Jump to content








Trump wanted to order Justice Department to prosecute Clinton, Comey - New York Times


webfact

Recommended Posts

Trump wanted to order Justice Department to prosecute Clinton, Comey - New York Times

 

2018-11-20T225408Z_1_LYNXNPEEAJ1K0_RTROPTP_4_USA-WOMEN-SUMMIT.JPG

FILE PHOTO: Hillary Clinton, Former Secretary of State speaks during the Women In The World Summit in New York City, U.S., April 13, 2018. REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump wanted to order the Justice Department to prosecute two political foes, his one-time presidential opponent Hillary Clinton and former FBI director James Comey, in the spring, but his White House counsel rebuffed him, the New York Times reported on Tuesday.

 

Don McGahn, the White House counsel at the time, wrote a memo to the president outlining consequences for Trump if he did order these prosecutions.

 

The outcomes ranged from the traditionally independent Justice Department refusing to comply, to congressional probes and voter outcry, the Times reported.

 

The New York Times also reported Trump's lawyers privately asked the Justice Department to investigate Comey for mishandling sensitive government information and his role investigating Clinton's use of a private email account and server, but law enforcement officials declined.

 

It was not clear if Trump read the memo or pursued the prosecutions further, the New York Times said. It was also not clear what specific charges Trump wanted the Justice Department to pursue against Comey and Clinton, the Times reported.

 

Trump has publicly railed against Clinton's private email use during her tenure as U.S. Secretary of State, as well as her role in the Obama administration's decision to allow a Russian company to buy a uranium mining firm.

 

He has also accused Comey, without evidence, of leaking classified information.

 

The White House and the Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

(Reporting by Makini Brice; Editing by James Dalgleish)

 
reuters_logo.jpg
-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-11-21
Link to comment
Share on other sites


16 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

Apples /Oranges 

There's absolutely no comparison between Clinton's illegal bathroom server with classified emails and Ivanka's mail. 

 

Certainly, Trey Gowdy will leap on the Ivanka email issue, conduct hearings (through the end of the current session) and let us know which are "apples" and which are "oranges"? Right?

 

Just kidding.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comey and Macabe have some worrying, one or the other lied.

 

And I question the story: where is the source? And, thinking outside of the echo chamber, could it be that he was asking an "if" and opposed to a "do". And could it be that he never asked anything, but that the lawyers were just doing what they do, preparing and evaluating?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not surprising as he said he would do it if elected. He has been told he can't. He was attempting to keep a campaign promise... Lock her up. This is an error a first time politician makes. The more polished politicians would be more calculated.  If i was new to politics I would ask the Clintons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

Apples /Oranges 

There's absolutely no comparison between Clinton's illegal bathroom server with classified emails and Ivanka's mail. 

Exactly. Ivanka was warned not to use her private email for government business, but continued to do so.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

Comey and Macabe have some worrying, one or the other lied.

 

And I question the story: where is the source? And, thinking outside of the echo chamber, could it be that he was asking an "if" and opposed to a "do". And could it be that he never asked anything, but that the lawyers were just doing what they do, preparing and evaluating?

Outside the echo chamber? The echo chamber of Trump supporters who propose unnecessarily complicated explanations to justify his behaviour?

A man who provably tells falsehoods at a record pace?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mtls2005 said:

This isn't about Russia, Collusion, Obstruction of Justice, it's about Abuse of Power, potentially.

 

Agree that Abuse of Power is a rather serious charge.  I'm certain Mueller has the details.  So yes, add it to the list....which should include a boatload of financial crimes and shenanigans that the Trump Criminal Enterprise has been engaged in for years.  Will it matter in the end?  I'm not sure if the US Senate has obtained any backbone, but I very much doubt it.  Regardless, would be good to see McConnell et al squirm.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Agree that Abuse of Power is a rather serious charge.  I'm certain Mueller has the details.  So yes, add it to the list....which should include a boatload of financial crimes and shenanigans that the Trump Criminal Enterprise has been engaged in for years.  Will it matter in the end?  I'm not sure if the US Senate has obtained any backbone, but I very much doubt it.  Regardless, would be good to see McConnell et al squirm.

 

The senate got redder so you can draw your own conclusion.  Even the house won't do it, Pelosi got her deal. Also Trump didn't try it because he was told not to. So there isn't much more to say than he thought about it, which was one of his biggest points when he campaigned. 

 

It is no secret.

Edited by Cryingdick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

The senate got redder so you can draw your own conclusion.  Even the house won't do it, Pelosi got her deal. Also Trump didn't try it because he was told not to. So there isn't much more to say than he thought about it, which was one of his biggest points when he campaigned. 

 

It is no secret.

What were the terms of that deal Pelosi made and why would it preclude the House from launching an investigation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting historical perspective...

 

Watergate Roadmap-->  https://www.lawfareblog.com/watergate-road-map-what-are-documents

 

https://www.archives.gov/research/investigations/watergate/roadmap

 

 

What the Watergate 'Road Map' Reveals about Improper Contact between the White House and the Justice Department

 

In a conversation between the president of the United States and senior Justice Department officials, the officials informed the president that two of his senior White House staff were under investigation. One of the officials later testified: “He said he couldn’t believe it. You know, just these are fine upstanding guys. Just couldn’t be, you know.” He impressed on the president, “We are here to alert you. "

 

This happened in 1973.

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-watergate-road-map-reveals-about-improper-contact-between-white-house-and-justice-department

 

Edited by Scott
Edited for Fair Use
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...