***Official Political Discussion Thread***

Comey's decision making only helped Trump and gave Hillary the final nail in her coffin though. Trump should be happy he did what he did.

Craziest thing is, the WH official story was a slam dunk: "Because of the controversies in the final days of the election, we've decided to go in another direction with the FBI," but Trump forced Rosenstein's hand. All Trump had to do, was say to Lester Holt: "I did not fire Comey to obstruct justive."

And he ****** that up.
 
Perhaps he should have one of his lawyers not named Michael Cohen explain to him how attorney-client privilege works.


Dude brags about having (a lot) of lawyers that ride with him, but don't have the money to pay all of 'em and gets mad if things don't pan out well for him. :lol: #ProBonoLyf
 
Relatively quiet on the anti-Trump front ... Solid strike on Syria sending a message on use of chemical agents ... No one being honest with themselves can disagree that a pivot from Obummer's foreign policy is a godsend ... Also, the whole "Russia protector" narrative took a huge blow ...

Add that to Comey's admission that he considered the polls when announcing the Hillary investigation, and we have ourselves a very good week for the Don ...
Only to a complete idiot is a bombing a “good week”.

1/15

Try again tomorrow
 
Relatively quiet on the anti-Trump front ... Solid strike on Syria sending a message on use of chemical agents ... No one being honest with themselves can disagree that a pivot from Obummer's foreign policy is a godsend ... Also, the whole "Russia protector" narrative took a huge blow ...

Add that to Comey's admission that he considered the polls when announcing the Hillary investigation, and we have ourselves a very good week for the Don ...
He flipped flopped on a campaign promise. One dudes like you were citing as a reason to vote for him.

We warned Russia, and in turn, the Syrian military before the strike happen so they were able to clear out. We protected Russia

Trump got caught up in a second Federal investigation and is so nervous he is considering ways to get away with federal and impeachable crime

His tax plan is now projected for us to hit historically high deficits earlier that expected. Which will drag down long-term growth to half of what Trump promised

Someone can only view this as a good week for Trump if they are completely delusional and have their head suck in the conservative white supremacists sand. Or is trolling

So this comment from you is not surprising.
 
Relatively quiet on the anti-Trump front ... Solid strike on Syria sending a message on use of chemical agents ... No one being honest with themselves can disagree that a pivot from Obummer's foreign policy is a godsend ... Also, the whole "Russia protector" narrative took a huge blow ...

Add that to Comey's admission that he considered the polls when announcing the Hillary investigation, and we have ourselves a very good week for the Don ...

Those who pay regard to vain idols forsake their hope of steadfast love
 
In West Virginia the GOP has launched a secret group aiming to prevent a Republican candidate from winning their primary. Well not so secret anymore I suppose.
You reap what you sow
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/15/west-virginia-senate-blankenship-525094
GOP launches secret group to attack West Virginia coal baron
A generically named super PAC targets Republican Senate hopeful Don Blankenship, who recently served a year in prison.
The Republican establishment has launched an emergency intervention in the West Virginia Senate primary aimed at stopping recently imprisoned coal baron Don Blankenship from winning the party’s nomination.

Late last week, a newly-formed super PAC generically dubbed the “Mountain Families PAC” began airing TV ads targeting Blankenship, who spent one year behind bars following a deadly 2010 explosion at his Upper Big Branch Mine. The national party isn’t promoting its role in the group but its fingerprints are all over it.


The 30-second commercials, which the group is spending nearly $700,000 to air, accuse Blankenship’s company of contaminating drinking water by pumping “toxic coal slurry,” even as the multimillionaire installed a piping system that pumped clean water to his mansion.

“Isn’t there enough toxic sludge in Washington?” the narrator intones.

The assault comes amid rising fears from national Republicans that Blankenship is gaining traction ahead of the May 8 primary. The Republican hopeful has spent his own money to fund a $1.3 million TV ad blitz in which he portrays himself as the casualty of an Obama-era Justice Department bent on locking him up. He has far outspent his primary opponents, Rep. Evan Jenkins and state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, whom he castigates as pawns of the GOP establishment.

Washington Republicans have spent weeks deliberating whether to go after Blankenship, who was released from prison in May after a one-year sentence. They’re worried that he would destroy the party’s chances of defeating Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin in November.

At the same time they’ve concerned that attacking him would allow Blankenship to portray himself in the race as the embattled adversary of powerful D.C. interests. The scenario is similar to the one that played out in last year’s Alabama Senate race, when the party spent millions of dollars in an unsuccessful effort to stop former state Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore from winning the GOP nomination.

The national party, perhaps worried about Alabama-style backlash, is not taking credit for the attack or for Mountain Families PAC. But the connections are conspicuous.

According to federal disclosures, the commercials were overseen by several firms that in the past have worked closely with Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC aligned with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that openly led the assault on Moore. They were produced by GOP ad making firm McCarthy, Hennings, Whalen and were placed on TV by the media buyer Main Street Group, both of whom were paid thousands of dollars by Senate Leadership Fund during the 2016 election cycle.

Mountain Families PAC has also paid nearly $48,000 to Targeted Victory, a suburban Washington-based GOP consulting firm, for web ads targeting Blankenship. During the 2016 cycle, the firm received over $1.5 million from Senate Leadership Fund, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Representatives for Senate Leadership Fund did not respond to requests for comment, or to inquiries about whether it had a role in orchestrating the attack.

The ties between Mountain Families PAC and the national party do not end there. The super PAC lists an Arlington, Virginia P.O. Box that’s previously been used by a number of GOP entities. Among them: a fundraising account benefiting former Republican Sen. Luther Strange, who was the party favorite in last year’s Alabama contest.

The treasurer for Mountain Families PAC, Benjamin Ottenhoff, did not respond to a request for comment. Ottenhoff has previously worked for several party organizations, including the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee.

The ads represent the GOP’s most aggressive action yet against Blankenship. Earlier this month, President Donald Trump flew to West Virginia to hold an ostensibly official event to tout his tax reform package. He was flanked by Jenkins and Morrisey – a clear attempt to promote their candidacies. Blankenship was not there.

Blankenship did not respond to a request for comment. But last month he issued a statement saying he was well aware of the possibility that party leadership could target him.

“There has been an awful lot of talk lately about who the Washington, D.C. establishment and Mitch McConnell, in particular, are supporting in West Virginia’s U.S. Senate race. Let me be clear, I don't care who they are supporting,” he said. “I know that it is not me, because we recognize that those defending the swamp do not want Republican senators who want to drain the swamp.”
 

"I don't think he's gonna fire Mueller"
He has already tried to fire him on at least 2 separate occasions.
The first time in June he explicitly ordered the firing but later backed off after the WH counsel threatened to resign.
In December he once again tried to fire Mueller after becoming enraged at reports of Deutsche Bank being subpoenaed for records on Trump's finances. He backed off the idea after the Mueller team told him the reports were inaccurate.

In both those cases the reports on the attempts to fire Mueller came months after the events took place. For all we know he could have tried more than twice.
 
Last edited:
I would also be wondering how ****ed I am for being associated with this family of criminals.

Him
IMG_0387.JPG


Aaaaand...

Him
IMG_0389.JPG
 
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-trump-fire-20180415-story.html
Without mentioning Mueller, Trump lawyers urge high court to bolster his power to fire executive officials
The Supreme Court is set to hear a seemingly minor case later this month on the status of administrative judges at the Securities and Exchange Commission, an issue that normally might only draw the interest of those accused of stock fraud.

But the dispute turns on the president's power to hire and fire officials throughout the government. And it comes just as the White House is saying President Trump believes he has the power to fire special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.

Trump's Solicitor Gen. Noel Francisco intervened in the SEC case to urge the high court to clarify the president's constitutional power to fire all "officers of the United States" who "exercise significant authority" under the law.

"The Constitution gives the president what the framers saw as the traditional means of ensuring accountability: the power to oversee executive officers through removal," he wrote in Lucia vs. SEC. "The president is accordingly authorized under our constitutional system to remove all principal officers, as well as all 'inferior officers' he has appointed."

In addition to representing the administration before the Supreme Court, Francisco, a former law clerk for the late Justice Antonin Scalia, could be in line to oversee the Mueller inquiry if Deputy Atty. Gen. Rod Rosenstein is fired. Atty. Gen Jeff Sessions has recused himself from the investigation.

Peter Shane, a law professor at the Ohio State University, called Francisco's argument a "radical proposition," and one that goes beyond what is at issue in the case. The justices said they would focus only on how the SEC in-house judges are appointed. But Francisco is asking them to go further and rule on the "removal" issue.

"The solicitor general is obviously trying to goad the court into a broad statement about the removability of all officers of the United States," Shane said. "Were the court to make any such statement, it would surely be cited by Trump as backing any move by him to fire Mueller directly."

For decades, constitutional experts have fundamentally disagreed about the balance of power between Congress and the president.

Many of them, especially liberals, argue that because Congress has "all legislative powers," it can structure the government as it sees fit, including by creating independent agencies that are not under the president's direct control.

But others, mostly conservatives, adhere to what is sometimes called the "unitary executive" theory. They argue that because the Constitution puts executive power in the hands of one president, he is thereby entitled to hire and fire all those who wield significant executive authority.

Francisco points to two provisions of the Constitution as giving the president very broad authority. One says the president shall appoint ambassadors, judges and "all other officers of United States." The other says the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

"The president's constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws requires adequate authority to remove subordinate officers," Francisco told the court in February. "The framers understood the close connection between the president's ability to discharge his responsibilities as head of the executive branch and his control over its personnel…. The president's ability to execute the law is thus inextricably linked to his authority to hold his subordinates accountable for their conduct."

Francisco's defense of broad presidential power is likely to win favor with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the court's other conservatives. In 2010, Roberts spoke for a 5-4 majority that struck down a provision in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which created an independent public accounting board at the SEC whose members could be fired only for "good cause."

Roberts said shielding these "officers of the United States" from presidential control was unconstitutional. "Since 1789, the Constitution has been understood to empower the president to keep these officers accountable — by removing them from office, if necessary," he wrote in Free Enterprise Fund vs. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.

The new SEC case is similar, though it involves hiring, not firing. The commission relies on administrative law judges who act as hearing officers when people or companies are accused of deceptive schemes involving stocks. In the past, they were chosen by the chief in-house judge based on merit, and they could be fired only for good cause.

The SEC accused Raymond Lucia of marketing a deceptive wealth-management strategy called "Buckets of Money." After a nine-day hearing, an administrative law judge decided Lucia had misled investors and recommended a civil penalty of $300,000. The SEC itself made the final decision, but Lucia appealed, contending the procedure for choosing the administrative judges was unconstitutional.

The Obama administration defended the SEC, arguing these in-house judges were mere employees, not officers of the United States, because they had no final decision-making power. But the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., split 5 to 5 on the issue.

Last year, Trump's lawyers switched sides and joined in challenging the SEC's approach as unconstitutional. This was in line with the conservative backlash against the so-called "administrative state," which includes an effort to bring these agencies and their employees under presidential control.

In January, the high court agreed to decide the "Appointments Clause" question, but Francisco filed a brief urging the court to also rule that such "officers" may be removed if they fail to "perform adequately."

Lawyers who have followed the case predict the justices will try to decide the SEC dispute narrowly and without signaling their views on the president's potential control over the special prosecutor at the Justice Department.

Mueller was appointed under department regulations that say the special counsel may be removed only for "misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest or for other good cause." Under those rules, only Rosenstein currently would have the power to fire Mueller. Some lawyers argue that the regulations have the force of law and would prevent Trump from directly firing Mueller.

But Francisco's brief suggests the administration lawyers believe the Constitution itself authorizes the president to remove officials who wield executive power in the government. Last week White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the administration had been advised that the president has the power to fire the special counsel.

On Friday the court agreed to Francisco's request to participate in the April 23 argument so he can advocate for a ruling on the president's removal power.
 
https://www.thedailybeast.com/gop-r...ichael-cohen-raid-nothing-to-do-with-politics
GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy Defends Michael Cohen Raid: ‘Nothing to Do With Politics’
“How this is Mueller’s fault just defies logic to me,” the South Carolina Republican said.
A top House Republican on Sunday defended the FBI raid on President Donald Trump’s longtime personal attorney Michael Cohen’s home and office last week, as the president continues to assail what he views as a breach of attorney-client privilege.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, argued that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein—who is overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation and has come under heavy criticism from Trump allies—was right to authorize the raid, and that Mueller was just in referring the matter to prosecutors in New York.

“I don’t know what Mueller was supposed to do other than what he did. When a prosecutor comes in contact with information or evidence of a crime, what are you supposed to do, other than refer to the appropriate jurisdiction?” Gowdy said on Fox News Sunday.

Gowdy characterized the approval process for the raid as arduous and fair, adding that it was ultimately given the green light by a “neutral” judge “who has nothing to do with politics.”

Gowdy, who announced recently that he would not seek re-election, has been one of the top GOP defenders of Mueller and his investigation into Russian election meddling and possible collusion between Trump associates and Russian operatives.

“How this is Mueller’s fault just defies logic to me,” the South Carolina Republican added.


Trump has called the Cohen raid which took place a week ago “disgraceful” and “an attack on our country in a true sense,” and on Sunday it was still on the president’s mind.

“Attorney Client privilege is now a thing of the past. I have many (too many!) lawyers and they are probably wondering when their offices, and even homes, are going to be raided with everything, including their phones and computers, taken. All lawyers are deflated and concerned!” he said.

The Justice Department revealed on Friday that Cohen has been under criminal investigation for months over potential “acts of concealment” and “fraud,” and federal prosecutors appeared to undercut Trump’s claim that his attorney-client privilege was violated. The department said the search warrants “indicate that Cohen is in fact performing little to no legal work.”

Government lawyers sought to undercut claims of attorney-client privilege by mentioning Cohen’s $130,000 payment to adult-film star Stormy Daniels, just days before the 2016 presidential election, in exchange for what Daniels says was her silence about an alleged affair with Trump. In the court filing, the Justice Department said Trump “has publicly denied knowing that Cohen paid Clifford, and suggested to reporters that they had to ‘ask Michael’ about the payment.”

Amid pressure from Trump allies to fire Rosenstein and Mueller, NBC News reported on Friday that Rosenstein, a Trump appointee who is in charge of the Mueller probe because Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself, was telling confidants that he was preparing to be axed.

“As for Rod Rosenstein, I don’t see a basis for firing him and his handling of this probe,” Gowdy said.

He also cautioned against a plan reportedly pitched by ex-White House aide Steve Bannon to discredit Mueller. “I don’t know who in the hell would take advice from Steve Bannon,” he said.
 
Also, remember Michael Cohen has been ordered by the judge in his case to publicly disclose his client list by tomorrow. Wonder what that'll reveal.
 
Might just plead the 5th honestly.
Would that work? I'm no lawyer obviously but wouldn't the disclosure of his client list have to be inherently self-incriminating to plead the 5th? Just revealing the names of his clients presumably wouldn't be direct self-incrimination if I understand correctly.
 
Last edited:
Would that work? I'm no lawyer obviously but wouldn't the disclosure of his client list have to be inherently self-incriminating to plead the 5th? Just revealing the names of his clients presumably wouldn't be direct self-incrimination if I understand correctly.

If somehow the client list will somehow incriminate him, it’s a route he could take I’m sure. I mean remember. We know like .0001% of what they really have on the guy.
 
Back
Top Bottom