Saturday, November 04, 2017

Trump 'Frustrated' He Can't Prosecute Opponents

President Trump on Friday pressured the Department of Justice -- and specifically the FBI -- to investigate Hillary Clinton, ticking through a slew of issues involving the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee and her party, and urging law enforcement to "do what is right and proper." Trump's advocacy for criminal probe of his political opponent marked a significant breach of the traditional boundaries within the executive branch designed to prevent investigations from being politicized. In a Thursday radio interview, Trump said "the saddest thing" about being president is that he is not supposed to give orders to the Justice Department or FBI. The president said he was "very frustrated" that he could not be involved with those agencies, and said it was "very discouraging to me" that they were not "going after Hillary Clinton."

More

"Hopefully they are doing something and at some point, maybe we are going to all have it out," Trump said Thursday on the Larry O'Connor Show.

Trump has long been annoyed, and at times angry, with Attorney General Jeff Sessions for not taking on Clinton more aggressively and for not better protecting him from the wide-ranging Russia probe led by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III, the president's advisers have said.

As he departed the White House Friday morning for an 12-day trip to Asia, Trump told reporters: "A lot of people are disappointed in the Justice Department, including me."

Comments

"This marks only the latest attempt by Trump to use his presidential bully pulpit to influence the criminal justice process.

The president directing a particular investigation -- especially of a former political rival -- would be viewed by most in law enforcement as inappropriate.

When Trump made similar comments on the campaign trail a year ago, even former Republican attorney general Michael Mukasey, a vocal Clinton critic, said Trump ordering a prosecution of her would be "like a banana republic."

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment Friday."

Why 5 year olds aren't usually elected President.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-03 12:39 PM

I urge law enforcement to "do what is right and proper" also.

Arrest Trump for Treason and Obstruction of Justice.

#2 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-03 05:58 PM

Corky, you're well aware that I don't like Clinton, but what separates us from the deplorables, dotards, and morons is that I can shed my distaste for Clinton for the sake of objectivity. This is absurd. The Clinton investigations/accusations are absurd. This is a true witch hunt.

The insistence on persecuting her (because she is the top liberal in the nation) is evidence that conservatism is a disease or an addiction; causing people to lose their rationality. It must be closely related to rabies.

#3 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-03 06:12 PM

Looks like Brazile's claim may be misleading or incomplete:

Memo Reveals Details of Hillary Clinton-DNC Deal

However, the memo made clear it pertained only to the general election, not the primary season, and it left open the possibility it would sign similar agreements with other candidates.

"Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary," the memo states.

"Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with other candidates," it continues... . Sanders' campaign later signed its own Joint Fundraising Agreement with the DNC, but did not utilize it.

www.msn.com

What basically this memo/article is saying, if I'm reading it correctly, is that all the stuff Brazile claimed Clinton and DNC did was done after Hillary was the nominee, which if true, is SOP.

After Obama and Biden, Warren is one of my favorite Dem, so I take what she says seriously. I hope she--and Brazile--will explain what they mean by saying the DNC and Clinton "rigged" the primaries.

#4 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-03 06:42 PM

It could be there is some other secret memo/agreement that Brazile knows about but is keeping under wraps until her book comes out. If so, she should say that.

#5 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-03 06:47 PM

#4 |

NW, Gal. Keep up the good werk posting these stories.

It appears, however unfortunately, that politics are now being played by Brazile, Warren, and others in an attempt to change bandwagons from Hillary to Bernie et al... all of which is quite unnecessary.

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-03 06:54 PM

"It appears, however unfortunately, that politics are now being played by Brazile, Warren, and others in an attempt to change bandwagons from Hillary to Bernie et al..."

We'll see. Brazile has been backpedaling a bit today, but I can't believe those two would make up the rigging accusation without it being true. Maybe Clinton and the DNC signed that memo but violated it by actually starting to follow it before she was the nominee, and that is where the "cancer" comes in.

#7 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-03 07:11 PM

I hope she--and Brazile--will explain what they mean by saying the DNC and Clinton "rigged" the primaries.

Seems pretty clear when Brazile says that Hillary had her thumb on the scales and Warren says the primaries were rigged to ensure a Clinton win.

#8 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-03 07:14 PM

#8 Trust but verify. This is where I am at:

"If Brazile wants to make these accusations she needs to provide the documents she's referring to and something concrete about actions the DNC took to rig the primaries against Sanders."

talkingpointsmemo.com

I have always trusted Warren and would have voted for her over Clinton if she had run, so I figure there must be something there, which Donna is withholding to get more people to buy her book. The rigging accusation itself creates drama and interest and is good PR before her book tour.

#9 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-03 07:27 PM

#9

Agreed, but whatever "rigging" might have occurred, if it did, would have to quite dramatic to swing an election by a landslide 4 million votes.

It's most likely that if there was a "thumb on the scale", of which we've seen no evidence so far, it was unnecessary and would not have affected the outcome in any case.

#10 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-03 08:04 PM

#10

"There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know."

-John Heywood, 1546

#11 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-11-03 09:22 PM

#11

More caricature rather than argument from one of our supposed legal geniuses. Do you get away with that in court? Does it impress the Judge?

Shakespeare was right about at least one thing.....

#12 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-04 12:42 AM

Shakespeare was right about at least one thing.....

#12 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2017-11-04 12:42 AM FLAG:Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Can't disagree with Bill on that Flag.

#13 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-11-04 12:53 AM

I was thinking more about what he said we said was the first thing we should do... with all the lawyers, particularly ones who still haven't made an argument to anything said in 9 or 10, just caricature.

But I guess we can't expect miracles, either.

#14 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-04 01:01 AM

Agreed, but whatever "rigging" might have occurred, if it did, would have to quite dramatic to swing an election by a landslide 4 million votes.

Kind of missing the point of Donna's piece, the voters had nothing to do with it .... it was the buying of the Superdelegates, through funding their current and future campaigns ...

And

How Democratic Superdelegates Decided the 2016 Election
www.huffingtonpost.com

Its so obvious ..... you can't see it ....

#15 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-04 01:11 AM

#15

Says the blind Trust Fund Toddler with the new sailboat she got by taking kid's lunch money.

And

Read the links in #4 and #9 and don't call us in the morning.

- through funding their current and future campaigns ...

Which is what Partys do.... is this thing on? Or is Mackris just that far off?

Memo Reveals Details of Hillary Clinton-DNC Deal

However, the memo made clear it pertained only to the general election, not the primary season, and it left open the possibility it would sign similar agreements with other candidates.

"Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary," the memo states.

"Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with other candidates," it continues... . Sanders' campaign later signed its own Joint Fundraising Agreement with the DNC, but did not utilize it.
www.msn.com

What basically this memo/article is saying, if I'm reading it correctly, is that all the stuff Brazile claimed Clinton and DNC did was done after Hillary was the nominee, which if true, is SOP.

from 4

#16 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-04 01:16 AM

For me, the biggest issue was what went on behind the scenes.

The debates were scheduled to favor Clinton. or to minimize harm to her.

That was obvious before all of these emails were leaked.

The power-players were biased toward Clinton to a point where Sanders was disadvantaged.

That is pretty obvious.

Regrettably, the GOP didn't follow suit. All of their candidates were flawed, but most, if not all, were better than Trump.

The GOP, just like the Dems, had the tools to block Trump. They chose not to.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-04 01:26 AM

"The debates were scheduled to favor Clinton. or to minimize harm to her."

Wha-WHA???

The Democrats little club preferred to nominate a Democrat as the Democratic candidate?

Stop The Presses!!!

#18 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-04 01:30 AM

-They chose not to.

rofl! They were afraid to block Trump; he was beating their tails off with tons of free media and wiping the lipstick offa those pigs he was running against.

-Sanders was disadvantaged.

As per Gal's fine reporting in 4 and 9, Sanders also signed n Joint Fundraising Agreement with the DNC, but did not utilize it when had every opportunity to.... reason being that he couldn't bash Clinton about it, which he did even at the time, and then admit he had also signed it.

Brazile and others are trying to endear themselves to the new political winds by cutting ties. When, as the facts suggest, what happened was SOP.

#19 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-04 01:34 AM

Corky, I don't get it. Was not the Democrats defense in their court trial on fraud charges over the nomination: "We don't owe anyone a fair primary process"?

And that's what they went with to win the legal case?

And they proved it, just like in Chicago in 1968?

And you still don't think Hillary is corrupt?

Here, read all about it in a gazillion papers: www.google.com

#20 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-11-04 01:46 AM

The Democrat nomination process is no more corrupt than the electoral college. Everyone knew the rules going in.

#21 | Posted by bored at 2017-11-04 01:51 AM

#21 I love you Bored. "Sure it's Evil, but hey, other things are Evil too!"

#22 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-11-04 02:01 AM

- Corky, I don't get it.

Not news to anyone about Trump voters.

- their court trial on fraud charges

Charges that the judge threw out as not cognizable.

"To the extent Plaintiffs wish to air their general grievances with the DNC or its candidate selection process, their redress is through the ballot box, the DNC's internal workings, or their right of free speech -- not through the judiciary," Judge William Zloch, a Reagan appointee, wrote in his dismissal.

"To the extent Plaintiffs have asserted specific causes of action grounded in specific factual allegations, it is this Court's emphatic duty to measure Plaintiffs' pleadings against existing legal standards. Having done so ... the Court finds that the named Plaintiffs have not presented a case that is cognizable in federal court."

www.chicagotribune.com

I try to give you pass on cognizance, given your helium habit, but it ain't always easy.

#23 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-04 02:08 AM

#23 Dude, did you even read your own link?

FTA:

"There was no evidence, the judge wrote, that anyone had donated to the DNC on the promise that the committee and its employees would be completely impartial."

That is the entire reason he dismissed the case. Right there. In blood.

And half the article is about the evidence they had on Hillary! Do you live in freaking Wonderland?

How can you be this freaking blind to what is going on?!

#24 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-11-04 02:17 AM

"To the extent Plaintiffs have asserted specific causes of action grounded in specific factual allegations, it is this Court's emphatic duty to measure Plaintiffs' pleadings against existing legal standards.'

IS why the case was dismissed; it didn't meet any legal standard to be brought in the first place.

The impartiality was in the ability of Sanders to sign the same agreement... he just didn't like to admit that he had.

I guess I should figure in the alien rodent thingy along with the helium addiction excuse.

#25 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-04 02:25 AM

#25 Your post actually makes me sad, and to want to help. One day, we may be actually able to cure fluorosis of the pineal gland, but that's not my area of expertise, and I have no idea how far away a cure might be.

Your defense for the forces of Evil is that the forces of Good had "no legal standing" because not being Evil isn't in the DNC's contract.

Okay, logically you are correct. But what about morally? How can you actually carry water for Hillary knowing everything she's done, even recently?

#26 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-11-04 02:38 AM

- But what about morally?

A Trump voter talking about the morality of others?

What'll they think of next? Talking rodents?

#27 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-04 12:44 PM

It could be there is some other secret memo/agreement that Brazile knows about but is keeping under wraps until her book comes out. If so, she should say that.

#5 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

It looks like brazile nut isn't the only one in the dem party.

www.drudge.com

#28 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-11-04 01:19 PM

#18 childish tribalist ----.

You stuck with the queen of your club and we got Trump.

Which means your opinions and views on politics are worth dick.

#29 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-04 09:27 PM

The Democrats little club preferred to nominate a Democrat as the Democratic candidate?
Stop The Presses!!!

That's right and in the future any progressive shouldn't join the party but form their own and split the Democratic party vote. See how that works? I do remember years back people saying that third party candidates should run as Democrats and work within the system. So much for that argument.

#30 | Posted by dibblda at 2017-11-05 03:15 AM

You stuck with the queen of your club and we got Trump.

#29 | POSTED BY JPW

#31 | Posted by memyselfini at 2017-11-05 03:19 AM

You stuck with the queen of your club and we got Trump.

#29 | POSTED BY JPW

What does that even mean, other than a cutesy little statement you're probably repeating without fully thinking it through. Somewhat bumper sticker mentality. She was the only thing in the way of Trump. She was nominated my a sizeable vote. What would you say was the other option?

#32 | Posted by memyselfini at 2017-11-05 03:24 AM

Because of the electoral college and lies presented as promises, Trump triumphs. His renewed interest in prosecuting Hillary might serve briefly to deflect attention from his own money laundering and tax evasion, but it is a fools strategy. The wheels of Justice grind slowly for the high profile rich, but they do not stop.

#33 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-05 06:58 AM

What does that even mean, other than a cutesy little statement you're probably repeating without fully thinking it through.

Don't project your behavior, please.

You're thinking too shortsightedly by thinking only of candidate Hillary.

The Dems didn't learn their own lessons from eight years of Obama and went back to the old well for an old well candidate because it was her turn.

There was little thought as to whether she was the right candidate for the time (she wasn't) and only that she was qualified (with out a doubt she was).

Because it was her turn better candidates weren't going to step forward to run a no win race, which is why you had a few halfhearted runs by candidates who's campaigns were DOA.

And the one candidate who stuck it out and showed to have a far better sense of the political pulse of the electorate gets slammed for petty crap like "but he's not a real democrat duuuhhhhhh".

Hence my post.

#34 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-05 01:43 PM

That's not POTUS's job.

He only has to be patient and wait.

Hillary and Bill Clinton's crimes are coming to light... a little bit every day.

It's only a matter of time till the Democratic base call for their heads...

Meantime TRUMP 2020 - yep, prospects for a second term looking better and better every passing day.

#35 | Posted by Pegasus at 2017-11-06 11:52 AM

Meantime TRUMP 2020 - yep, prospects for a second term looking better and better every passing day.

#35 | Posted by Pegasus at 2017-11

That's just stupid, and to the extent you want it you're diseased.

#36 | Posted by Zed at 2017-11-06 12:06 PM

The Democrats little club preferred to nominate a Democrat as the Democratic candidate instead of the democratically selected best candidate?
Stop The Presses!!!
#18 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

FTFY

#37 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-06 01:51 PM

@#37 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-06 01:51 PM
Superdelegates, closed primaries and caucases = not democratically selected.(Not saying she didn't get the most votes, but certainly not 1 person 1 vote)

#38 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-06 02:00 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Man Brought to U.S. at Age 10 Deported at 39 (92 comments)

Cotton, Perdue Keep Lying About Trump's S---hole (82 comments)

The Humiliation of Aziz Ansari (80 comments)

Uninsured Rate Rising Under Trumpcare (46 comments)

White House Doctor Says He's Not Nuts (45 comments)

Meet the Liberal CEO of Sonic Drive-In (44 comments)

Bannon Subpoenaed in Mueller's Russia Investigation (33 comments)

Fox News Sat On Story About Trump and Porn Star (23 comments)