General William Barr is mishandling Robert Mueller’s report on Russian collusion.

The Times’ story, which relied on anonymous, secondhand sources, claimed that members of Mueller’s team believe that the report is more damaging to President Donald Trump than Barr indicated in his summary of its principal conclusions, which was delivered to Congress last month.

[soonernvolved]

www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/rep-devin-nunes-the-russian-collusion-hoax-meets-unbelievable-end

The Russian collusion hoax meets unbelievable end
by Rep. Devin Nunes
| April 05, 2019 12:00 AM


As the Russia collusion hoax hurtles toward its demise, it’s important to consider how this destructive information operation rampaged through vital American institutions for more than two years, and what can be done to stop such a damaging episode from recurring.

While the hoax was fueled by a wide array of false accusations, misleading leaks of ostensibly classified information, and bad-faith investigative actions by government officials, one vital element was indispensable to the overall operation: the Steele dossier.

Funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democrat National Committee, which hid their payments from disclosure by funneling them through the law firm Perkins Coie, the dossier was a collection of false and often absurd accusations of collusion between Trump associates and Russian officials. These allegations, which relied heavily on Russian sources cultivated by Christopher Steele, were spoon-fed to Trump opponents in the U.S. government, including officials in law enforcement and intelligence.

The efforts to feed the dossier’s allegations into top levels of the U.S. government, particularly intelligence agencies, were championed by Steele, Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson, and various intermediaries. These allegations were given directly to the FBI and Justice Department, while similar allegations were fed into the State Department by long-time Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal.

Their efforts were remarkably effective. Officials within the FBI and DOJ, whether knowingly or unintentionally, provided essential support to the hoax conspirators, bypassing normal procedures and steering the information away from those who would view it critically. The dossier soon metastasized within the government, was cloaked in secrecy, and evaded serious scrutiny.

High-ranking officials such as then-FBI general counsel James Baker and then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr were among those whose actions advanced the hoax. Ohr, one of the most senior officials within the DOJ, took the unprecedented step of providing to Steele a back door into the FBI investigation. This enabled the former British spy to continue to feed information to investigators, even though he had been terminated by the FBI for leaking to the press and was no longer a valid source. Even worse, Ohr directly briefed Andrew Weissmann and Zainab Ahmad, two DOJ officials who were later assigned to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. In short, the investigation was marked by glaring irregularities that would normally be deemed intolerable.

According to Ohr’s congressional testimony, he told top-level FBI officials as early as August or September 2016 that Steele was biased against Trump, that Steele’s work was connected to the Clinton campaign, and that Steele's material was of questionable reliability. Steele himself confirmed that last point in a British court case in which he acknowledged his allegations included unverified information. Yet even after this revelation, intelligence leaders continued to cite the Steele dossier in applications to renew the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

It is astonishing that intelligence leaders did not immediately recognize they were being manipulated in an information operation or understand the danger that the dossier could contain deliberate disinformation from Steele’s Russian sources. In fact, it is impossible to believe in light of everything we now know about the FBI’s conduct of this investigation, including the astounding level of anti-Trump animus shown by high-level FBI figures like Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, as well as the inspector general’s discovery of a shocking number of leaks by FBI officials.

It’s now clear that top intelligence officials were perfectly well aware of the dubiousness of the dossier, but they embraced it anyway because it justified actions they wanted to take — turning the full force of our intelligence agencies first against a political candidate and then against a sitting president.

The hoax itself was a gift to our nation’s adversaries, most notably Russia. The abuse of intelligence for political purposes is insidious in any democracy. It undermines trust in democratic institutions, and it damages the reputation of the brave men and women who are working to keep us safe. This unethical conduct has had major repercussions on America’s body politic, creating a yearslong political crisis whose full effects remain to be seen.

Having extensively investigated this abuse, House Intelligence Committee Republicans will soon be submitting criminal referrals on numerous individuals involved in these matters. These people must be held to account to prevent similar abuses from occurring in the future. The men and women of our intelligence community perform an essential service defending American national security, and their ability to carry out their mission cannot be compromised by biased actors who seek to transform the intelligence agencies into weapons of political warfare.

Rep. Devin Nunes, a Republican, represents California's 22nd Congressional District. He is ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.

[principledcon]

For Peace in America, We Must Return to the Rule of Law
www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/04/for_peace_in_america_we_must_return_to_the_rule_of_law.html

"It remains to be seen if our internal divisions will explode into mass violence, but the likelihood of that will be determined by the extent to which the rule of law is re-established in this country. For if we don't have recourse at the ballot box (our elections are stolen by the likes of Brenda Snipes, "ballot-harvesting", etc.), and there is a wildly uneven application of the law (in the course of a now discredited investigation, Roger Stone is arrested with more firepower on hand than was used to take down Osama bin Laden, while the likes of Comey, Hillary, Obama, Brennan, Lynch walk free), then many Americans will conclude that there is nothing left to defend our rights besides force of arms.

The collapse of the Mueller charade has served to move the hands of the civil war doomsday clock back a few notches, but now we need to see real criminals held accountable. Then perhaps we can talk about being one big happy national family again."

[soonernvolved]

Apr 6, 2019 6:33:30 GMT -6 principledcon said:

For Peace in America, We Must Return to the Rule of Law
www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/04/for_peace_in_america_we_must_return_to_the_rule_of_law.html

"It remains to be seen if our internal divisions will explode into mass violence, but the likelihood of that will be determined by the extent to which the rule of law is re-established in this country. For if we don't have recourse at the ballot box (our elections are stolen by the likes of Brenda Snipes, "ballot-harvesting", etc.), and there is a wildly uneven application of the law (in the course of a now discredited investigation, Roger Stone is arrested with more firepower on hand than was used to take down Osama bin Laden, while the likes of Comey, Hillary, Obama, Brennan, Lynch walk free), then many Americans will conclude that there is nothing left to defend our rights besides force of arms.

The collapse of the Mueller charade has served to move the hands of the civil war doomsday clock back a few notches, but now we need to see real criminals held accountable. Then perhaps we can talk about being one big happy national family again."

Amen.

[soonernvolved]

newrepublic.com/article/153435/msnbcs-wild-ride

“Bread crumbs” are emblematic of the informal house style at MSNBC. The channel has a range of on-air talent, and its shows each have their own cadence and feel, but they are joined across the arc of each daylong cycle of programming, and especially the larger meta-cycle of the Russia investigation, by a kind of Sherlockian, my-dear-Watson zeal. We are discovering the clues, uncovering the documents, connecting the threads, following the trail in the forest.

A mystery is a puzzle to solve, but a conspiracy can only produce more and more mysteries…

…The prevailing criticism of Maddow’s on-air personality is that she embodies the stereotype of the smug liberal, and if you encounter her mainly through the brief video clips that are both the reputational currency and the lingua franca of online media, it’s easy to see why. She has a bit of a shtick—a habit of cocking her head or raising her eyebrow and speaking confidently but with an air of almost bemused incredulity. Can you, she seems to be asking, believe these guys? She gestures widely. She shrugs. She is arch and broadly ironic. She is very certain that she is right.

Immediacy and intimacy are necessary for a show that consists, for long stretches, of a basically inert shot of a single woman who occupies the left-hand two-thirds of your screen, talking. But these qualities also render less conspicuous the defining trait of the show, which more than any other has contributed to Mueller’s near-messianic hold over segments of the so-called Resistance—a movement that was caught by surprise when Mueller finally submitted his report in late March, apparently concluding, from what we know of the report as of this writing, that Trump and his aides had not conspired with Russia to steal the election. Maddow's prime-time hour of overheated speculation lacks the antic sensibility and maudlin sentimentality of, for instance, the pre-exile Glenn Beck, who had scribbled all his manic and intricate chalkboard theories of history as conspiracy (and vice versa) with the studied passion of a coffee-shop prophet. But Maddow—and much of her network these days—is frequently just as bonkers.

[soonernvolved]

[kcrufnek]

So if Trump has said with hunt 1000 times is that 1000 counts of obstruction?

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

dailycaller.com/2019/04/07/devin-nunes-doj-referrals-conspiracy-dossier-leaks/

Sunday he plans to submit eight criminal referrals to the Justice Department this week related to the Obama administration’s handling of the Trump-Russia investigation.

Nunes said on Fox’s “Sunday Morning Futures” that the referrals will be made for alleged leaks of classified information to the media, for manipulating intelligence and for misleading foreign intelligence surveillance court judges regarding the infamous Steele dossier.

Nunes declined to identify the Obama officials who will be subject to the referrals. He said that five of the referrals name specific government officials he believes have lied to Congress, misled Congress or leaked classified information.

“We believe there is a conspiracy to lie to the FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] court, mislead the FISA court, by numerous individuals that all need to be investigated and looked at,” said Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee.

“The second conspiracy one is involving manipulation of intelligence,” said Nunes, adding that “we’ve had a lot of concerns with the way intelligence was used.”

Nunes is also making what he calls a “global leak referral.”

“There are about a dozen highly sensitive, classified information leaks that were given to only a few reporters over the last two and a half plus years,” he said.

“We do believe that we’ve got pretty good information and a pretty good idea of who could be behind these leaks,” Nunes continued.

The Justice Department is not required to open investigations based on congressional referrals, but Nunes said he is willing to meet with Attorney General William Barr to discuss the matter.

Nunes has led investigations into the FBI’s handling of the Steele dossier, as well as efforts by Obama administration officials to unmask the identities of Trump associates in surveillance reports. (RELATED: Nunes: Americans Will Be ‘Shocked’ By Other Information In Carter Page FISA)

The FBI relied on the Democrat-funded dossier to obtain four surveillance warrants against Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Nunes and other Republicans have asserted the FBI misled surveillance court judges by failing to disclose that the dossier was unverified and that it was opposition research funded by the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign.

Nunes has also investigated the Obama administration’s role in unmasking the identities of Trump associates in classified surveillance reports. Republicans have investigated whether any Obama administration holdovers leaked information from those reports to the media.

[soonernvolved]

Ok, then how about removing all members of Congress and revoking the press corps passes for all those who purposely lied about the Russian Collusion hoax ?


dailycaller.com/2019/04/07/schiff-mere-criminality-trump/


Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff argued that elected officials and President Donald Trump need to be held to “a higher standard than mere criminality” during a Sunday appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union.”



“How do you respond to the suggestion made by every Republican on your committee, they’ve called for you to step down, that you going out there before this report came out and saying there’s evidence of collusion and then Mueller comes out and says we don’t find any evidence of conspiracy or even coordination, what you’re saying is irresponsible. You’re muddying the waters. Maybe Democrats got their hopes up?” CNN Host Jake Tapper asked. (RELATED: Schiff: Plenty Of Evidence Of Collusion To Continue Investigations)

“Look, I think there is a different standard between Republicans and the Democrats. The Republicans seem to think as long as you can’t prove it’s a crime, all is fair in love and war, that it’s all okay, what the Trump administration, what the Trump campaign does. I don’t feel that way. I don’t think most Americans feel that way. Jake, what I’ve been saying all along is the evidence that I’m concerned about is in plain sight,” Schiff responded.

“I’ve used those words probably 100 times. If the fact that the president called on the Russians to hack Hillary’s emails, if the fact that Don Jr. said he’d love to get the Russian’s help, all of this is in plain sight. If Republicans think that’s perfectly fine because it doesn’t amount to the crime of conspiracy, then we’re going to part company. I’m not going to stop making the point that we should hold our president, our campaigns, our elected officials to a higher standard than mere criminality.”

Schiff said Wednesday on “Morning Joe” that there was still plenty of evidence to support continuing investigations into the Trump administration after Mueller’s report claimed there was no evidence of collusion with Russian officials according to the summary submitted to Congress by Attorney General William Barr.

“I think what you see in the public record is direct evidence. When the Russians, through an intermediary, offered dirt on the Clinton campaign as part of what’s described as the Russian government effort to help the Trump campaign, and Donald Trump’s son — who played a pivotal role in the campaign — who says, if it is what you say it is, I’d love it, and sets up a meeting to receive it, it is direct evidence of collusion,” Schiff stated at the time.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/04/07/adam-schiff-still-see-ample-evidence-of-collusion/

Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said there was “ample evidence” of collusion between President Donald Trump’s campaign and the Russians.

Schiff said, “What I said on your show and others for over a year now, yes, there’s ample evidence of collusion in plain sight. That’s not proof of a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. I would defer to Bob Mueller’s judgment, and I do. I think what we’re talking about here is the difference between conduct that rises to the level of criminality and conduct that is unethical, unpatriotic and corrupt but may not be criminal.”

calling out this president for deeply unethical and improper conduct. Not a bit. I think the moment we start to think that we should back away from exposing this kind of malfeasance and corruption is a dangerous point.”

He added, “There is a risk when you have an immoral president, a president lacking in basic character who violates the norms of office, an even greater risk of doing too little oversight. I make no apologies for that. I’ll continue holding this administration accountable.”

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/04/07/nadler-there-was-in-plain-sight-open-collusion-with-the-russians-and-trump-campaign/

Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said there was “open collusion” between President Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia despite special counsel Robert Mueller finding no evidence of criminal conspiracy.

Nadler said, “There may very well not have been evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a very high judicial standard of criminal conspiracy with the Russians, but there was in plain sight open collusion with the Russians. When the president’s son and campaign manager and son-in-law go to a meeting with the Russians to receive “dirt on Hillary” as part of the Russian government’s attempt to help the Trump campaign, and that was in the e-mail inviting them to the meeting, they go to the meeting. They say, do you want that information? That is collusion, whether it’s criminal conspiracy is another question.”
............

Love how he's using the Trump Tower meeting,(that was set up by Fusion GPS, the Clintons & DNC), as proof of collusion.

[kcrufnek]

Apr 7, 2019 12:26:23 GMT -6 soonernvolved said:

www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/04/07/nadler-there-was-in-plain-sight-open-collusion-with-the-russians-and-trump-campaign/

Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said there was “open collusion” between President Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia despite special counsel Robert Mueller finding no evidence of criminal conspiracy.

Nadler said, “There may very well not have been evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a very high judicial standard of criminal conspiracy with the Russians, but there was in plain sight open collusion with the Russians. When the president’s son and campaign manager and son-in-law go to a meeting with the Russians to receive “dirt on Hillary” as part of the Russian government’s attempt to help the Trump campaign, and that was in the e-mail inviting them to the meeting, they go to the meeting. They say, do you want that information? That is collusion, whether it’s criminal conspiracy is another question.”
............

Love how he's using the Trump Tower meeting,(that was set up by Fusion GPS, the Clintons & DNC), as proof of collusion.

lol. Mueller needed time to study everything. 2 years? Obviously not enough. Not all of the report is going to be released because Trump's hand picked stooge is in charge of it so the Dems are going to fill in the blanks for us. I'll bet if every comma and period was released Nadler would be saying it's incomplete. They're going to pick at everything like a tweaker does their face. It was raining and Trump said he used a black umbrella? Maybe it was dark blue.

I believe this is the same Nadler that was against the full report from Ken Starr being released.

[soonernvolved]

Apr 7, 2019 13:45:56 GMT -6 kcrufnek said:

Apr 7, 2019 12:26:23 GMT -6 soonernvolved said:

www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/04/07/nadler-there-was-in-plain-sight-open-collusion-with-the-russians-and-trump-campaign/

Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said there was “open collusion” between President Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia despite special counsel Robert Mueller finding no evidence of criminal conspiracy.

Nadler said, “There may very well not have been evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a very high judicial standard of criminal conspiracy with the Russians, but there was in plain sight open collusion with the Russians. When the president’s son and campaign manager and son-in-law go to a meeting with the Russians to receive “dirt on Hillary” as part of the Russian government’s attempt to help the Trump campaign, and that was in the e-mail inviting them to the meeting, they go to the meeting. They say, do you want that information? That is collusion, whether it’s criminal conspiracy is another question.”
............

Love how he's using the Trump Tower meeting,(that was set up by Fusion GPS, the Clintons & DNC), as proof of collusion.

lol. Mueller needed time to study everything. 2 years? Obviously not enough. Not all of the report is going to be released because Trump's hand picked stooge is in charge of it so the Dems are going to fill in the blanks for us. I'll bet if every comma and period was released Nadler would be saying it's incomplete. They're going to pick at everything like a tweaker does their face. It was raining and Trump said he used a black umbrella? Maybe it was dark blue.

I believe this is the same Nadler that was against the full report from Ken Starr being released.

Bingo. 

www.foxnews.com/politics/judiciary-chairman-nadler-accused-of-hypocrisy-on-mueller-report-as-vintage-video-surfaces-from-clinton-days

vintage video, posted by The Washington Examiner this week, shows Nadler doing an interview with Charlie Rose in 1998 discussing how the committee would have to go through documents already obtained to screen out “salacious material” that would be “unfair to release.”

“[Grand jury material]—that is material by law unless contravened by a vote in the House, must be kept secret. Somebody, staff of the Judiciary Committee, perhaps the chairman and ranking minority members of the Judiciary Committee is going to have to go over this material—at least the four or five hundred pages of the report to determine what is fit for release,” Nadler said in 1998.
........

www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/top-democrat-calling-for-full-mueller-report-had-different-view-when-bill-clinton-was-investigated
What Nadler, 71, said in 1998 echoes what Attorney General William Barr told Congress last week. Barr, 68, wrote that he might redact grand jury testimony, information related to ongoing investigations, sensitive or classified information, and “information that would unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties” from the report that he provides to Congress and the public.

In a New York Times op-ed Monday, Nadler wrote: “We — the members of the Judiciary Committee, the House of Representatives, and the entire American public — are still waiting to see that report… We have an obligation to read the full report, and the Department of Justice has an obligation to provide it, in its entirely, without delay.”

Twenty-one years ago, Nadler said that the Starr Report was inherently biased against Clinton: “'We should always remember this is a prosecutor's report — by its nature it's a one-sided report.” He complained about Clinton not being allowed to get a sneak peak at the Starr Report before it was made public: “The President is asking for two days. The Republicans say no.”

In October 1998, Nadler attacked the legitimacy of the independent counsel investigation: “Starr thinks he is going to be investigating things in four years … I find that astonishing and appalling. Is this a permanent inquisition against the president?” The language Nadler used was reminiscent of the “witch hunt” language used by Trump in reference to Mueller’s investigation.

In a February 1999 article in the New York Times, Nadler called the Starr Report and impeachment efforts by Republicans a “partisan coup d'etat.” He said he didn’t think Clinton had obstructed justice and that even if he had, it would not be an impeachable offense. “An impeachable offense is an abuse of Presidential power designed to or with the effect of undermining the structure or function of government, or undermining constitutional liberties,” Nadler said.


www.nytimes.com/1999/02/01/nyregion/finding-stardom-supporting-role-nadler-s-defense-clinton-lifts-his-profile-house.html?mtrref=undefined

[soonernvolved]

AG Barr, I believe I have discovered your next big investigation:

thehill.com/opinion/white-house/437719-ukrainian-to-us-prosecutors-why-dont-you-want-our-evidence-on-democrats

Ukrainian to US prosecutors: Why don't you want our evidence on Democrats?

Ukrainian law enforcement officials believe they have evidence of wrongdoing by American Democrats and their allies in Kiev, ranging from 2016 election interference to obstructing criminal probes. But, they say, they’ve been thwarted in trying to get the Trump Justice Department to act.

Kostiantyn Kulyk, deputy head of the Prosecutor General’s International Legal Cooperation Department, told me he and other senior law enforcement officials tried unsuccessfully since last year to get visas from the U.S. embassy in Kiev to deliver their evidence to Washington.

“We were supposed to share this information during a working trip to the United States,” Kulyk told me in a wide-ranging interview. “However, the (U.S.) ambassador blocked us from obtaining a visa. She didn’t explicitly deny our visa, but also didn’t give it to us.”

One focus of Ukrainian investigators, Kulyk said, has been money spirited unlawfully out of Ukraine and moved to the United States by businessmen friendly to the prior, pro-Russia regime of Viktor Yanukovych.

Ukrainian businessmen “authorized payments for lobbying efforts directed at the U.S. government,” he told me. “In addition, these payments were made from funds that were acquired during the money-laundering operation. We have information that a U.S. company was involved in these payments.” That company is tied to one or more prominent Democrats, Ukrainian officials insist.

In another instance, he said, Ukrainian authorities gathered evidence that money paid to an American Democrat allegedly was hidden by Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) during the 2016 election under pressure from U.S. officials. “In the course of this investigation, we found that there was a situation during which influence was exerted on the NABU, so that the name of (the American) would not be mentioned,” he said.

Ukraine is infamous for corruption and disinformation operations; its police agencies fight over what is considered evidence of wrongdoing. Kulyk and his bosses even have political fights over who should and shouldn’t be prosecuted. Consequently, allegations emanating from Kiev usually are taken with a grain a salt.

But many of the allegations shared with me by more than a half-dozen senior Ukrainian officials are supported by evidence that emerged in recent U.S. court filings and intelligence reports. The Ukrainians told me their evidence includes:

Sworn statements from two Ukrainian officials admitting that their agency tried to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election in favor of Hillary Clinton. The effort included leaking an alleged ledger showing payments to then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort;

Contacts between Democratic figures in Washington and Ukrainian officials that involved passing along dirt on Donald Trump;

Financial records showing a Ukrainian natural gas company routed more than $3 million to American accounts tied to Hunter Biden, younger son of then-Vice President Joe Biden, who managed U.S.-Ukrainian relations for the Obama administration. Biden’s son served on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma Holdings;

Records that Vice President Biden pressured Ukrainian officials in March 2016 to fire the prosecutor who oversaw an investigation of Burisma Holdings and who planned to interview Hunter Biden about the financial transfers;

Correspondence showing members of the State Department and U.S. embassy in Kiev interfered or applied pressure in criminal cases on Ukrainian soil;

Disbursements of as much as $7 billion in Ukrainian funds that prosecutors believe may have been misappropriated or taken out of the country, including to the United States.
Ukrainian officials say they don’t want to hand the evidence to FBI agents working in Ukraine because they believe the bureau has a close relationship with NABU and the U.S. embassy. “It is no secret in Ukrainian political circles that the NABU was created with American help and tried to exert influence during the U.S. presidential election,” Kulyk told me.

Kulyk’s boss, Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko, told me he has enough evidence — particularly involving Biden, his family and money spirited out of Ukraine — to warrant a meeting with U.S. Attorney General William Barr. “I’m looking forward to meeting with the attorney general of the United States in order to start and facilitate our joint investigation regarding the appropriation of another $7 billion in U.S. dollars with Ukrainian legal origin,” Lutsenko said.

I wrote last week that Biden, in 2016, pressured Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to fire Ukraine’s top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Burisma.

Kulyk confirmed Ukraine is investigating that alleged incident: “We have evidence and witnesses stating that Joe Biden applied pressure on Ukrainian law enforcement to stop the investigation.”

Ukrainians officials have gone public in recent days with their frustrations, after months of trying to deliver the evidence quietly to the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) fizzled. Unable to secure visas from the U.S. embassy, some Ukrainian law enforcement officials sought backdoor channels, Kulyk said.

One of those avenues involved reaching out last fall to a former federal prosecutor from the George W. Bush years, according to interviews. He delivered a written summary of some of the Ukrainian allegations to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan, along with an offer to connect U.S. investigators with individuals purporting to have the evidence. There was no response or follow-up, according to multiple people directly familiar with the effort.

More recently, President Trump’s private attorney Rudy Giuliani — former mayor and former U.S. attorney in New York City — learned about some of the allegations while, on behalf of the Trump legal team, he looked into Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election.