web analytics

What has Trump Accomplished So Far?

By Patrick Van Roy On May 29th, 2019

Nationwide injunctions—when a single district court judge can halt the enforcement of a law or policy across the country—have been stymying President Trump’s agenda from the get-go. And Attorney General William Barr is getting fed up.

In a speech on Tuesday to the American Law Institute, Barr railed against national injunctions, noting that 37 of them have been issued against President Trump—more than one a month—compared to just two that were issued against President Obama during his first two years in office. According to Justice Department statistics cited by Barr, only 27 national injunctions were issued in all of the 20th century.

That is called Legislating from the Bench. Trump has filled 224 Judgeships since taking office. All Judges appointed by Trump have come from a list created by The Heritage Foundation and The Federalist Society.  These are Judges who were picked because they have records of being Constitutionalist Judges. Not Judges that go by what they believe in or the politics of the moment, but what it actually says in the Law.

There are 65 more slots yet to fill. In following this list appointing these Judges he keeps what to some of us was his most important promise.

190 Responses to “What has Trump Accomplished So Far?”

  1. Over the weekend the head shrew at the NYT attacked 63 million people Ms Dowd said and I quote.

    Journalists must not become inured to Trump’s outlandish, transgressive behavior. Mitch McConnell, Barr and almost everyone else in the G.O.P. have made themselves numb to his abhorrent actions because of self-interest.

    We are all abhorrent and self obsessed.

    ab·hor·rent
    [abˈhôrənt, abˈhärənt]
    ADJECTIVE
    inspiring disgust and loathing; repugnant.

    The inside the bubble mentality

  2. lol they haven’t even announced the indictment’s yet and they are turning on each other.

    https://trendingpolitics.com/loretta-lynch-accuses-comey-of-lying-says-she-didn-t-call-clinton-probe-a-matter/?utm_source=star&utm_medium=twitter

  3. O/T

    The war dog’s in Trump’s administration seem to be chomping at the bit to usher in disaster:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48443454

  4. gulf of tonkin

  5. another one

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/05/28/trump-russias_turning_and_the_knives_are_out_140430.html

    Now that the Russia collusion allegations have evaporated, the long knives are out and President Trump’s antagonists are watching their backs. They have moved from accusing him of treason to pushing revisionist narratives that try to shift the blame for the debunked probe onto others.

    This effort is expected to accelerate following Trump’s decision Thursday to empower Attorney General William Barr to declassify CIA, Pentagon, and Director of National Intelligence documents as necessary to access “information or intelligence that relates to the attorney general’s review” of the Russia probe.

    In other words, he’s gaining the authority needed to investigate the investigators.

    CIA sources immediately objected in the New York Times that assets’ lives would be at risk, stunting Langley’s ability to recruit. Perhaps. But the argument is a bit shopworn, raising the question whether intelligence managers are looking to protect their agents and sources, or aiming to protect themselves.

    There are a growing number of indicators that the leading players in the 2016 election drama are turning on one another, making a mad dash for the lifeboats to escape being dragged under with the political Titanic that is Christopher Steele and his dossier.

  6. //What has Trump Accomplished So Far?

    ..
    All Judges appointed by Trump have come from a list created by The Heritage Foundation and The Federalist Society.//

    Is selecting names from a list of names seriously an accomplishment?

    I do more work before breakfast every day.

  7. They will make a movie about it called Swindler’s List.

  8. Trump has pandered to a special interest group.

    What a magnificent accomplishment.

  9. lol

    You guys crack me up. Yes it is pure pandering to a special interest group…. like that is something that’s not standard operating procedure. I guess K street is going away.

    The “special interest group” that he is pandering to are the constitutional base that were backing Cruz. He pledged to use that list to have their support.

    Noel
    Is selecting names from a list of names seriously an accomplishment?

    Yes it is the left has been stuffing the court with Judges who violate the constitution. What the people would never vote for they use the courts to force on the public. You totally miss the importance of this.

    If he got nothing else accomplished in his Presidency just getting these justices on the bench would make his term a success.

  10. anyone want to discuss VP Biden’s multiple deferments from military service… It’s bone spur Trump what about wheezy Joe and his “asma” deferment?

  11. Deferments were legal options employed by the educated and upper class to get out of the military. Very many used that option.

    Trump committed medical fraud. Trumpers wanted to see Obama’s birth certificate. I want to see Trump’s X Rays. Show me the bone spurs. Now.

  12. Patrick, the Heritage Foundation’s list is political. It is a political perception of the constitution, not the constitution itself. A plain text reading of the constitution would ban, amongst other things, a stand alone US Air Force. None of these hacks have argued to ban the Air Force.

  13. When left or activists jabber on about the importance of the Constitution, chances are that’s the last thing that they’re interested in.

    They want judges to vote the way they like. The long and short of it.

  14. Left or right activists

  15. All Judges appointed by Trump have come from a list created by The Heritage Foundation and The Federalist Society

    These (lobbyist?) special interest groups certainly make for interesting reading. Isn’t Lady Justice supposed to be blind?

  16. Seamus is correct. Trump would be pandering if he utilized the list, but by only selecting those on the list he is doing more than pandering, he’s being dictated to (in fairness the only judges he knows besides his sister are those that have presided over his multiple lawsuits).

  17. Biden’s deferments were similar to Trump. Not something to be proud of.

  18. Trump, Biden, Gingrich said ” let the working class blacks and whites serve. I choose not to “.

  19. Many of those who served didn’t even know about the gimmick of ” college student draft deferments ”

    But the slicksters did. Including super patriots Giuliani and Dick Cheney.

    They all ” honored ” the service of others with false platitudes.

  20. Was it wrong for someone to use any available trick to avoid serving in Vietnam?

    It was hard cheese on the working class, of course, but I think avoiding participating in the crime of Vietnam in whatever way you can isn’t really something to be ashamed of today.

  21. Perhaps not Noel but surely it’s an untenable position to be lauding tthe armed forces and their actions in conflict zones while refusing the responsibility yourself?

  22. Noel

    There is no evidence that the likes of Trump, Giuliani, or Cheney opposed the Vietnam war on any moral grounds.

    What grates is that all of them have spun political careers based on the fake tough guy persona, but when the time to serve came, they ran and hid.

  23. A funny new phrase has come out of Washington D.C. It is ”war wimps.”

    A war wimp is a tough-talking conservative hawk who favors big military build-ups, more and bigger nukes, sending American troops hither and yon, and going eyeball to eyeball with anybody who looks at us the wrong way.

    But that`s not all there is to being a war wimp.

    A war wimp is also somebody who, when a war was actually being fought while he was a young man, found it convenient to be somewhere safe.

    The phrase was originated by U.S. Rep. Andrew Jacobs (D., Ind.), a Marine veteran of Korea, to show his amused disdain for those who talk a good fight, just as long as somebody else will have to fight it.

    And the most complete list of current war wimps has been compiled in the Village Voice newspaper by writer Jack Newfield.

    Here are some of the top war wimps, according to Newfield:

    — Rep. Newt Gingrich (R., Ga.), who can really talk tough, especially when he is flailing liberals, most of whom he considers to have less spine than a night crawler.

    But during the the Vietnam War, when Gingrich was of prime draft age, he found himself in college.

    When he was asked why, since he favored the Vietnam War, he didn`t take advantage of the opportunity to go shoot some commies, he said:

    ”What difference would I have made? There was a bigger battle in Congress than Vietnam.”

    Oh, I don`t know about that. The body count in Congress never amounted to much.

    Chicago Tribune 1985

  24. Mueller:

    Charging Trump was not an option under guidelines of the justice department

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48450534

  25. Mueller is all but saying that if he could have charged a sitting President than he would have charged Trump.

  26. Mueller was in an untenable position.

    Watch the Trump rats start to really Comey him now.

  27. I’d also say that every time Mueller releases information (either the report, the ‘leaked’ letter, the statement today) it goes to show that AG Bill Barr lied to Congress. Not spun something, not it could be argued this way or that way, flat out lied.

  28. WASHINGTON — Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, on Wednesday characterized for the first time his investigation of whether President Trump obstructed justice, saying “if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

    In what he said would be his only comments on his nearly two-year inquiry, he said that while Justice Department policy prohibits charging a sitting president with a crime, the Constitution provides for another process — a clear reference to the ability of Congress to impeach the president.

    He just committed sedition…..

  29. Not spun something, not it could be argued this way or that way, flat out lied.

    yep

  30. Some of us don’t know what sedition or treason are.

  31. “He just committed sedition…..”

    He did his job. He can’t charge the President. Only Congress can. Pointing that out to Congress is not sedition. He serves the Republic, not the President.

  32. Trumpers want ruthless personal loyalty, Roy Cohn style, end of.

    They will say anything or do anything to defend their little Donald, the country be damned.

  33. They pledge allegiance to The Donald, and to the MAGA for which he stands, one Nation under Covfefe, indivisible, with liberty and justice for his mates.

  34. He just violated every ethics rule of a prosecutor while at the same time admitting his part in the conspiracy while committing Sedition… if you don’t know what it means you shouldn’t be discussing politics.

    Mueller’s job every prosecutors job is to charge the subject. If you don’t charge you don’t discuss anything about the investigation. Those are the rules.

    Mueller was tasked with finding and charging crimes. The first half of his report said he committed no crime. The second half of his report he just admitted was for impeachment which was not his mandate.

    The second half of the report as now admitted and all statements from Mueller at this point are acts of sedition.

  35. I pledge allegiance to the Flag and I support the Rule of Law.

    They broke the Law, not Trump and the chickens are going to come home to roost.

  36. oh and to the service and leaders…… Figureheads…. Avon Kerr summed it up best

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2j3e9Xc3QM

    play from 3 min to 4:30 min ……. 90 seconds of perfection.

  37. //Mueller is all but saying that if he could have charged a sitting President than he would have charged Trump//

    That’s my reading of it too.

  38. by doing so he is committing sedition.

  39. “He just violated every ethics rule of a prosecutor while at the same time admitting his part in the conspiracy while committing Sedition… if you don’t know what it means you shouldn’t be discussing politics.”

    He serves the Republic. Not the President. Because of the rules he can’t charge the President. So in order to serve the Republic he must instruct Congress to do its duty.

    Helping a branch of the federal government to hold another branch of the federal government to account is not sedition.

  40. Everywhere you look at this case you find dirty cops not following the rules.

    I find that to be very dangerous.

  41. “I pledge allegiance to the Flag and I support the Rule of Law.”

    You support the rule of law when it is convenient for you. When it isn’t you turn into an ambulance chasing lawyer type looking for any technicality.

  42. Seamus that is not Mueller’s job, that is not what he was tasked to do.

  43. Seamus, on May 29th, 2019 at 5:40 PM Said: Edit Comment
    “I pledge allegiance to the Flag and I support the Rule of Law.”

    You support the rule of law when it is convenient for you. When it isn’t you turn into an ambulance chasing lawyer type looking for any technicality.

    oh bull….

  44. “Seamus that is not Mueller’s job, that is not what he was tasked to do.”

    It was Mueller’s job to investigate any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Donald Trump. It was also Mueller’s job to investigate any matters that arose directly from the investigation (ie obstruction). It was also Mueller’s job to prosecute federal crimes arising from those investigations.

    As he cannot in this case prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation he has given the information over to the people who can. Only those opposed to the rule of law would have a problem with that.

  45. That is not how the Laws work.

  46. “That is not how the Laws work.”

    What law did he break?

  47. His job was not to exonerate. His job was to establish prosecutorial evidence or not. He found none.

    As a prosecutor that is all he is allowed to say under the Law.

  48. Defamation

  49. “His job was not to exonerate. His job was to establish prosecutorial evidence or not. He found none.”

    No it isn’t. His job was to:

    – investigate any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Donald Trump.
    – investigate any matters that arose directly from the investigation (ie obstruction)
    – to prosecute federal crimes arising from those investigations.

    “As a prosecutor that is all he is allowed to say under the Law.”

    What law?

    “Defamation”

    The US has no federal criminal defamation law. So again what law did he break?

  50. You’re dancing on the head of pin and you ain’t no angel.

    Mueller’s statements today prove his investigation was nothing but a political attack to undermine the elected president.

  51. here is the special prosecutor order
    https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

    ORDER NO. 3915-2017
    APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
    TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE
    2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

    By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C.
    §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and
    management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:

    (a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States
    Department of Justice.

    (b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI
    Director James B. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on
    Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

    (i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and
    individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
    (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
    (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

    (c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is
    authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

    (d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are
    applicable to the Special Counsel

    28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)

    § 600.4 Jurisdiction.
    (a)Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.

  52. Not a damn thing in there about impeachment. A Prosecutor is given limited scope. The scope above is very broad, but still LIMITED TO CRIMES.

    Mueller found NO Crime he could charge end of report period.

  53. “Mueller’s statements today prove his investigation was nothing but a political attack to undermine the elected president.”

    Nope. He investigated and because of the DOJ guidelines he couldn’t bring charges. So he has handed the information over to the only body who can. Anyone who has a problem with that is someone who doesn’t agree with the rule of law.

    “Not a damn thing in there about impeachment. A Prosecutor is given limited scope. The scope above is very broad, but still LIMITED TO CRIMES.”

    Where does he say he can’t, upon finding indictable crimes committed by a sitting President, give that information over to Congress?

  54. I fully support the House of Representatives in their bid for Impeachment.

    The sooner they begin the better.

  55. “I fully support the House of Representatives in their bid for Impeachment.”

    Which by your definition means you are now guilty of sedition. Will you be handing yourself into the authorities?

  56. I’m not accusing him of anything. I’m saying that I hope the Democrats try. I support them trying.

    675 days

    $35,000,000

    And you exhaust:

    500 witnesses

    2,800 subpoenas

    And there’s STILL what Mueller himself called “Insufficient evidence”

    Maybe it’s because the crime doesn’t exist

    And you can’t obstruct justice for a crime that doesn’t exist

    Case closed.

    but please pursue Impeachment. It will be nice to have control of both the House and Senate in Trumps second term.

  57. “And there’s STILL what Mueller himself called “Insufficient evidence””

    Insufficient evidence on Russian collusion. Not on obstruction.

    “And you can’t obstruct justice for a crime that doesn’t exist”

    That isn’t true. Show me one court judgement, or law, that says that a crime needs to be committed for obstruction of justice? An innocent person who obstructs justice to confirm their innocence is still obstructing justice.

  58. What was obstructed Seamus?

  59. The investigation. Justice is the pursuit of truth, not crime. Any obstruction of that investigation is a criminal offence, even if the investigation itself finds that there was no crime.

  60. Mueller’s plea today was to not to be called to testify.

    The reason for this he said was because his report says it all, but it doesn’t. If Mueller is going to say there is evidence of obstruction he needs to go before Congress present it and here is what he doesn’t want….. to be cross examined.

  61. “Mueller’s plea today was to not to be called to testify.

    The reason for this he said was because his report says it all, but it doesn’t. If Mueller is going to say there is evidence of obstruction he needs to go before Congress present it and here is what he doesn’t want….. to be cross examined.”

    No he doesn’t want to be called on the inevitable question of, in the absence of the DOJ guidelines, would he have charged Trump. If he refuses to answer then the Trump supporters will take it as him saying that he wouldn’t have. If he says yes then you will accuse of overstepping his authority.

  62. no no no you miss all the fun….. Mueller’s report is a one sided document that found no prosecutorial evidence yet he is making accusations as a Private citizen not as a prosecutor.

    As a prosecutor he found nothing he could charge yet as a private citizen he’s saying there is.

    He needs to be cross examined on those charges. That’s where the fun begins.

  63. “As a prosecutor he found nothing he could charge yet as a private citizen he’s saying there is.”

    He found plenty. He couldn’t bring charges due to the DOJ rule about not charging the President.

  64. Maybe he should be executed by guillotine After a trial conducted by a kangaroo court of Donald Trump, Roger stone, and Sean Hannity

    That would be such excellent justice right Trumpers?

  65. Then call him to testify about it.

  66. No bring forth a televised impeachment hearing starting with Mueller as the star witness.

    Let him present everything that he found in an open court. If he found “Plenty” please show it to the public in open court so if the President should be removed he can be.

  67. “If he found “Plenty” please show it to the public in open court so if the President should be removed he can be.”

    He already has. It is in his report. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

  68. He already has. It is in his report. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

    Then bring on the impeachment. Lets have a trial.

  69. “Then bring on the impeachment. Lets have a trial.”

    It is probably heading in that direction. Sadly he, despite being guilty, will likely be acquitted by the Senate as the Republicans in the Senate will let The Donald away with anything.

  70. If you want Trump reelected start the bogus impeachment proceedings.

  71. . “‘I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters,”

    Donald J Trump
    January 2016

    He knows his base very well.

  72. They wouldn’t be bogus (Trump has committed impeachable crimes). But yes impeachment proceedings would be a boon to Trump, which is probably why the Democratic leadership has so far avoided them.

  73. Mahons

    Correct – Impeachment would be an exceptionally stupid strategy.

    It would allow this worthless bastard to play the victim, etc.

    The adults in the Democratic Party had better keep the children in line.I’m not entirely confident that they will be able to do so. AOC the bartender is the spiritual leader of the Democrat Party.

  74. There were far greater grounds for impeachment of Trump than there were for impeachment of Clinton.

    That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, especially with a crooked Trump Butt Boy Senate That will completely disregard the facts

  75. I don’t think there is sufficient evidence of impeachable crimes (which is not to say he hasn’t done any). But such a course of action should not be taken lightly, especially by lightweights.

  76. He has been witness tampering right out in the open

  77. There are no Adults in the Democrat party.

  78. Odd then you aren’t a registered Democrat.

  79. lol

  80. This is all noise. If there was anything Mueller could have charged him with he would have.

    Ken Star Charged Bill Clinton with 11 Crimes……

  81. So the same Laws were in place when Clinton was investigated and he was charged with 11 crimes, how come he could be charged by a special prosecutor, but Mueller says a SP can’t charge a President…. hmm

  82. “So the same Laws were in place when Clinton was investigated and he was charged with 11 crimes, how come he could be charged by a special prosecutor, but Mueller says a SP can’t charge a President…. hmm”

    Actually he didn’t. Starr detailed 11 possible areas for indictment. He didn’t bring charges against Clinton.

    The 11 charges that Clinton faced were introduced via articles of impeachment.

  83. The Starr Report, presented on Sept. 9,1998, presented 11 impeachable offenses. Bill Clinton was eventually charged because he “…willfully provided perjuries, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury,” and made “…corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence.”

    1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

    2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

    3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.

    4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.

    5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones’s attorneys.

    6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President’s purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky’s false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

    7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case.

    8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky’s involvement in the Jones case.

    9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.

    10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President’s false statements to the grand jury — and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.

    11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 — all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States.

  84. Where is the list from Mueller?

  85. The Mueller report laid out, specifically, 10 possible episodes of obstruction.

  86. no it didn’t…. provide the list.

  87. Its in the Mueller Report.

    1. Conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn
    2. The President’s reaction to the continuing Russia investigation
    3. The President’s termination of Comey
    4. The appointment of a Special Counsel and efforts to remove him
    5. Efforts to curtail the Special Counsel’s investigation
    6. Efforts to prevent the public disclosure of evidence
    7. Further efforts to have the Attorney General take control of the investigation
    8. Efforts to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel removed
    9. Conduct towards Flynn, Manafort, <<>>
    10. Conduct involving Michael Cohen.

  88. If you can’t I can and I can breakdown for you each of the ten areas and why he was NOT charged or as you’re no spinning it NOT recommend for charges on…..

    This was an attempt to try and cover up the Obama Administration’s attacking the American electoral system by trying to frame a candidate from another Party.

    It didn’t work, they didn’t find shit. It winds up that Trump is squeaky clean, no one saw that coming. The result however is that brings weight to questioning the validity of the whole thing….. and oh me oh my there seems to be a whole lot of Law Breaking that took place at the FBI/NSA/DOJ/DNC and the Clintons….

    This has worked out better than any conservative could have dreamed…… let the real trials begin.

  89. “If you can’t I can and I can breakdown for you each of the ten areas and why he was NOT charged or as you’re no spinning it NOT recommend for charges on…..”

    Go for it then. Where does Mueller say in each and every one of those 10 why the President was not charged (other than his statements today that he couldn’t charge the President)?

  90. lol…..

    1. Conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn
    What conduct?

    2. The President’s reaction to the continuing Russia investigation
    Oh he’s not allowed to react like an innocent man being falsely charged.

    3. The President’s termination of Comey
    Comey worked for him he can fire anyone he wants.

    4. The appointment of a Special Counsel and efforts to remove him
    that makes no sense Seamus.

    5. Efforts to curtail the Special Counsel’s investigation
    name one

    6. Efforts to prevent the public disclosure of evidence
    name one

    7. Further efforts to have the Attorney General take control of the investigation
    didn’t happen

    8. Efforts to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel removed
    Oh he’s not allowed to react like an innocent man being falsely charged, was the counsel removed…. no

    9. Conduct towards Flynn, Manafort, <>
    What conduct?

    10. Conduct involving Michael Cohen.
    What conduct?

    Those aren’t even complete thoughts let alone charges. Here is a better list…..

    https://www.newsweek.com/mueller-report-evidence-obstruction-trump-1400201

    Use that one it will make your spin at least fleshed out. I can still give you a reason why each point means nothing though…..

  91. That is your comments on them, not Mueller’s. So again, if you can (which we both know you can’t), where does Mueller say in each and every one of those 10 why the President was not charged?

  92. where does Mueller say in each and every one of those 10 why the President was not charged?

    Seamus there is your problem right there you state it clearly. You don’t understand the American Justice System.

    You are innocent until proven guilty.

    A Prosecutor NEVER gives a list or set of reasons why someone isn’t charged. He is only allowed to list why the person should be charged…. period

    We don’t use the Practice of a Scarlet Letter in our society. You either charge or say nothing.

  93. Mueller lay out those 10. You say there are reasons for Trump not being charged for those 10 by Mueller. I asked you what those reasons are. You don’t have any.

    “We don’t use the Practice of a Scarlet Letter in our society. You either charge or say nothing.”

    The why did Ken Starr not do that as well? Starr didn’t bring charges against Clinton (because he couldn’t). He gave a report to Congress to get them to do it.

  94. because Starr had this little thing it was called evidence and actual crimes.

    Not one of those 10 is a crime, and there is no evidence of any crimes. No obstruction can be charged because the Mueller investigation got every document, every witness, and every dime they needed. Not one person plead the 5th, and no presidential privilege was asserted.

    The ONLY thing there was to obstruct was the investigation, but it was not obstructed in any way.

    Sorry, this is a charade. The real fun is about to begin with real crimes.

  95. “because Starr had this little thing it was called evidence and actual crimes.”

    But you just said “You either charge or say nothing”. Starr didn’t do that. Starr didn’t charge Clinton. He also didn’t say nothing. Why do you hold Mueller to a higher standard than you hold Starr?

  96. Starr didn’t charge Clinton

    yes he did with 11 charges, but if it helps your fantasy world ok he didn’t and Bill Clinton was never impeached.

    Starr brought 11 charges and turned them over to the AttyGen who then turned them over to Congress to prosecute or not. The Congress Prosecuted on 4 of the 11 charges, but the evidence of 11 crimes were found filed and laid out for congress.

    Zero evidence of zero crimes were found by Mueller. No evidence was presented for congress of any crimes. When the AttyGen reviewed it he by Law was not supposed to even present the report to congress, but Trump waived his rights and said give it to them.

  97. “yes he did with 11 charges, but if it helps your fantasy world ok he didn’t and Bill Clinton was never impeached.”

    No he didn’t. Congress brought charges, not Starr. So why did Starr not bring charges or shut up, which is what you are demanding that Mueller does?

  98. You keep ignoring the elephant in the room.

    What was obstructed? Name one thing that was prevented by anything the president said or did?

    Obstruction of what?

  99. “Obstruction of what?”

    Of justice. By obstructing, or attempting to obstruct, the Special Counsel’s investigation. When it comes to obstructing it doesn’t matter if Trump didn’t collude with Russia. If he was perfectly innocent of it but still obstructed the investigation then he is still guilty of obstructing justice.

  100. No he didn’t. Congress brought charges, not Starr. So why did Starr not bring charges or shut up, which is what you are demanding that Mueller does?

    You really don’t understand our Laws, and no matter how I explain it you don’t see.

    So I’ll tell you what, time will tell.

    You’re not alone Seamus half the american public have bought this set of lies also.

  101. “You really don’t understand our Laws, and no matter how I explain it you don’t see.”

    That’s because you don’t understand your laws and don’t explain them very well.

    So again. Why did Starr not bring charges or shut up – the two things you demand of Mueller?

  102. tsk tsk…. wanna buy a bridge? I have a couple of good ones I can sell you.

  103. Why did Starr not bring charges or shut up – the two things you demand of Mueller?

  104. I’m not going to shut up because you’re to dense to understand the process.

    Starr found crimes 11 of them.

    Mueller found No crimes zero. Getting angry and yelling at people is not obstruction, firing comey obstructed nothing, total cooperation with the special counsel.

    675 days

    $35,000,000

    And you exhaust:

    500 witnesses

    2,800 subpoenas

    40 special agents.

    1.3 Million documents turned over.

    No one plead the 5th.

    Presidential privilege NEVER asserted.

    So tell me Seamus what was obstructed….. you’ve tried to list fairy tales about HOW obstruction took place, but tell me…..

    OBSTRUCTION OF WHAT????????????

  105. Sorry Mr President they tried to frame you on “collusion”….. but how dare you get upset about being framed. And since you got loud about it even though you cooperated 100% were going to impeach you for yelling at your aids…..

    roflmao…. god please do it.

  106. “Starr found crimes 11 of them.”

    Yet filed no charges. But didn’t shut up.

    Why did Starr file no charges and fail to shut up? And why is Mueller being held to a different standard then?

  107. PVR

    “Zero evidence of zero crimes were found by Mueller.” How do you know that? Were you part of the Mueller team?

  108. //You really don’t understand our Laws, and no matter how I explain it you don’t see//

    Mueller understands them though?

    //Mueller found No crimes zero//

    Yeah?

    //He detailed 10 instances where Mr Trump had possibly attempted to impede the investigation, but said that charging the president with a crime was not an option for the special counsel.

    “The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,” he said, in what was seen as a reference to the ability of Congress to start an impeachment process.

    He said that if his team had had confidence that Mr Trump “clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so”//

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48454682

    Pay particular reference to that last sentence.

    It seems that you are using the legal procedure of it being inappropriate for the criminal justice system to prosecute a sitting President to suggest that no crime was committed?

  109. New Yorker, on May 30th, 2019 at 4:01 AM Said: Edit Comment
    PVR

    “Zero evidence of zero crimes were found by Mueller.” How do you know that? Were you part of the Mueller team?

    Because ZERO charges were brought against him, and with the Lawyers they had working for them if they could have found an unpaid parking ticket they would have charged him.

  110. Paul pay very strict attention to this leading liberal democrat and one of the most respected lawyers in the country….

    Dershowitz: Shame on Robert Mueller for exceeding his role
    BY ALAN DERSHOWITZ, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 05/29/19 01:45 PM EDT

    The statement by special counsel Robert Mueller in a Wednesday press conference that “if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said that” is worse than the statement made by then FBI Director James Comey regarding Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign. Comey declared in a July 2016 press conference that “although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive highly classified information.”

    Comey was universally criticized for going beyond his responsibility to state whether there was sufficient evidence to indict Clinton. Mueller, however, did even more. He went beyond the conclusion of his report and gave a political gift to Democrats in Congress who are seeking to institute impeachment proceedings against President Trump. By implying that President Trump might have committed obstruction of justice, Mueller effectively invited Democrats to institute impeachment proceedings. Obstruction of justice is a “high crime and misdemeanor” which, under the Constitution, authorizes impeachment and removal of the president.

    Until today, I have defended Mueller against the accusations that he is a partisan. I did not believe that he personally favored either the Democrats or the Republicans, or had a point of view on whether President Trump should be impeached. But I have now changed my mind. By putting his thumb, indeed his elbow, on the scale of justice in favor of impeachment based on obstruction of justice, Mueller has revealed his partisan bias. He also has distorted the critical role of a prosecutor in our justice system.

    Virtually everybody agrees that, in the normal case, a prosecutor should never go beyond publicly disclosing that there is insufficient evidence to indict. No responsible prosecutor should ever suggest that the subject of his investigation might indeed be guilty even if there was insufficient evidence or other reasons not to indict. Supporters of Mueller will argue that this is not an ordinary case, that he is not an ordinary prosecutor, and that President Trump is not an ordinary subject of an investigation. They are wrong. The rules should not be any different.

    Remember that federal investigations by prosecutors, including special counsels, are by their very nature one sided. They hear only evidence of guilt and not exculpatory evidence. Their witnesses are not subject to the adversarial process. There is no cross examination. The evidence is taken in secret behind the closed doors of a grand jury. For that very reason, prosecutors can only conclude whether there is sufficient evidence to commence a prosecution. They are not in a position to decide whether the subject of the investigation is guilty or is innocent of any crimes.

    That determination of guilt or innocence requires a full adversarial trial with a zealous defense attorney, vigorous cross examination, exclusionary rules of evidence, and other due process safeguards. Such safeguards were not present in this investigation, and so the suggestion by Mueller that Trump might well be guilty deserves no credence. His statement, so inconsistent with his long history, will be used to partisan advantage by Democrats, especially all those radicals who are seeking impeachment.

    No prosecutor should ever say or do anything for the purpose of helping one party or the other. I cannot imagine a plausible reason why Mueller went beyond his report and gratuitously suggested that President Trump might be guilty, except to help Democrats in Congress and to encourage impeachment talk and action. Shame on Mueller for abusing his position of trust and for allowing himself to be used for such partisan advantage.

    Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School. His new book is “The Case Against the Democratic House Impeaching Trump.” You can follow him on Twitter @AlanDersh.

  111. Dershowitz is not a “leading Democrat”.

    He’s a well known person who is a Democrat.

  112. oh ok……. he was considered the Democrats biggest legal gun until he chose the Law over the Party.

  113. In what capacity was he the Democratic Party’s biggest legal gun?

    Dershowitz was the liar for hire for guilty as sin murderers ( OJ, Claus Von Bulow ) – that’s what he is considered as.

  114. oh ok….. if you say so it must be true.

  115. Why should I pay strict attention to it Pat? It’s an opinion from a legal academic that Mueller shouldn’t have made his views known as opposed to ‘Mueller found no crime’ which is what you’re suggesting.

  116. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are leading Democrats.

    Every famous person who happens to be a registered member of the party is not a leading Democrat.

    Will Smith and Bruce Springsteen are famous members of the Democratic Party. They are not leading Democrats.

  117. like I said Phantom if you say it, it must be True never mind that for the past 20yrs he’s been been the final word for the left on legal matters since the Clinton impeachment. Until he spoke up for the Donald.

    I mean your from New York City your views are the only accurate ones.

  118. another legal opinion

    What kind of strange new standard is Mueller setting here?

    Mueller had all the time and money he could want, recorded countless hours of testimony, compiled a mountain of documents, got multiple plea deals, chased down out every conceivable lead, and then says he couldn’t prove the president didn’t commit a crime.

    Since when is the job of prosecutors to determine innocence beyond a reasonable doubt? And, short of that, feel free to dump all the evidence that didn’t lead to a criminal charge, but that makes the defendant look a suspect nonetheless.

    How would the average American citizen like this said of him or her after a couple of years of 18 prosecutors scrutinizing his or her affairs? After reviewing all the evidence, we don’t have enough evidence to say that John Doe robbed that store. But we can’t say definitively that he didn’t rob that store, so here’s a bunch of embarrassing revelations about him that we uncovered along the way. Have fun.

  119. “Since when is the job of prosecutors to determine innocence beyond a reasonable doubt?”

    He couldn’t charge the President. Not because of lack of evidence but because of a legal opinion of the DOJ that he couldn’t charge a sitting President. As such the normal job is out the window. By not clearing him he is de facto saying that in the absence of the DOJ opinion that he couldn’t charge a sitting President he would have charged him.

    So again, why are you holding Mueller to a different standard to Starr? You say he should charge Trump or shut up. Starr did neither.

  120. for the past 20yrs he’s been been the final word for the left on legal matters since the Clinton impeachment

    He’s never been the final word on anything.

    He’s a reasonably smart lawyer who is famous for defending really, really bad people – Leona Helmsley, OJ Simpson, Claus Von Bulow, Donald Trump.

  121. Ultimately he is a very good appellate lawyer. His role in the OJ case was overplayed as he isn’t a criminal trial lawyer. But cases like Leona Helmsley, Claus von Bülow were were he showed his abilities getting the convictions of two quite clearly guilty people overturned on appeal.

  122. Dershowitz has never been any sort of ” left ” voice as far as I know.

    He’s a ” libertarian ” whatever that means, a contrarian, unafraid to buck the tide, or to defend someone very unpopular.

  123. The only topic I can see that Alan Dershowitz speaks about with any sort of regularity and consistency is Israel.

  124. Yep

  125. Another legal opinion

    Except it’s not. I’s an opinion piece from a conservative web magazine:

    https://issuesinsights.com/2019/05/29/muellers-final-statement-turns-jurisprudence-on-its-head/

    The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing […]

    He said that if his team had had confidence that Mr Trump “clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so”

    Mueller didn’t exonerate Trump from wrongdoing and didn’t have prosecutory powers. That’s a very, very different beast from ‘Mueller found no crime’ as you claim.

  126. Isn’t it the job of every prosecutor to determine innocents and guilt? If they don’t believe in the guilt of the suspect they have no business to prosecute them

  127. Isn’t it the job of every prosecutor to determine innocents and guilt?

    No. Juries or other bodies do that.

  128. lets get started…… this piece of spin…..

    He couldn’t charge the President. Not because of lack of evidence but because of a legal opinion of the DOJ that he couldn’t charge a sitting President.

    What a load of bullshit. So if he found Collusion he wouldn’t be able to charge him with that either…..

    So end that lie right there, it was an opinion memo nothing else it didn’t stop the SP that investigated Clinton and wouldn’t have stopped Mueller if he found any evidence.

    If what they are saying about this “memo” were true than the whole special investigation was nothing but political theater and there was no purpose to spending the 40 million.

  129. “What a load of bullshit. So if he found Collusion he wouldn’t be able to charge him with that either…..”,/i>

    Yes. If he found collusion he wouldn’t have been able to charge Trump with it. The fact that he detailed that there is no evidence of collusion, while detailing that there is evidence of obstruction is key.

    “So end that lie right there, it was an opinion memo nothing else it didn’t stop the SP that investigated Clinton and wouldn’t have stopped Mueller if he found any evidence.”

    It did. Starr didn’t charge Clinton. Starr couldn’t charge Clinton.

  130. Sexual Mccarthyism: Clinton, Starr, And The Emerging Constitutional …
    https://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Mccarthyism-Clinton-Emerging…/dp/0465016286
    Sexual Mccarthyism: Clinton, Starr, And The Emerging Constitutional Crisis Hardcover – November 12, 1998. … Both sides of the aisle will eventually take note of the trenchant good sense laid bare in Alan Dershowitz’s Sexual McCarthyism. … His recent books include Sexual McCarthyism, on

    Dershowitz: Happy to help Clinton with debate prep – POLITICO
    https://www.politico.com/story/2016/…/alan-dershowitz-debate-clinton-trump-227242
    Aug 21, 2016 – Hillary Clinton is considering having multiple people play the role of Donald Trump in debate prep, an adviser told POLITICO — and Alan …

    Donate – OpenSecrets
    https://www.opensecrets.org/search?order=desc&q=alan+dershowitz&sort=D
    Records 1 – 39 of 39 – Money to Candidates, DERSHOWITZ, ALAN M … MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139, RETIRED, 07-22-2016, $2,700.00, Clinton, Hillary (D). Money to …

    Flight logs reveal trips Bill Clinton and Alan Dershowitz took on Jeffrey …
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/Newly-released-flight-logs-reveal-time-trips-Bill-Clinton-…
    Jan 22, 2015 – All aboard the ‘Lolita Express’: Flight logs reveal the many trips Bill Clinton and Alan Dershowitz took on pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s private jet …

    But he’s not a leading Democrat

  131. You keep doing this where you copy and paste something with a ton of incomplete links. None of those links actually go anywhere.

  132. Such a microcosm of hypocrisy and idiocy.

    I’m still waiting for an answer from Seamus, so I put it out to all of you……

    WHAT DID HE OBSTRUCT?

  133. every link goes to an article on my computer

  134. “I’m still waiting for an answer from Seamus, so I put it out to all of you……”

    I’ve already answered that question. But for the slow readers in the room:

    Of justice. By obstructing, or attempting to obstruct, the Special Counsel’s investigation. When it comes to obstructing it doesn’t matter if Trump didn’t collude with Russia. If he was perfectly innocent of it but still obstructed the investigation then he is still guilty of obstructing justice.

  135. “every link goes to an article on my computer”

    Probably on your original source. But not on ATW. Because you haven’t copied the links properly.

  136. There never should have been a special counsel there was predicating crime.

    The SP found NO CRIMES, but we are about to see real crimes be prosecuted against Comey, Yates, McCabe, Rosenstein, Brennan, and Clapper.

  137. Seamus I just clicked on every link in the thread and they work. They are not important anyway I was just demonstrating how close Dershowitz was with the Clintons before all this.

    Just google Dershowitz and Clinton you’ll find every link.

  138. “There never should have been a special counsel there was predicating crime.”

    Are you telling me that if the police are investigating an alleged crime – and in the course of their investigation they uncover a different crime – that the second crime would be thrown out if the first wasn’t proven?

    So police are investigating a theft and in the course of investigating a theft they find out you have $1M of heroin that if the theft can’t be proven then they can’t prosecute you for the heroin?

  139. what alleged crime took place Seamus?

  140. “what alleged crime took place Seamus?”

    Collusion between the Trump campaign and an foreign hostile state.

  141. Collusion is not a crime.

  142. There is no specific crime on the books called collusion but many of the activities that make up collusion would be criminal offences.

  143. so you have no predicating crime.

  144. “so you have no predicating crime.”

    Conspiracy to defraud the United States is a federal crime. Of which it could be argued, that had the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians, would have occurred. So there is a potential crime.

  145. There was no charge of conspiracy, there were no charges of any kind. This was the first SP in american history ever convened without a predicating crime.

  146. This was a political witch hunt from day one, and the President cooperated with it 100% and they found no crimes.

    You’ve been conned.

  147. “There was no charge of conspiracy, there were no charges of any kind. This was the first SP in american history ever convened without a predicating crime.”

    Nonsense. Collusion is not in of itself a crime. But many of the activities surrounding it are. The Special Counsel was appointed to investigate those links and any surrounding activity.

  148. “This was a political witch hunt from day one, and the President cooperated with it 100% and they found no crimes.”

    If they found no crimes why did the Special Counsel not say that? In fact why did he say the exact opposite?

  149. If they found no crimes why did the Special Counsel not say that? In fact why did he say the exact opposite?

    and in doing so violated every ethics rule in American Law for purely political reasons.

  150. President Trump

    On Monday praised longtime ally Roger Stone for saying he would not testify against him, writing in a tweet that it’s “nice to know that some people still have ‘guts.’ ”

    Stone, a longtime Trump adviser and one-time member of the 2016 Trump campaign, told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on Sunday that there is “no circumstance” under which he would testify against the president because he would “have to bear false witness against him.”

    In response, Trump said Monday morning that Stone was “essentially stating that he will not be forced by a rogue and out of control prosecutor to make up lies and stories about ‘President Trump.’ ”

    “Nice to know that some people still have ‘guts!’ ” Trump wrote on Twitter

    The Hill, 2018

    Trump openly tampered with witnesses including the sly talking Roger Stone.

    You can’t say that Trump obstructed with the investigator when he was ( wink wink ) praising Stone for not testifying.

  151. “and in doing so violated every ethics rule in American Law for purely political reasons.”

    Starr filed no charges against Clinton. And he didn’t shut up. So why are you supporting Starr but opposing Mueller?

  152. not a crime…… keep trying

    Please list how that obstructed Mueller.

  153. Seamus you can keep spewing your misinformation about Starr and Clinton all you want. We can list the crimes that got Clinton impeached and disbarred, please name the crime that Trump committed

  154. “Seamus you can keep spewing your misinformation about Starr and Clinton all you want. We can list the crimes that got Clinton impeached and disbarred, please name the crime that Trump committed”

    It isn’t misinformation. Starr did not charge Clinton. And he informed Congress about his findings despite not charging Clinton. And yet you are crying havoc over Mueller doing the same thing.

  155. ” Democrats are all guilty and Trump can never be guilty “

    That’s all this guy is saying

  156. “That’s all this guy is saying”

    Seems about right. As I said yesterday he supports the rule of law when it is convenient for him. When it isn’t he turns into an ambulance chasing lawyer type looking for any technicality.

  157. Phantom, on May 30th, 2019 at 5:15 PM Said: Edit Comment
    ” Democrats are all guilty and Trump can never be guilty “

    That’s all this guy is saying

    Bull I said repeatedly let Mueller do his work if he finds anything prosecute.

    He found nothing.

    Now the IG and a prosecutor are investigating how this frame took place. If they find crimes prosecute if not they will be cleared.

    This is about the Rule of Law.

  158. You make Sean Hannity look objective

  159. For 2 1/2 years they looked for a crime and found none.

  160. and you make Pelosi look that way.

  161. “He found nothing.”

    He found plenty. He couldn’t prosecute due to the DOJ position on not prosecuting a sitting President so he turned the information over to Congress.

  162. Bull

  163. question……

    If there had been evidence of a conspiracy, broader or narrower, Mueller would have indicted members of the Trump campaign involved in that conspiracy. No one was indicted. Even Carter Page, who the FISA Application claimed to be a Russian agent, was not indicted.

    Why not they weren’t covered by a magic memo?

  164. A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.

  165. It has already been shown that Mueller felt there was insufficient evidence on links between Trump, his campaign, and Russia.

  166. PaTroll – sent you an email earlier.

  167. thanks Seimi I’m not at my own computer give me a bit I’ll get it.

    Thanks for the heads up.

  168. Seamus, on May 30th, 2019 at 6:14 PM Said: Edit Comment
    It has already been shown that Mueller felt there was insufficient evidence on links between Trump, his campaign, and Russia.

    Then I repeat what was obstructed…….?

  169. “Then I repeat what was obstructed…….?”

    The investigation.

  170. Seamus, on May 30th, 2019 at 7:27 PM Said: Edit Comment
    “Then I repeat what was obstructed…….?”

    The investigation.

    How?

    In what way was Mueller obstructed?

    Did anyone plead the 5th, did any documents not get turned over, was presidential privilege exerted, were any money or resources held back from Mueller ?

    The answer to all those questions is no…… so how was investigation obstructed?

    If Mueller was not interfered with then there can be no obstruction.

  171. “In what way was Mueller obstructed?”

    1. Conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn
    2. The President’s reaction to the continuing Russia investigation
    3. The President’s termination of Comey
    4. The appointment of a Special Counsel and efforts to remove him
    5. Efforts to curtail the Special Counsel’s investigation
    6. Efforts to prevent the public disclosure of evidence
    7. Further efforts to have the Attorney General take control of the investigation
    8. Efforts to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel removed
    9. Conduct towards Flynn, Manafort, <>
    10. Conduct involving Michael Cohen.

  172. Seimi your post is up

  173. not one of those things effected the Mueller investigation. They didn’t influence or interfere with it in any way.

    For there to be Obstruction there has to be interference with the actual investigation and there was none.

  174. “not one of those things effected the Mueller investigation. They didn’t influence or interfere with it in any way.”

    The Special Counsel disagrees.

    “For there to be Obstruction there has to be interference with the actual investigation and there was none.”

    Actually there doesn’t. There needs to be an attempt to interfere with the actual investigation. If you attempt to interfere but fail to interfere then you have still committed a crime.

  175. For there to be Obstruction there has to be interference with the actual investigation and there was none

    So the thinly veiled ” don’t talk / don’t testify ” message to Roger Stone was not interference?

    Witness tampering is good practice, according to Trumpers.

  176. Meanwhile, V-P Pence is declaring war on the world at the most ‘diverse’ graduate ceremony at West Point……

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a46jhDxbhNs

    Some of you will join the fight against radical Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some of you will join the fight on the Korean Peninsula and in the Indo-Pacific, where North Korea continues to threaten the peace, and an increasingly militarized China challenges our presence in the region. Some of you will join the fight in Europe, where an aggressive Russia seeks to redraw international boundaries by force. And some of you may even be called upon to serve in this hemisphere. And when that day comes, I know you will move to the sound of the guns and do your duty, and you will fight, and you will win.

    Alex kaneh bosm
    Alex kaneh bosm
    3 hours ago
    Israel approves this message

  177. lol Mueller today issued a retraction of what he said in his press conference…. funny how that isn’t being plastered wall to wall.

    very hard to find actually but here it is refereed to in the WaPo 7hrs ago

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/30/mueller-should-not-have-held-press-conference/?utm_term=.68dba815a641

    The same is true when it comes to obstruction of justice. In his report, Mueller carefully explains both sides of the argument and makes clear that “the evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment.” He presents exculpatory arguments on the president’s behalf. For example, he notes that “unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference” and “the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President’s intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct.”

    Moreover, Mueller also wrote that for the president to have obstructed justice, he must have acted “with a corrupt intention” and “the term ‘corruptly’ sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.” It’s not an easy case. And since Justice Department rulings prohibit the prosecution of a sitting president, Mueller did not come to a conclusion one way or another. His report “does not exonerate him” but also “does not conclude that the President committed a crime.”

    All that nuance flew right over the head of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who suggested that the reason Trump escaped indictment was “Department of Justice policy prevented the Special Counsel from bringing criminal charges against the President” and so “it falls to Congress to respond to the crimes, lies and other wrongdoing of President Trump.”

    now here is the real important part please pay ATTENTION it refers to what was in and the reason for Muellers retraction.

    But Attorney General William P. Barr has testified, under oath, that “special counsel Mueller stated three times to us … in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying, but for the [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, he would’ve found obstruction.” Barr also stated in April that “Rod Rosenstein and I asked Robert Mueller when we met with him on March 5, whether he would have made obstruction a crime but for the OLC opinion. He made it clear several times that it was not his position.”

    Mueller did not refute Barr’s testimony in his news conference, or say that the OLC opinion was the only reason he did not find that Trump obstructed justice. Indeed, spokesmen for Barr and Mueller told The Post that his and Barr’s statements were not in conflict. Besides, the fact is the Mueller investigation was not obstructed. He was allowed to complete his work, with unprecedented cooperation from the Trump administration. And Mueller’s report concluded that Trump was telling the truth all along: He did not conspire with Russia in its assault on our democracy.

    In his statement, Mueller noted that the Russians he indicted are “presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.” Apparently, for congressional Democrats, that presumption of innocence does not extend to Trump. All Mueller’s news conference did is muddy the waters. Any congressional testimony would do so 10 times over. He should have heeded his own advice, left the building quietly, and, as he put it in his statement, let “the office’s written work speak for itself.”

  178. hey Allan if they impeach Trump Pence will be President…. 😉

  179. totally off topic but a good piece

    https://www.firstthings.com/article/2019/06/back-row-america

    Phantom I think you would enjoy it.

  180. The occupancy rate at Trump Tower has fallen from 99 percent to 83 percent in recent years, according to a recent Bloomberg analysis. The building’s vacancy rate is now twice the average in Manhattan. Nike, as one example, which occupied 65,000 square feet for a massive store, left in 2018.

    Before Trump’s campaign, Trump Tower had been able to charge considerably more per square foot than was available at nearby buildings in the pricey “Plaza District.” Now, the opposite is true, and Trump Tower is listing prices as “negotiable,” Bloomberg reported.

    “Who would want to operate a space there, with all that security?” the former campaign staffer said.

    “Trump Tower is ruined,” the White House adviser said. “Maybe because he’s a Republican guy in New York. Maybe all the security … I wouldn’t live there. It’s like a war zone.”

    The Trump campaign did not respond to numerous HuffPost queries for this article.

    A total of 14,888 square feet of useable space are on that floor, which is labeled the 15th, but which is in reality only the seventh story

    Of that, 4,972 is currently empty and on the market

    ( Huffington Post )

  181. Trump continues to maintain the penthouse of Trump Tower as a residence. As such the entrance to the building is subject to the same sort of security as the White House. Imagine having to hand your documents and papers over to the government to go into your house. Imagine having to force your mother or father, or you friends, to hand over their documents and papers to go into your house. I wouldn’t want to live there.

    I imagine also some people in New York don’t want to give money over to Trump and so won’t move in either.

    But I’d imagine that the major reason is the enhanced security.

  182. https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiLkJyT58_iAhUCm-AKHRMMCm4QjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nydailynews.com%2Fnew-york%2Fcongress-offers-pay-nyc-back-fraction-trump-security-costs-article-1.2901802&psig=AOvVaw0l6fWBuBFDV2IK4hzWnzUv&ust=1559736971245574

    I visited Trump Tower six weeks ago. The necessary, enhanced security have made it a really unwelcoming place. The neighborhood, smack dab by Central Park, is wonderful, but you couldn’t pay me to live there.

  183. https://thenewsrep.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/TT.jpg

    This is the image that I meant to post.

  184. And I think that is the security when he is not there. The security when Trump is actually in the Tower is almost farcical (yet understandable as he is the President and as such a major international target). Like apparently streets closed off with rubbish trucks as they are big and made with solid metal so they are good at blocking off potential car bombs.

  185. His behavior ( not speaking of any positions that he holds ) has lowered the value of the condos owned by the residents of that building, and the residents of the other buildings that his name is stamped on ( many of which he wouldn’t own at all )

    He is generally despised by the residents of his own city, and I don’t think that the residents of Trump Tower are too pleased with him either.

  186. Absolutely. To put things into context Manhatten has voted Democrat in every Presidential election since 1928. It voted 15% for Mitt Romney in 2012. 27% for Ronald Reagan in 1984. Trump took 9.7%. And the more Republican areas of Manhatten tend to be the likes of the Upper East Side and the Financial District. So in the areas around Trump Tower he probably took even less than 9%.

  187. Trump has greatly harmed what was left of the GOP in much of the Northeast including NYC.

    There are 51 members of the NYC City Council, 48 Democrats, 3 Republicans. That is extremely unhealthy.

    The three Republicans are two from Siberia ( Staten Island ) , one from outer Queens.

    The working class in Brooklyn and Queens used to be open to voting for Republicans. They certainly voted for Giuliani.

  188. NYC greater metro area is a bubble you can’t use it as an example of anything but NY.

  189. Except as a trend the 2018 elections showed the same in other places as in New York. Urban and suburban areas that have in the past few decades voted Republican are now voting Democratic. And for what it is worth you have some movement in the other direction – some rural areas that have in the past voted Democratic are now voting Republican.

  190. The majority of American voters voted against Trump

    So I guess the majority of Americans live in a bubble

    I am sure that such a position makes sense to somebody