November 21, 2018

"President Trump told the White House counsel in the spring that he wanted to order the Justice Department to prosecute two of his political adversaries..."

"... his 2016 challenger, Hillary Clinton, and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, according to two people familiar with the conversation. The lawyer, Donald F. McGahn II, rebuffed the president, saying that he had no authority to order a prosecution. Mr. McGahn said that while he could request an investigation, that too could prompt accusations of abuse of power. To underscore his point, Mr. McGahn had White House lawyers write a memo for Mr. Trump warning that if he asked law enforcement to investigate his rivals, he could face a range of consequences, including possible impeachment.... It is unclear whether Mr. Trump read Mr. McGahn’s memo or whether he pursued the prosecutions further. But the president has continued to privately discuss the matter, including the possible appointment of a second special counsel to investigate both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Comey, according to two people who have spoken to Mr. Trump about the issue.... For decades, White House aides have routinely sought to shield presidents from decisions related to criminal cases or even from talking about them publicly. Presidential meddling could undermine the legitimacy of prosecutions by attaching political overtones to investigations in which career law enforcement officials followed the evidence and the law.... 'I look at what’s happening with the Justice Department,” [Trump] said in a radio interview a year ago. 'Well, why aren’t they going after Hillary Clinton and her emails and with her, the dossier?... I am not supposed to be doing the kind of things that I would love to be doing. And I am very frustrated.'"

The NYT reports.

"I am not supposed to be doing the kind of things that I would love to be doing" — Oh, he is doing the thing he loves to be doing. He's talking — talking about what he'd love to do but they won't let him do. And that's doing something. The NYT would have to show me a lot more to get me to think Trump isn't doing just what he wants — saying loudly that Clinton and Comey should be prosecuted but doing nothing to get them prosecuted. It's like the way he rails against Mueller but does nothing to get rid of Mueller. My assumption is he does what he wants and what he wants is to talk about it, not actually to do the things he talks about wanting to do. The doing is complete in the talking.

110 comments:

rhhardin said...

Trump is after the crimes. It's bad for the country to leave them unpunished.

Jeff Brokaw said...

He wouldn’t have to talk about it if DOJ leadership wasn’t in the tank for Hillary, and if Comey had done his job and indicted her, as the law requires. That’s what most of America thinks, based on the evidence, I suspect.

gilbar said...

so, if a politician (like Hillary) wanted someone prosecuted, she wouldn't ask (or order it)
She'd just appoint someone that she knew would direct people to do it: and that'd be OKAY
Because The One Thing that americans are okay with is sneaky politicians.

Trump isn't a sneaky politician, so he doesn't know the right cover words for his actions
If the Justice Department was part of the Executive Branch, instead of a separate coequal branch of government; they would have told him: "you can't Order that, but we'll look into it"

gilbar said...

Coequal branches of Government
The Democrat US House
The Dept of Justice
The Dept of State
The 9th Circuit Court
That Judge in Hawaii
Un-elected regulators
Staff members of Agencies

There's quite a few coequal branches of government... The President is NOT one of them

Spiros Pappas said...

There is no law that prevents the President from making a criminal referral to the Justice Department. And Comey acted improperly during the 2016 election and "engineered a cover-up" to get Clinton elected. His own words. And his obnoxious leaks... So why not?

stevew said...

For President Trump's detractors and political enemies it is a crime to think or say things, any things, with which they disagree.

Kevin said...

could undermine the legitimacy of prosecutions by attaching political overtones to investigations in which career law enforcement officials followed the evidence and the law....

That would be a step up from current practice, which is what Trump’s trying to address.

Mark said...

Sort of like the wall. No wall is going to go up, but if he talks about it enough his sycophants will consider It good enough.

David Begley said...

Why is Hillary Clinton immune from federal law simply because she served as Secretary of State and ran for President? She clearly broke the law with her handling of classified information. And I am convinced her deleted emails have the evidence of her bribery scheme.

traditionalguy said...

OK, I suppose the members of assassins' plot that shot Lincoln dead should not have been prosecuted. After all they were his political enemies and if Johnson had them prosecuted he would be impeached....oh yeah, they did impeach him.

anti-de Sitter space said...

It's like talking about grabbing pussy, but only sticking your non-condom cock in a porn star while your gal is popping out yur kid.

Talk re doing v doing.

Temujin said...

He could have just done what Hillary did: pay a foreign agent with ties to FBI employees, to create a dossier on Hillary and Comey showing that they played around somewhere together, had sex for hire with others who peed in their beds. See if the mainstream media would buy it as they did against Trump.
Or- you could seek justice on them for peddling top secret information and parading it openly to foreign adversaries, manipulating and destroying subpoenaed evidence, covering it up, lying to congress, leaking to the press, costing the US taxpayers millions to conduct fake hearings that provide nothing, and costing the lives of agents and operatives of the US security apparatus.

Or just do like Obama's team did- listen in on your adversaries- a current Presidential campaign, spy on, listen in, or jail journalists who disagree with you, and keep your adversaries off balance by using the IRS to handcuff any other groups who spend money to disagree with you.

Anybody here looking at Eric Holder for President in 2020?

Seriously, if the US population had the full information and timeline of Hillary's and Obama's actions (and Comey's, Brennan's), they'd be pitchfork in hand at outskirts of Washington DC. They should be. Instead we're fed a running stream of daily brain farts from Alexandra Occasional Cortex. What a country.

Darrell said...

Bill and Hillary were pissed that Bill Gates never made a huge political contribution, even after they gave him a medal and spent several weekends blowing smoke up his ass. Bill ordered the DOJ to bring an anti-trust suit against Microsoft (circa 1998) and that eventually led to the stock market crash.

Hillary committed a million felonies, if you apply the laws correctly. Why do Democrats think she is immune? Because her butt boy Comey said so? And Loretta Lynch?

Nicholas said...

"if he asked law enforcement to investigate his rivals, he could face a range of consequences, including possible impeachment.." But investigating his rivals is what Obama did, as a proxy for Clinton, so why is it different for Trump? There must be a foreign donor to the Clinton Foundation, the investigation of whom would, inevitably embrace the Clintons.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

I wonder if this means that Trump is getting ready to declassify info that will incriminate some of his "political enemies." Hillary Clinton is clearly guilty of multiple crimes and a lot of people in DC helped her cover them up. Its obvious and anyone who disputes it is either a partisan hack or delusional. The question is whether or not anyone will be held accountable. I don't think they will because so many people are partisan hacks or delusional. In order for prosecutions to become feasible Trump will have to convince a lot of people that it is necessary and not politically motivated, and that is not possible.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

battleground prep for Dec. 5?
will the bodies of 2 whistleblowers be recovered with multiple fatal gunshot wounds to the back of the head in an apparent dual suicide?
(does that stuff really happen with that crowd?)

tim in vermont said...

Once again, being an enemy of Trump is a get out of jail free card for criminals. How conveeenient.

tim in vermont said...

so why is it different for Trump?

Because of the tweeting and the exclamation points!

Amadeus 48 said...

Yeah, you've got the old GOP/Dem double standard going here. Trump loves to talk about what he'd love to do. He's terrible, right? The Dems do what Trump would love to do, but deny it. John Doe investigation, anyone? Trump dossier?

Still, there is something going on with both sides. We are never going to know what happened at the FISA court and at the FBI because no one, including Trump, wants it known. Maybe someday some one will write well-sourced book that spells out the truth, but it will be denounced by all as a ludicrous (or in Rolling Stone, ludacris) fabrication, with lots of references to Trump/Comey/Lynch/Sessions being "on the grassy knoll" to the merriment of all the wiseguys.

David Begley said...

The Clintons should have been jailed and run out of politics years ago. I very well recall reading the WSJ piece that explained her commodities futures trading scheme. A broker named Redd Bone did lots of work for Tyson Foods. Tyson’s lobbyist brought Hillary to Bone. Bone would place trades on both sides of a contract. When he closed both positions, he kept the loser and gave Hillary the winner. Tyson then reimbursed Bone for his losses.

When I read that story back in the 80’s, I became a lifelong opponent of the Clintons. Think how different American would have been if those two criminals would have been prosecuted. As Barney Fife said, “Got to nip it in the bud.”

stlcdr said...

There’s saying and there’s doing.

While as president, from a diplomacy standpoint he shouldnt say a lot of things, but it’s quite surprising how successful the country has been domestically and internationally, in spite of, or because of, Trumps say-isms.

(Regarding international affairs, some will say he’s been a failure - purely because of what foreigners have been saying about how much they hate trump, and that’s what the media reports - again, say vs. do).

GRW3 said...

Oh, so it's OK for his opponents to insist the DOJ investigate him but not him to ask the DOJ to investigate his opponents, despite the mountain of evidence in plain sight. Meanwhile, Mueller continues to shovel through a pile of crap because surely there's a pony somewhere.

Kevin said...

Sort of like the wall. No wall is going to go up, but if he talks about it enough his sycophants will consider It good enough.

So it’s like single-payer healthcare and getting everyone to turn in their AR-15’s.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

They are rivals who happen to have broken laws. Esp Hillary Clinton.

Kevin said...

so it's OK for his opponents to insist the DOJ investigate him but not him to ask the DOJ to investigate his opponents,

Susan Rice’s memo proves Obama discussed the real investigation into Trump.

I suppose it would undercut the story to mention that.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Again - it's illegal to say anything bad about Hillary and it's illegal to prosecute her when she breaks laws.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Corrupt Hillary is going to run again. She never faced the kinds of consequences that anyone who sim-handled classified information would and should face.

Who else would get away with setting up and using a PRIVATE SERVER while head of the State Dept?

gilbar said...

David Begley said...
Why is Hillary Clinton immune from federal law
?

because NO REASONABLE PROSECUTOR wants to commit suicide by rounds fired into the back of his skull

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

One of the deals made on HER-> private Server


"The New York Times reported in 2015 that "shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, [former President Bill] Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock." In total, $145 million went to the Clinton Foundation from interests linked to Uranium One, which was acquired by the Russian government nuclear agency Rosatum."

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

DOJ can go after Trump.

DOJ cannot go after Hillary -because it's filled with corrupt hacks like Strozk, Ohr, and Brennan.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

(Yes - Brennen is cia - but same corruption-covering a-holes who wanted to get a piece of the Hillary corruption pie.)

Tommy Duncan said...

Trump was formerly accused of obstruction of justice by the left.

Now Trump is accused of encouragement of justice by the left.

iowan2 said...

What the political class refuses to acknowledge is the fact the President Trump does his own wet work.
The Trump campaign had no connection to Russia. None. I have challenged anyone to make the case. Few try, those that do get stuck in the circular nature of the claim. Relying on information that links back to information that is tied to the accusation. Round and round.
By contrasts. Clinton's wife goes to a law firm for campaign help. The law firm goes to a political opposition research company. That company hires an investigator...from England...to find dirt on Trump. The investigator is known to have Russian contacts deep in Russia. A dossier(sounds official yes?) gets generated. A dossier that never withstood any level of examination, and none of it could be corroborated.
All of this, according to the political class is just fine.
Trumps campaign that agreed to take a meeting directly is in violation of some law. No one will cite that law, but is one of those things "that we all know"

That's the penalty for doing your own wet work. Trump also defends himself against detractors that lie about him. The rest of the political class has people in the media, or politics, or industry, that will fight back against any detractors. In the most vile and evil manor. Those attacks, while all know who ordered them, don't get tied to the politician.
President Trump cuts out the middle man. That is his 'crime', doing is own work.

Quayle said...

Comey makes up elements out of thin air (intent) and that is fine, but Trump isn’t even allowed to note or test any facts against elements.

Is that how this works?

EDH said...

Here we see the bargaining phase as the Mueller investigation winds up:

Trump is cleared after the phony politically-motivated investigation we concocted.

Any investigation of us would be politically-motivated, so there should be no investigation.

Tommy Duncan said...

Trump: Let's investigate publicly visible crimes.

Schiff/Waters/Pelosi: Give us the House and we'll investigate Trump until we find something (or make something up).

walter said...

"Presidential meddling could undermine the legitimacy of prosecutions by attaching political overtones to investigations in which career law enforcement officials followed the evidence and the law."
Snoop Dog Mueller and his team of Dem hacks?

Mike Sylwester said...

Hypocrisy on stilts.

Because Trump has become President, the US establishment's intellectual decadence is being exposed continually.

walter said...

"law enforcement officials followed the evidence and the law"
Like Comey injecting "intent" into the equation

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

This is all the grand set-up for the injection of old corrupt Hillary into acceptance on the left. She and her surrogates are spreading propaganda right and left. Also - watch as she threads the needle and slimes as many potential not-HIllary 2020 candidates.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Bleach Bit.

hombre said...

I don't know about Comey, but if Trump had appointed a real AG, say Andrew McCarthy or Chris Christie, Hillary would have been indicted forthwith.

Christie is a looming possibility. Wait for the Democrat firestorm.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Show me the law that says Hillary is above it?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

She still should be indicted.

Alas -the media will say, in hivemind unison BS group-think, "You can't do that, she's your rival."

What does that have to do with anything? She broke laws and tried to cover it up. It's long past time to prosecute her.

Chuck said...

Right. The talking about it is the doing. Like health care reform. Or getting Mexico to pay for “ the wall.”

Roger Sweeny said...

So if George McGovern had defeated Richard Nixon and then ordered an investigation of the things that became known as "Watergate", that would have been bad, bad, a big no-no because Nixon was a political rival?

Surely, you jest.

Birkel said...

Chuck, fopdoodle extraordinaire, takes time off from his racism to blame Trump for McCain's actions.
That seems reasonable.

James K said...

I guess the Democrat Congress investigating the Reagan Administration over Iran Contra was also an abuse of power?

narciso said...

Right McCarthy was still buying the Russia story a year ago. Leaking classified documents is still a felony,

MayBee said...

Seems kind of funny considering the Democrats are itching to impeach Trump just because they, the opposition political party, took control of the house.
I guess that's....not political?

narciso said...

It's like the never pay insurance in the python sketch, it was a campaign promise. Like the embassy In jerusalem

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Bleach bit.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Chris Christie laid it on the line. Democrat Media Industrial Complex went collective ape shit. How dare you!

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Remember how Hillary wanted to re-set our relationship with Russia?

Memory hole.

Jupiter said...

Lock her up!

chuck said...

It is certainly a scandal that two connected criminals get off without prosecution, but that isn't anything new. Heck, Sandy Burger stole, and destroyed, highly classified documents from the National Archives and all that happened was that he lost his clearance.

readering said...

So Althouse commentariat more serious about prosecuting presidential rival than POTUS?

chuck said...

> So Althouse commentariat more serious about prosecuting presidential rival than POTUS?

We prefer to prosecute the guilty instead of the innocent. Democrats, criminal combine that they are, would rather to do it the other way round.

Greg P said...

1: President Obama is guilty of using the FBI and NSA to spy on a political opponent for no good reason

Trump is only "guilty" of wanting to prosecute actual criminals who are also political opponents.

Casey leaked classified info with his memos. Clinton leaked classified info with her criminal email server.

They both SHOULD be prosecuted, and it's a crime that they haven't been

Greg P said...

Sorry, Comey, not Casey

FIDO said...

Hillary and Comey SHOULD be investigated and prosecuted. They both broke the law. They both abused their powers ruthlessly.

I would have no problem with Trump doing this IN CLEAR CUT CASES SUCH AS THIS.

The 'Russian Collusion' nonsense was an assertion without evidence. WE HAVE EVIDENCE of both of these bad actions. So an investigation is warranted. Heck, half the country has been WAITING for this to happen.

But no. This is 'civility bullshit'. "We can't give the impression is actually applying the laws of the land to people who break them, particularly his political enemies."

Well, Trump wouldn't have to do it if anyone else nutted up and opened that investigation. The Senate? The House? We had that for YEARS and they did nothing. Now it is too late.

Let them swing in the wind.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

You folks didn’t like Executive overreach under Obama, now under Trump you love it. So fine, just remember Trump won’t always be President.

James K said...

Executive overreach

What's "overreach" about prosecuting federal crimes? That's the job of the DoJ, which reports to the President. In fact, failure to do so is a violation of his oath of office.

Obama's overreach was, among other things, doing by executive order what he couldn't get through Congress.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“They both abused their powers ruthlessly.”

But Trump hasn’t?

Just gotta shake one’s head.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

What Executive overreach inga?

You cannot explain yourself or be specific, because you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
Other than your parroted Rachel Maddow Talking point BS.

Do explain how it is OK for Hillary Clinton to set up a Private Server while head of the State Dept.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Obstruction of justice!

Name it. The left cannot, in any real way. Feelzs. Innuendo. Media pimp. Empty accusation.

Constitutional crisis!

How? Oh that's right -corrupt Hillary lost and that is against the law. Just like it's against the law to go after her, or to even say anything negative about her. The crime family abides. The media will make it so.


You cool Inga with the Clintons and her surrogates trashing all the other viable candidates along the way? or are you in Camp Clinton now?

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“Do explain how it is OK for Hillary Clinton to set up a Private Server while head of the State Dept.”

Do explain how it’s OK for Ivanka Trump to use her private phone for government business, while a top advisor to the President.

The hypocrisy is astounding. The blind sychophancy is disgusting.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Did Ivanka set up and use a PRIVATE SERVER? Is she head of the State Dept?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Private E-mail is no big deal, Inga. You know this.

The hypocrisy is all from the left. This is all a grand scheme to force the normalization of Hillary Clinton's Crimes and make false comparisons to her crimes.

Ivanka is not using a private server to stuff her family foundation with Russian money.


Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Answer the question Inga - IS IT OK TO SET UP A PRIVATE SERVER WHILE HEAD OF THE STATE DEPT?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

The democrat media rushing in to point out Ivanka's use of private e-mail is the most obvious way they are trying desperately to spin away Hillary's' previous use of a PRIVATE SERVER while HEAD OF THE STATE dept.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Colin Pwel used private e-mail NOT THE SAME AS SETTING UP AND USING A PRIVATE SERVER TO RUN OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT BUSINESS THRU IT IN ORDER TO STUFF FAMILY FOUNDATION COFFERS.


"So in July 2016 when Comey told the nation that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her key aides had acted “extremely carelessly” but without the intent of harming U.S. national security, he not only was mis-representing the law, which doesn’t consider intent, but he also appears now to have been setting an agency precedent that might well have been beneficial to himself."

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

The New York Times reported in 2015 that "shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, [former President Bill] Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock." In total, $145 million went to the Clinton Foundation from interests linked to Uranium One, which was acquired by the Russian government nuclear agency Rosatum.


This is the candidate the leftwing media want to run again.

Qwinn said...

Inga calls us hypocrites, while giving Hillary a pass on far far far far far worse than what Ivanka did.

Inga, thy name is projection.

FIDO said...

“Do explain how it is OK for Hillary Clinton to set up a Private Server while head of the State Dept.”

Do explain how it’s OK for Ivanka Trump to use her private phone for government business, while a top advisor to the President.



Tell you what? We will investigate and prosecute BOTH of them to the extent that their actions harmed the country. We will see if and how much Ivanka's calls could be intercepted and what data she might have revealed. Send that to the Judiciary committee.

AND we will also look at the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of emails that Hillary had. We will look at ALL the applicable laws and statues and common practices and compare them to her actions.


We will look at what, if any, data went to the Chinese or Russians. We will look at what other Democrat officials used her server and investigate them.


We will apply the 'destruction of evidence statutes.


We will get to the bottom of the pot...for both of them.


You down with that, Inga?


(And we will get another distortion and change of subject in 5, 4, 3, 2...)

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Hillary never paid for her criminal acts. Others who had mis-used classified documents and information belonging to the US government spent time behind bars.

The media's use of Ivanka as a cover, is transparently hypocritical and dishonest. But then, the collective left are married to dishonesty.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Good idea. Lets prosecute Ivanka for her use of private e-mail.

Hillary gets a pass! That's what you leftwing cultists expect - right?

Qwinn said...

You know what Ivanka didn't do?

She didn't delete any emails.

Let alone 30,000 of them.

And Ivanka didn't lie to Congress claiming the State Dept had all her emails already.

But for Inga, pure equivalence.

I'd have to conclude she was a complete moron, if I didn't already think she doesn't believe a single word she says. She's simply an accessory to the crimes.

FIDO said...

I didn't say prosecute automatically. That is what Democrats do. I said INVESTIGATE.

Investigate BOTH of them equally. Ivanka may get a slap on the wrists. Her sins are tiny.

Hillary defied subpoenas. She broke clear laws viciously. She can't face a real investigation by someone who wasn't her butt boy ala Strzok.

So let's do equal application of the law. We aren't Democrats after all. But let the Law go blindly and without the DOJ fist of Comey giving Hillary a pass.

And by the way, let's go after Lynch for that Tarmac meeting with Clinton. She violated the law. Let her go to do an 'Orange is the New Black' episode.

steve uhr said...

Prosecutions take up valuable time and resources. Can't we go right to sentencing?

James K said...

Prosecutions take up valuable time and resources. Can't we go right to sentencing?

Sure, if Hillary just pleads guilty I'm sure she could cut a deal to reduce the jail time.

Yancey Ward said...

He has the power to do exactly what he is said to have wanted to do, that he didn't do it is the end of the story, not the beginning.

Seriously, one doesn't think Obama wanted to open an investigation on Trump during the election in 2016? Here is the difference- Obama's underlings acted, Trump's haven't so far.

Ray - SoCal said...

Trump may have leaked this somehow to get Hillary and Comeys crimes back in the news.

He’s amazing at mastering the news cycle.

The story actually helps Trump.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Rachel Maddow wants Hillary 2020 - so does Inga.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Did Ivanka use Bleach Bit on her private e-mail?
What about Colin Powell?

Lots of people use private E-mail.

Nobody EVER set up a PRIVATE SERVER To funnel and hide what they were doing at the top of a government agency.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

CNN and MSNBC want HIllary 2020.

All other candidates can go pound sand.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Media pre-setting up the narrative that Trump's New AG cannot go after Hillary.

That's all this is.

tcrosse said...

Rachel Maddow wants Hillary 2020 - so does Inga.

Otherwise they can't swear they voted for Jill Stein.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

they hate what Trump does (the food is terrible!)
besides, he's all talk (plus, the portions are so small!)

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

It's funny how all the other candidates, who I might add, could actually beat Trump, are being smeared and trashed by the Clinton surrogate media machine. It's cover-time for Hillary at the big networks. Maddow and the hack press want the old bag with the old baggage.

Ivanka's e-mails are proof that what Hillary did was a big nothing! Or! proof, that Ivanka is the real criminal. Pick your angle and your talking point, ladies and gentlemen.

Fun part will be re-living Bill's life-long sexual assaults and unwanted advances in the MeToo#era. The hypocrites are dying to re-litigate. "Please kiss it, Paula." Even the consensual stuff is on the table. What about all that money that flowed into Clinton Coffers while she was head of State? - Uncovered by the rightwing bastion known as the New York Times. Can they erase that, please?
Left unable to MoveOn.

Jim at said...

Do explain how it’s OK for Ivanka Trump to use her private phone for government business, while a top advisor to the President.

You said it was OK for Hillary to do far, far worse.

Hypocrisy? You're soaking in it.

Sebastian said...

"The doing is complete in the talking."

Ah, a perlocutionary act, then. That Trump, he knows How To Do Things with Words.

James K said...

I may be wrong on this, but my recollection is that private e-mail is actually not prohibited provided you preserve it, and ideally copy in your official e-mail, and obviously do not have confidential or classified information. At most it's a minor technical violation that probably every government employee is 'guilty' of.

Hillary used her own private server, which enabled her to bleach bit evidence and destroy government records. Her e-mails included confidential and classified information. They numbered in the hundreds of thousands.

It's the difference between exceeding the speed limit by 5 MPH and DUI/Vehicular homicide.

FullMoon said...

Clinton and Comey will come forward and request a full investigation in order to clear their names and embarrass Trump for spreading rumors.

That is what innocent people do.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Comey is a dorkus who needed to be fired and his firing is in no way "obstruction of justice" - that's just Bullshit from the democrat media Clinton Industrial complex.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

New democratic house dems are going after Trump's money. Looking for any connections to Russia. (In goalpost law moving, perhaps they can make it illegal to talk to Russians about beauty pageants) If connections do not exist - perhaps they can create some like Hillary's GPS Fusion paid dossier.



ZERO interest in the following:

The New York Times reported in 2015 that "shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, [former President Bill] Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock." In total, $145 million went to the Clinton Foundation from interests linked to Uranium One, which was acquired by the Russian government nuclear agency Rosatum.

Principles.

iowan2 said...

." In total, $145 million went to the Clinton Foundation from interests linked to Uranium One, which was acquired by the Russian government nuclear agency Rosatum.

That money, that went to the foundation was routed through Canadian non profit foundation(s), and passed on to the Clinton Foundation through the Canadian non-profits. Why? Canadian law does not require their donors to be identified. Breaking an iron clad connection between the Clinton Crime Family and the Uranium One sale. It does however prove Clinton's wife intention to deceive.

The Emails of Clinton's wife violated Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code make it unlawful to send of store classified information on personal email.
Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration
Violation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), For example the Washington Examiner filed a FOIA, for all communications of the SoS including any personal accounts she may have had. Nothing was turned over.
So there are three specific laws that cover the communications of SoS.

Go ahead and cite the law violated by Ivanka. I would support her prosecution of any law applicaple.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

What the collective left are saying: We get to investigate Trump, because he's our rival.

YOU cannot investigate Hillary, because she's your rival.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Iowan2 - An investigation is a must.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

If the House can investigate Trump, the Senate can investigate Hillary.

Lindsey Graham intimated that IS next.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Comey is above the law and cannot be fired. Although if Hillary wanted to fire him, that would have been just fine.

Doug said...

Why just Shrillary! and Comey? Trump should ask to have that jug-eared jackass zerobama investigated, too.

ken in tx said...

Does he want them prosecuted because they are his adversaries, or because he thinks they are guilty? That makes a difference to me.

Douglas said...

I agree with Anne's assessment of President Trump: He says "I want to do X but my enemies won't let me" about a lot of things where he may or may not want to do X, and might or might not do X if it were easy for him to do so. It's how he shows his followers that it's the people v. powerful, and he's on the their side against the elites.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

If Trump or the DOJ dare to investigate Clinton wrong-doing, why - that is grounds for impeachment. Because.... "rival"

What a sack of crap we get from our crap media. FU Rachel.

DavidD said...

He doesn’t want them prosecuted because they’re political rivals or even for some vendetta.

It’s ’cause they’re crooks. Sheesh.

hombre said...

NYT mediaswine fear Trump will appoint an AG who will prosecute the misdeeds of the Clinton cabal and is trying to draw the sting by painting it political.

More pap for amoral Democrat pinheads.