President Trump: You're fired!

stumbler · Jun 24, 2017

Mueller’s grade-A legal team ‘uncomfortably close’ to obstruction case against Donald Trump

A Los Angeles Times feature details the ways in which members of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller’s team have worked to prosecute obstruction of justice in the past — and how they’ll bring that expertise to the case of President Donald Trump.

According to the Times, Mueller’s “first 13 hires speak volumes: They include veteran prosecutors who spent years unraveling complicated conspiracies in high-pressure cases.”

Two of those hires include Andrew Weissman and Michael Dreebin, two men who worked successfully as prosecutors in 2001’s Enron accounting fraud trial.

“This case was really about a simple principle,” Weissman, who was lead prosecutor in the Enron accounting audit scandal, said during the trial. “Which is, when you expect the police, don’t destroy evidence.”

“These are guys that have a particular skill set that seems uncomfortably close to a potential case against Donald Trump,” Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, told the Times. “This is a team with prosecutors who have not been timid in stretching the criminal code when it comes to prosecutions.”

Along with Weissman and Dreebin, Mueller also tapped FBI lawyer Lisa Page, a money-laundering specialist, Elizabeth Prelogar, a Russian-speaking former Supreme Court clerk and Jeannie Rhee, who served as deputy assistant attorney general during Barack Obama’s administration and counseled on executive privilege and national security.
Click to expand...

Jdbfromnj · Jun 24, 2017

They might need to hire more lawyers. Their investigations are leading back to Hillary and Obama. Soon the whole government is going to be under investigation, which may not be a bad thing.

stumbler · Jun 24, 2017

Trump’s comments drag him into more legal trouble

President Donald Trump has repeatedly called for the Russian investigation to go away, yet he appears unable to stop talking about it. And by doing so, say legal experts, he is putting himself in jeopardy over a possible obstruction of justice charge.

Trump’s latest comments came Friday when attempting to explain why he sent a tweet threatening that he had tapes of his conversations with fired FBI Director James Comey. On Thursday, Trump admitted that no such tapes, at least to his knowledge, existed.

After Fox News host Ainsley Earhardt suggested that sending the tweet was a smart way of making Comey “stay honest” during his Senate testimony earlier this month, Trump responded, “Well, it wasn’t very stupid, I can tell you that."

He added: “He did admit that what I said was right and if you look further back before he heard about that I think maybe he wasn’t admitting that.”

Yet, according to former federal prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg, that comment was less than smart.

“It’s not the kind of comment, if you’re his lawyer, you want him to make,” Zeidenberg told Newsweek Friday. “He’s trying to affect the testimony of a witness, which you’re not supposed to do.”

Indeed, it could well be seen, as former Barack Obama White House ethics czar Norm Eisen has said, as an attempt to intimidate a witness. That would be yet another component of obstruction of justice, which Trump has said he is being investigated for but which his lawyers have denied.

The thing that may save Trump is his claim that he did so in order to keep Comey honest. In establishing obstruction of justice it is necessary to prove that corrupt intent was present. But even with that caveat, Trump’s latest remarks about the matter hardly help his attempts to show that he did not attempt to interfere in the FBI’s investigation into possible collusion between Russia and his campaign.

“You’re basically conceding all the elements of the offense except for intent,” Zeidenberg said. “So why would you do that? To say that it’s not fatal isn’t the same as saying it’s at all helpful or constructive. He’s putting himself in all kinds of jeopardy for no good reason."

Yahoo! News reported earlier this month that several top law firms had rejected the opportunity to represent Trump over fears that he would refuse their advice about not making public statements. Still, Trump has continued to comment and tweet incessantly.

“If you’re his attorney you’re pulling your hair out,” Zeidenberg said. “As a lawyer, I think this is just incredibly self-destructive.”

In concert, Trump’s mountain of comments could suggest that he was fixated by the Russia investigation. He is also making the job of the investigators, led by special counsel Robert Mueller, easier.

“There’s a reason why defense lawyers tell their clients don’t comment, Zeidenberg said. “Anytime he tweets, anytime he comments he’s providing information and possibly evidence to the investigators.”

Perhaps the only way Trump’s actions could be interpreted as something less than “very stupid” would be if he is playing the political rather than the legal game; throwing bones to his base and his friends at Fox. For Trump, the threat of obstruction of justice is impeachment and that, ultimately, will be a political decision reliant, currently at least, on a Republican House and Senate.
Click to expand...

M4MPetCock · Jun 24, 2017

Jdbfromnj said: ↑

They might need to hire more lawyers. Their investigations are leading back to Hillary and Obama. Soon the whole government is going to be under investigation, which may not be a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Nice to see Hillary tone down her rhetoric, considering all the violent liberals on the attack lately.

Hillary Clinton calls Republicans 'death party' if health care bill passes

6/23/17

stumbler · Jun 24, 2017

WATCH: Shep Smith nails Trump for continuing to stoke questions over whether Comey tapes exist

Fox News host Shep Smith on Friday went off on Donald Trump for continuing to stoke questions over the existence of “tapes” pertaining to his conversations with former FBI director James Comey, arguing the president “can find out for us” if there are any such recordings.

Smith started by railing into White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer for holding “another off-camera gaggle” instead of a televised press briefing.

“The press secretary spoke about comments President Trump made on Fox and Friends this morning,” Smith said, referring to an interview Trump gave this early Friday.” The president said, ‘we’ll have to see’ as to whether the special counsel Robert Mueller should recuse himself from he Russia investigation. And he said his initial tweet about tapes may have influenced the testimony of the former FBI Director James Comey.”

Trump, Smith noted, “admitted he did not record and does not have tapes,” but again left “the door open as to whether anybody else may have tapes of those conversations.”

“He said, ‘you never know,’” Smith noted, adding the president also suggested his threat of tapes “may have forced Comey to be honest.” Trump this morning posited that his tweet in May suggesting Comey better “hope” there are no tapes led Comey to change his story about his conversations with Trump.

“He can find out for us, cause he can ask, ‘are there tapes?’” Smith said
Click to expand...

Jdbfromnj · Jun 24, 2017

stumbler · Jun 24, 2017

Poll: Americans believe Comey more than Trump over firing

Twice as many Americans say they are more likely to believe former FBI Director James Comey than President Trump on their accounts of events leading up to Comey's firing last month, according to a new poll.

Forty-five percent of respondents in an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Friday said they are more likely to believe Comey’s testimony before senators on June 8, while 22 percent said they would believe Trump’s side of the story.

Another 21 percent said they don't believe either Trump or Comey's account of the events, while 8 percent said they believe both.

Three in four Democrats, 76 percent, said they believe Comey, while half of Republicans, 50 percent, side with the president. Independents favor Comey's testimony over Trump's account, 47 percent to 17 percent.

Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that Trump asked him to drop an investigation into his former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, which Trump has denied.

Comey also testified that the president asked for him to pledge his loyalty, which he told lawmakers he declined to do.

Forty-six percent of Americans disapprove of Trump's decision to fire Comey, up from 38 percent in May, according to the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Just 27 percent of Americans said they approved of the president’s decision.

The administration originally cited Comey's mishandling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of State in the 2016 presidential campaign for his firing, though Trump later told NBC News that "this Russia thing with Trump" was on his mind when he decided to fire the FBI chief.

The poll found that a majority of Americans, 53 percent, believe that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 election, as opposed to only 36 percent who disagree.

The survey of 900 adults was conducted June 17–20 and has an overall margin of error of 3.3 percentage points.
Click to expand...

Jdbfromnj · Jun 24, 2017

stumbler · Jun 24, 2017

Intel chiefs tell investigators Trump suggested they refute collusion with Russians

Two of the nation's top intelligence officials told Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team and Senate investigators, in separate meetings last week, that President Donald Trump suggested they say publicly there was no collusion between his campaign and the Russians, according to multiple sources.

Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency Director Adm. Mike Rogers described their interactions with the President about the Russia investigation as odd and uncomfortable, but said they did not believe the President gave them orders to interfere, according to multiple sources familiar with their accounts.

Sources say both men went further than they did in June 7 public hearings, when they provided little detail about the interactions.
The sources gave CNN the first glimpse of what the intelligence chiefs said to Mueller's investigators when they did separate interviews last week. Both men told Mueller's team they were surprised the President would suggest that they publicly declare he was not involved in collusion, sources said. Mueller's team, which is in the early stages of its investigation, will ultimately decide whether the interactions are relevant to the inquiry.

Coats and Rogers also met individually last week with the Senate intelligence committee in two closed briefings that were described to CNN by Democratic and Republican congressional sources. One source said that Trump wanted them to say publicly what then-FBI Director James Comey had told the President privately: that he was not under investigation for collusion. However, sources said that neither Coats nor Rogers raised concerns that Trump was pushing them to do something they did not want to do. They did not act on the President's alleged suggestion.

Trump has said repeatedly that no collusion occurred. "After 7 months of investigations & committee hearings about my 'collusion with the Russians,' nobody has been able to show any proof. Sad!" he tweeted June 16. The White House did not comment for this story. The DNI, NSA and Mueller's office also did not comment.

Because the meetings were classified, sources shared limited details. But they said the two intelligence leaders recounted conversations that appeared to show the President's deep frustration that the Russia allegations have continued to cloud his administration. The question of what the President said to Coats and Rogers has been hanging over the administration since The Washington Post reported the interactions in late May.

CNN has confirmed the March interactions between the intelligence chiefs and the President in which he made the requests. These came a few days after Comey publicly confirmed for the first time the existence of the federal investigation of potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

In a public Senate intelligence hearing earlier this month in which both men testified, senators in both parties grew frustrated and angry after neither would agree to clear up exactly what the President said to them. Rogers and Coats said they did not feel pressured to do anything but would not describe any details of their conversations with Trump.

"In the three-plus years that I have been the director of the National Security Agency, to the best of my recollection, I have never been directed to do anything I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate, and to the best of my recollection during that same period of service I do not recall ever feeling pressured to do so," Rogers said during the public hearing.

Coats offered a similar response. "In my time of service, which is interacting with the President of the United States or anybody in his administration, I have never been pressured — I have never felt pressured — to intervene or interfere in any way with shaping intelligence in a political way or in relation to an ongoing investigation," he said.

The reason for their public reticence, one congressional source told CNN, is that Coats and Rogers had asked the White House for guidance on whether their conversations with the President were protected by executive privilege, which meant they would not be allowed to discuss it. They did not get an answer from the White House before testifying and did not know how to answer the committee. The result was an awkward and contentious public hearing.

In classified follow-up meetings with the Senate intelligence committee, they were more forthcoming, according to sources familiar with the closed-door session.

One congressional source expressed frustration that Coats and Rogers didn't answer the questions in public, especially since what they ended up expressing in private was that they did not feel that the President pressured either of them to do anything improper.
Rogers' interaction with the President is also documented in a memo written by his deputy at the NSA, Richard Ledgett.

One congressional source who has seen the memo tells CNN that it is one page and, unlike memos written by former FBI Director James Comey, does not have many details of the conversation. Instead, it simply documents that the interaction occurred -- and makes clear that Rogers thought it was out of the ordinary.
Coats did not document his conversations with the President about the issue, the source said.
Click to expand...

Sanity_is_Relative · Jun 24, 2017

stumbler · Jun 29, 2017

Senate panel to get Comey memos: report

The Senate Intelligence Committee has reportedly reached an agreement to get former FBI Director James Comey’s memos detailing his conversations with President Trump.

“I’ve got a commitment,” Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) told Politico on Wednesday when asked whether his panel would obtain access to the memos.

Burr declined to say who provided the commitment, the newspaper reported.

Several House and Senate committees requested the memos after Comey said in his testimony before the Senate Intelligence panel earlier this month that he had authorized a friend to share the contents of one of the memos with a reporter.

Comey’s friend, identified as Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman, shared the memos with a reporter and has reportedly turned the documents over to the FBI.

Comey said in his testimony before Burr’s committee that the memos included a detailed account of the president asking him to ease off the FBI investigation into his former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

Democrats accused the president of obstruction of justice after hearing Comey’s testimony, believing Trump may have fired the FBI director for not ending the probe into Flynn.

Burr and the panel's vice chairman, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), met with special counsel Robert Mueller earlier this month amid ongoing probes into Russia's election meddling.

The special counsel was appointed to lead the federal investigation into possible ties between Trump's campaign and Russia after Comey was fired.
Click to expand...

Jdbfromnj · Jun 29, 2017

Wow. Are we still talking about this? Seems like Obama and his team are the ones being investigated now.

stumbler · Jun 29, 2017

House Intel panel threatens to subpoena White House over response to Comey tape request

The leaders of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee’s Russia probe on Thursday called on the White House to respond more fully to their request for any records on President Donald Trump’s conversations with fired FBI Director James Comey.

The White House told the panel on June 23 that a tweet by the president in which he said he had no recordings of their conversations was responsive to the committee’s request.

In a joint statement on Thursday, Republican Representative Mike Conaway and Democratic Representative Adam Schiff said they had written the White House to press it to comply fully with their request.

“Today’s letter from the committee makes clear that should the White House not respond fully, the committee will consider using compulsory process to ensure a satisfactory response,” they said.
Click to expand...

Jdbfromnj · Jun 30, 2017

Didn't she work for Obama???f

stumbler · Jun 30, 2017

Jdbfromnj said: ↑

View attachment Didn't she work for Obama???f
Click to expand...

I am actually are for this. I do not believe anyone in the Obama Administration has anything to hide and so far at least anytime someone from the Obama administration has testified they have done serious damage to Trump, his administration, and provided crucial information about Trump's Russian connections. Both Sally Yates and James Comey have really damaged Trump touched off new areas of the Special Counsel and Congressional investigations.

With another big story out just out tonight.

stumbler · Jun 30, 2017

Trump accidentally confesses to blackmail scheme against Morning Joe hosts

President Donald Trump on Friday fired back at the hosts of MSNBC’s Morning Joe program.

Specifically, the president responded to allegations that the White House asked co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski to apologize personally to Trump for their negative coverage of him in exchange for him telling the National Enquirer to back off of a negative story planned about the couple.

“Watched low rated Morning Joe for first time in long time,” Trump said. “FAKE NEWS. He called me to stop a National Enquirer article. I said no! Bad show.”

Joe Scarborough quickly shot back at Trump on Twitter — and claimed that he had a paper trail to back up his version of events.

“I have texts from your top aides and phone records,” he wrote. “Also, those records show I haven’t spoken with you in many months. Why do you keep lying about things that are so easily disproven? What is wrong with you?”

In a Washington Post editorial published Friday, Scarborough and Brzezinski revealed that the White House earlier this year contacted them about a purportedly scandalous story that would soon be published in the National Enquirer, whose boss David Pecker is a longtime Trump ally.

“This year, top White House staff members warned that the National Enquirer was planning to publish a negative article about us unless we begged the president to have the story spiked,” they revealed. “We ignored their desperate pleas.”
Click to expand...

M4MPetCock · Jul 4, 2017

stumbler · Jul 6, 2017

So how is that Trump your fired thing going?

stumbler · Sep 6, 2017

Law prof explains legal reasoning why Trump’s new memo puts Mike Pence ‘in legal jeopardy’ for impeachment

Fordham University Law professor Jed Shugerman made one of the most damning case against Vice President Mike Pence for being involved in obstruction of justice.

The New York Times and Washington Post both broke stories about the original memo that President Donald Trump authored during a rainy day that would ultimately fire former FBI Director James Comey.

Shugerman told MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell that the biggest name that has been associated with this memo and this conversation is Pence.

“Let me explain why this timeline puts him in legal jeopardy,” Shugerman began. “So, we know that this letter was drafted on one day, and then after Steven Miller came back with that draft, it was read in a room of people, including Vice President Pence. And when that letter was read, it had, quote, The New York Times talks about a screed, and it identified all of these other connections to the Russian probe for why Trump had decided to fire Jim Comey. Then after this letter is edited, Mike Pence then tells the media that the Comey firing was not connected to the Russian probe, and he said it was due to Rod Rosenstein’s recommendation. Those statements are untrue.”

He explained that because Pence heard the first letter and the second letter and lied about it, it now “implicates Mike Pence now in a combination of conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting obstruction of justice, and also a relatively less known felony called misprision of a felony.”

Shugerman said that misprision of a felony is when a person like Pence “has knowledge of a felony” and then “conceals and does not make it known to the legal authorities,” he can be found guilty.

“Let’s keep in mind that the [President Richard] Nixon articles of impeachment included a provision blaming Nixon for misleading or false statements to the public,” Shugerman continued. “Now, that’s not a felony, but it was grounds for impeaching President Nixon.”

He went on to say that another major thing that is part of this controversy was the news that broke Thursday saying Trump’s attorneys met with special counselor Robert Mueller to make the argument Trump has the power to fire Comey, therefore it can’t be obstruction of justice. That’s not true.

“That basic argument is so wrong that it shows why there’s so little that the Trump lawyers have to argue,” Shugerman said. “A president has the power to order a military strike, but if the president is ordering that military strike with the intent of, let’s say, killing someone who slept with his wife, that’s still murder. A president can pardon someone, but if the president pardons someone because he received a million dollar bribe, that’s still a felony of bribery. Just because the president has the power to do something, it doesn’t mean that it excuses any exercise of that power because intent matters.”

There is at least one other cases in which Pence has claimed he knew nothing, only to be found out that it would have been impossible or negligent for him to have not known the facts. Rachel Maddow made the case that Pence had to have known all about former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn sketchy lobbying and concerning conversations with Russians.
Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up

stumbler Porn Star

Jdbfromnj Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

M4MPetCock Porn Star Banned!

stumbler Porn Star

Jdbfromnj Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

Jdbfromnj Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

Sanity_is_Relative Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

Jdbfromnj Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

Jdbfromnj Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

M4MPetCock Porn Star Banned!

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

President Trump: You're fired!

Log in or Sign up

stumbler Porn Star

Jdbfromnj Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

M4MPetCock Porn Star Banned!

stumbler Porn Star

Jdbfromnj Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

Jdbfromnj Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

Sanity_is_Relative Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

Jdbfromnj Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

Jdbfromnj Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

M4MPetCock Porn Star Banned!

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

Useful Searches