16 thoughts on “News/Politics 4-4-18

  1. Then it’s time to wrap this up. These others with decades old crimes can be handled by a regular prosecutor. Fishing season is over. Sorry, no big fish.

    And since Mueller has nothing, there’s no need for Trump to sit for an interview. That’s just a trap. Skip it.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-mueller-trump-investigation-20180403-story.html

    “Special Counsel Robert Mueller III informed President Donald Trump’s attorneys last month that he is continuing to investigate the president but does not consider him a criminal target at this point, according to three people familiar with the discussions.

    In private negotiations in early March about a possible presidential interview, Mueller described Trump as a subject of his investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. Prosecutors view someone as a subject when that person has engaged in conduct that is under investigation but there is not sufficient evidence to bring charges.

    The special counsel also told Trump’s lawyers that he is preparing a report about the president’s actions while in office and potential obstruction of justice, according to two people with knowledge of the conversations.

    Mueller reiterated the need to interview Trump – both to understand whether he had any corrupt intent to thwart the Russia investigation and to complete this portion of his probe, the people said.”

    Mueller’s description of the president’s status has sparked friction within Trump’s inner circle as his advisers have debated his legal standing. The president and some of his allies seized on the special counsel’s words as an assurance that Trump’s risk of criminal jeopardy is low. Other advisers, however, noted that subjects of investigations can easily become indicted targets – and expressed concern that the special prosecutor was baiting Trump into an interview that could put the president in greater legal peril.”

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Ruh-roh Raggy.

    https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analysis/rosensteins-secret-special-counsel-memo-was-written-after-the-feds-already-raided-manaforts-house/

    “Paul Manfort‘s legal team is fighting in court to get his indictment dismissed based on the legal theory that Mueller doesn’t have authority to prosecute him in the first place. They claim that Mueller’s team overstepped the authority granted to him by indicting Manafort with crimes that were not directly related to Russian election meddling.

    Late Monday evening, Mueller’s team fired back with their own response. They pointed to the May 2017 appointment order which says that Mueller can investigate:

    (i) any links and/or coordination between 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)

    As we pointed out, the last part refers to a regulation that says, “The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated.” Mueller contends that he didn’t skirt the regulation here because he did indeed receive a “specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated” from Deputy Attorney Rod Rosenstein. That Rosenstein memo (though heavily redacted) was revealed in a court filing on Monday.

    The memo gives Mueller a more specific description of his authority and states that he can investigate Paul Manafort for any “crimes arising out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before and during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych.” And that’s pretty much what Manafort was indicted for.

    Here’s the weird part about this: The Rosenstein “secret” memo revealed in this week’s court filing is dated August 2, 2017. According to media reports, Paul Manfort’s home was raided July 26, 2017. So that means Rosenstein’s laid out the more specified scope and definition of authority for the special counsel investigation six days after Manafort’s home had already been raided.

    What does this mean legally? Well, as always, the the legal experts are divided.

    “There is something very wrong about that,” said Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz on Fox News Tuesday night, adding that the scope of the investigation should be clearly defined. “This special prosecutor is looking at everything. Where does it stop?””

    Like

  3. The rule of law should still matter.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-on-the-trump-russia-investigation-and-the-rule-of-law

    “This week I took part in a debate on the question “Does the Russia investigation endanger the rule of law?” I said yes, and here is why:

    First, a caveat: If “endanger the rule of law” means “destroys our legal order and threatens our democracy,” then no, I don’t think the Trump-Russia investigation does that. But if it means “involves our nation’s most powerful law enforcement and intelligence agencies in reckless political conduct that undermines our system of elections and the orderly transfer of power,” then yes, the Trump-Russia investigation does, in fact, endanger the rule of law.

    Two incidents from 2016 and early 2017 point to the danger posed by overzealous Trump-Russia investigators.

    The first is that the Justice Department used the Logan Act, which bars private Americans from conducting foreign policy, as a pretense to pursue an investigation against the Trump team.

    The Logan Act was passed in 1799 and has never been used to successfully prosecute anybody. No one has even tried since the 19th Century. It is, by any practical measure, dead — look up the legal concept of “desuetude.”

    And yet, in the summer of 2016, some prominent Democrats began accusing then-candidate Donald Trump of violating the Logan Act. They said he broke the law by sarcastically encouraging Russia to release Hillary Clinton’s famous deleted emails. Several called for hearings.

    Then, after Trump’s victory, stunned and angry Democrats watched him prepare for the presidency — and prepare to undo many of former President Barack Obama’s policies.

    Democratic Rep. Jared Huffman of California introduced the One President at a Time Act of 2016 which would specifically subject presidents-elect to the Logan Act. Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, then the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, asked the Justice Department to investigate Trump for a possible violation of the Logan Act.

    All of that was just political posturing — not a threat to the rule of law. But unbeknownst to the public, the Obama Justice Department was using the Logan Act as a pretext to take action against the incoming administration.”

    Like

  4. SolarP, You may not want to check on your 401K today. Stock futures are down another 2% as the trade war escalates.

    This could be a good learning experience for many. Trump made it socially unacceptable to be a sexual predator. Perhaps he will also make it socially unacceptable to be economically illiterate and a protectionist.

    Like

  5. The Bourne Presidency:

    Like

  6. Once again, law enforcement drops the ball, even after it was dropped right in their laps.

    In reaction, David Hogg will hold a press conference at 3 on CNN to “discuss” banning vegan bodybuilders and their blood soaked enablers at PETA..

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/04/youtube-shooter-self-described-as-vegan-bodybuilder-claimed-censorship-before-rampage.html

    “Aghdam, self-described “vegan bodybuilder,” was found dead inside YouTube headquarters in San Bruno after allegedly wounding three people. Aghdam was reported missing on Monday by her father Ismail Aghdam, who told police his daughter might be heading to YouTube because she “hated” the company, Mercury News reported.

    “She was always complaining that YouTube ruined her life,” Shahran Aghdam, the alleged shooter’s brother, also told reporters, according to Mercury News.

    Police found her sleeping in a vehicle parked in a lot in the Silicon Valley hub of Mountain View around 2 a.m. Tuesday, about 30 miles from where she would later carrying out her rampage. She had driven more than 500 miles from San Diego to San Bruno.

    But before the rampage and the concerned father’s warning, Aghdam had voiced her hatred for YouTube on her social media pages and website. Using the name Nasime Sabz, the 39-year-old ran a Facebook page, two Instagram pages and multiple YouTube channels that garnered thousands of subscribers.

    Ed Barberini, the San Bruno Police Chief, told Fox News on Wednesday that police are investigating Aghdam’s disgust and hatred toward YouTube.

    “That is the direction that we’re being pointed to based on the information that we have now,” Barberini said.”

    Like

  7. YOUTUBE shooter was a female, Muslim. Had a gripe against the company.
    No news here.
    Move on to real news. Have you heard that Trump is going to send the National Guard to prohibit those poor refugees fleeing oppression to enter the USA and get welfare?
    When they cross the border, not being Mexicans, they, by law, are allowed to stay.

    Like

  8. YOUTUBE was warned about this woman.
    The school in Fl. was warned about this kid.
    Nobody did anything.
    They say: “If you see something, say something”
    When somebody said something, they did nothing.

    Like

  9. A small correction; the shooter was a member of the Bahai faith.

    Since the deregulation of the Reagan era, our economy works in 8-12 year cycles. 2008 was the last crash/recession which means we’re about due. On this basis, I’ve predicted this year Trump’s ability or inability would become clear. And it’s quite clear he has no clue…he can longer relax under the tail end of the Obama recovery; he needs to act to avoid the next recession. Instead he’s going to cause it.

    Tariffs have their place and esp for a developing country they are an important tool. However indiscriminate blanket tariffs or tariffs aimed at protecting dying industries do not work. In this, I and Friedman actually agree and if we can agree it’s probably correct.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s