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

 

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)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-11-21

He could do it now & include his daughter, Ivanka , for use of private server for official WH business??

 

Double standards even if he were to get re elected his empire could not last much more than 6 years, thank god.

 

Well that is not unless he got son in law to run for the Presidency.

Spray-on bronzer-tinted tin-pot would-be dictator.

 

I say, go for it.

 

Call Whitaker in, give him orders.

 

What's the worst that could happen? #boomerang

 

 

Apples /Oranges 

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

7 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. 

I see you’ve got your denial glasses on!

7 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. 

Oh,  Boon Mee, ever the apologist

 

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.

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?

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.

33 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I see you’ve got your denial glasses on!

 

A Trump supporter, wearing de Nile glasses.

 

Edited November 21, 20187 yr by ballpoint

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

 

 

Articles of Impeachment

This is the full text of the Articles of Impeachment adopted by the House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974.

 

Note: The articles of impeachment were passed only by the Committee on the Judiciary. They were never voted on in the full House of Representatives. Nixon was not impeached.

 

 

Article 2
Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.

 

This conduct has included one or more of the following:

 

He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

 

He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.

 

He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.

 

He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavoured to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive, judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as Attorney General of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the offices of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.

 

In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

 

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

 

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

 

Adopted 28-10 by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.

 

 

http://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment

 

 

He was advised not to go any further or face impeachment. 

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.

Prosecuting political opponents - full on Banana Republic.

 

1 hour ago, Boon Mee said:

Apples /Oranges 

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

I can never be sure if you are kidding or trolling.

1 hour ago, Boon Mee said:

Apples /Oranges 

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

I did think that for once you wouldn't make an excuse for Trump, but of course you worship at his feet and that's where we'll always find you.

Edited November 21, 20187 yr by freebyrd

6 minutes ago, quandow said:

I can never be sure if you are kidding or trolling.

I actually think he's 'genuine'.

1 minute ago, freebyrd said:

I actually think he's 'genuine'.

 

One isn't exclusive of the other. I find him amusing enough.

1 minute ago, Nyezhov said:

Why would it be trolling? Do you see any equivalent? If he doesn't and chooses to express that, is disagreeing with the anti Trump echo chamber here "trolling"? What is this, Berkley?

So we learn the President attempted to use his executive powers to command prosecution of political opponents (textbook dictator behaviour) and you concern yourself with ‘anti Trump echo chamber’.

 

 

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?

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.

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 November 21, 20187 yr by Cryingdick

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?

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I see you’ve got your denial glasses on!

To support Trump impossible otherwise

2 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

One isn't exclusive of the other. I find him amusing enough.

I think he's blind and deaf.

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 November 21, 20187 yr by Scott
Edited for Fair Use

THIS is why Mueller investigation keeps dragging on.  Just when we think we can see a light at the end of the tunnel, a new bombshell gets dropped that demands further probing.