Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > Open Discussion
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Open Discussion Discuss Rod Rosenstein - Memo on Comey at the General Forum; Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has played a central role related to the Russia-Trump campaign investigation and sorting out the ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 06-01-2018, 09:12 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,150
Thanks: 1,436
Thanked 2,195 Times in 1,736 Posts
Default Rod Rosenstein - Memo on Comey

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has played a central role related to the Russia-Trump campaign investigation and sorting out the facts related to his role changes as we learn more about what's happened... or that at least adds new questions to understanding what has happened and his role. Something of interest in this has recently been revealed by investigative reporters as it relates to the Comey firing.

Quote:
The New York Times reports that former FBI deputy director Andy McCabe (who had his own issues with Trump) wrote a memo last spring in which he recalled a conversation with Rosenstein in the days after Comey’s firing. Per the Times:

But in the meeting at the Justice Department, Mr. Rosenstein added a new detail: He said the president had originally asked him to reference Russia in his memo, the people familiar with the conversation said. Mr. Rosenstein did not elaborate on what Mr. Trump had wanted him to say.

To Mr. McCabe, that seemed like possible evidence that Mr. Comey’s firing was actually related to the F.B.I.’s investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, and that Mr. Rosenstein helped provide a cover story by writing about the Clinton investigation.


One person briefed on Rosenstein’s conversation with the president told the paper that Trump wanted the deputy AG to mention that he wasn’t personally under investigation in the Russia probe. Instead, Rosenstein’s justification for Comey’s firing focused exclusively on his handling of the Clinton email probe. That may explain why Trump’s letter announcing the dismissal included a reference to Comey “informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation.”
Trump Asked Rosenstein to Make Comey Memo More Obstruction-y

This set off the red lights flashing for me that could answer questions related to Rosenstein's memo. First of all the McCabe memo was contemporaneous to the meeting that Rosenstein had with top DOJ officials that are all witnesses to what Rosenstein said unlike the Comey memos on Trump that related to private conversations where there were no witnesses.

What stuck out was that Trump was attempting to dictate what Rosenstein was to include in his memo before Rosenstein wrote his memo. While Rosenstein didn't include anything about Comey's involvement in the Russia investigation it becomes apparent that Rosenstein was directed to provide a memo that could be used to rationalize Trump's firing of Comey.

That the memo was created to rationalize the firing of Comey answers a lot of questions related to it. Rosenstein expresses many opinions in his memo, some of which are based upon facts, some that are purely speculative, and some that may be or are known to be false. There's also misinformation related to what Rosenstein stated in his memo.


First and foremost is that there are no claims that the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails was in anyway biased or that the conclusion that there wasn't grounds for prosecution was incorrect. Nothing in Rosenstein's memo has anything negative to say about the investigation itself. Rosenstein's memo condemning Comey is exclusively related to Comey's statements about the investigation some of which were arguably inappropriate based upon DOJ guidelines.

Comey should never, for example, have claimed Hillary Clinton was "careless" in the handling of classified materials for example. The FBI's role is not to make judgments about a person that it's cleared from any criminal wrongdoing and this could arguably be considered a "partisan" statement where Comey was "throwing meat to Republicans" that they could use to disparage Hillary Clinton (and Republicans did use that during the presidential campaign for exactly that purpose).

Rosenstein was also correct in condemning Comey for notifying Congress that the FBI was investigating the emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop that contained copies of Hillary Clinton emails for two reasons. First of all there was no evidence of a criminal act by Hillary Clinton (she'd already been cleared of criminal wrongdoing by the FBI related to her emails) and the FBI is not supposed to disclose information related to an ongoing criminal investigation even if the FBI believed there was grounds for re-opening the Clinton email investigation (and the FBI never did reopen the Clinton email investigation as it turned out).

What Rosenstein failed to mention is that the Director of the FBI does have the authority to make public statements about an investigation and can determine what information is to be released. The fact that Comey made mistakes related to what he disclosed doesn't change the fact that he had the authority to make those statements publicly.

Rosenstein cites several former Attorney Generals that claim Comey didn't have the authority to disclose the decision that Hillary Clinton hadn't violated the law as this role typically belongs to the Justice Department. What Rosenstein didn't do was ask former Attorney General Loretta Lynch if she'd authorized Comey to address the conclusion of the investigation on behalf of the FBI investigation and DOJ prosecutor's determination. Lynch, while not recusing herself from the issue, had stated that the DOJ would endorse the decision by the FBI in consultation with federal prosecutors (at the DOJ) after she had a social meeting with former President Bill Clinton on her plane at LAX. The decision that no criminal acts were committed was not a decision made by the FBI, and Comey stated that, when he said that upon reviewing the evidence from the investigation the "prosecutors" had determined that the grounds for a criminal prosecution did not exist. The FBI doesn't prosecute criminal cases. Federal prosecutions are conducted by US Attorney's that work for the DOJ.


Ironically Rosenstein doesn't actually recommend that Comey should be fired. Instead he makes a false statement at the end of his memo that could be taken to imply that Comey should be fired. Rosenstein's exact statement is:

Quote:
As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...otated/526116/

First is that Rosenstein makes a false assertion about "trust" in the FBI that had nothing to do with Comey's inappropriate statements after the conclusion of the investigation into the Clinton emails. Some right-wing conspiracy theories emerged after the investigation but there was nothing to question about the investigation or the conclusions reached related to whether Hillary Clinton had violated the law. Only inappropriate statements after the investigation and decisions was reached made by Comey were questionable. It wasn't what Comey said that eroded the trust in the FBI but instead it was conspiracy theories about the investigation itself, that was conducted to the highest standards of the FBI and DOJ, that caused some people to lose trust in the FBI.

Next is that Rosenstein claims that Comey was never willing to admit to errors in his actions but Comey has repeatedly stated he make mistakes and if he could do it over again he'd do it differently. .

So why would Rosenstein make this fundamental errors in his memo that reads more like a statement of propaganda based upon half-truths than it does as representing an unbiased investigation? It makes perfect sense if Rosenstein was carrying out the directions of President Trump to provide a rationalization (as opposed to a reason) for the firing of James Comey.


Finally, as McCabe's memo suggests, Trump did want Comey fired over the Russia investigation that Trump continues to falsely claim is a "witch hunt" ignoring all of the criminal indictments and convictions that have already occurred with many more indictments and convictions anticipated. A witch hunt doesn't result in criminal indictments and convictions.
__________________
I CAN EXPLAIN IT TO YOU
BUT I CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT FOR YOU
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 06-02-2018, 09:31 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 15,715
Thanks: 8,590
Thanked 9,291 Times in 5,697 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Rod Rosenstein - Memo on Comey

The OP is utter nonsense that doesn't stand up to cursory examination.

Of course President Trump wanted it announced he was not personally under investigation as part of the Russia witchhunt. Comey and Rosenstein refused to make this fact public based on the absurd obligation to correct excuse claiming they might have to announce later Trump was under investigation. Worse, requesting an announcement of no investigation was spun up into imaginary obstruction.

Rosenstein signed off on at least one FISA warrant application using the unverified dossier to justify secret surveillance of team Trump, after Comey's firing he escorted Mueller to the WH where he was recommended as a candidate to be reappointed as FBI director, and he appointed Mueller as special council after Trump rejected the idea. But hey, the Resistance conspiracy theory requires ignoring the facts so Trump pressured Rosenstein to obstruct the Russian investigation.

Only a true Resistance zealot would believe as the OP claims Bill Clinton's tarmac meeting with AG Loretta Lynch the week before Hillary was to be interviewed by the FBI was "social." Comey's FBI had no interest in investigating this obvious corruption. Instead, the FBI focused its attention on finding the source of the leak that revealed the meeting to the media. Before Congress Comey admitted the meeting compromised Lynch but hey it was just social, trust me. But don't worry, Comey the immaculate had already written Hillary's exoneration letter.
__________________
The Democrat's strategy for the Trump Presidency is the same one used by Stalin's secret police chief "show me the man and I will show you the crime."
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 06-04-2018, 12:41 AM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 75,249
Thanks: 53,613
Thanked 25,552 Times in 18,177 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Rod Rosenstein - Memo on Comey

Bottom line is Trump cares way too much about stopping this investigation and has since before the Comey firing for there not to be something there. He acts guilty every day from his tweets to his hiring of an ad campaign manager (Guliani) to his getting pizzed off at Sessions.
__________________
Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it.

___Hebrews 13:2
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 06-04-2018, 06:43 AM
GetAClue's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Northern Ohio
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,051
Thanks: 2,696
Thanked 1,731 Times in 1,002 Posts
Default Re: Rod Rosenstein - Memo on Comey

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
Bottom line is Trump cares way too much about stopping this investigation and has since before the Comey firing for there not to be something there. He acts guilty every day from his tweets to his hiring of an ad campaign manager (Guliani) to his getting pizzed off at Sessions.
The real bottom line, after over a year of investigation, there has been no evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians. This investigation needs to end and allow the administration to focus on the job they were elected to do.
__________________
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead - Thomas Paine
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to GetAClue For This Useful Post:
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 06-04-2018, 12:22 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,150
Thanks: 1,436
Thanked 2,195 Times in 1,736 Posts
Default Re: Rod Rosenstein - Memo on Comey

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The OP is utter nonsense that doesn't stand up to cursory examination.
Let's do a close examination of the facts so that we can eliminate the right-wing misinformation and conspiracy theories.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Of course President Trump wanted it announced he was not personally under investigation as part of the Russia witchhunt.
Quote:
Definition of witch hunt

the searching out and deliberate harassment of those (such as political opponents) with unpopular views.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/witch%20hunt

The DOJ/FBI investigation does not publicly release information of the ongoing investigation, except for that information provided in court filings related to criminal indictments and convictions, and at no time has it attempted to harass President Trump. The DOJ/FBI investigation is solely dedicated to finding the evidence of criminal wrongdoing and has never demonstrated any political bias in conducting it's investigation.

There's never been any evidence that the investigation is anything other than a criminal investigation and it certainly isn't a witch hunt. The criminal indictments and convictions demonstrate it's exclusively about enforcement of the law and there's been no effort by the DOJ/FBI to harass Donald Trump.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Comey and Rosenstein refused to make this fact public based on the absurd obligation to correct excuse claiming they might have to announce later Trump was under investigation.
Donald Trump was/is a "subject" of the investigation (a person involved in activities under investigation) but not a "target" of the investigation (a person where evidence exists that they committed a crime) at the time. All "subjects" are investigated to determine their role and if they were involved in any criminal acts.

DOJ/FBI policy prohibits the DOJ/FBI from publicly releasing any information about an ongoing criminal investigation.

The DOJ/FBI policy exists because the public release of information related to an ongoing investigation compromises the integrity of the investigation.

Comey could tell Trump at the time when asked that Trump wasn't being investigated as a "target" of the investigation but that's a private disclosure and it's only accurate at the time of disclosure. Comey and Rosenstein refused to publicly state that Trump wasn't a "target" of the investigation because that would have violated DOJ/FBI policy that goes back decades.

The only wrongdoing related to this is Trump's request that Comey and/or Rosenstein violate the DOJ/FBI policy that prohibits the release of information related to an ongoing criminal investigation that would compromise the integrity of the investigation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Worse, requesting an announcement of no investigation was spun up into imaginary obstruction.
The crime of obstruction of justice requires the prosecution to provide evidence of "intent" by the person. An attempt to have Comey or Rosenstein violate DOJ/FBI policy that prohibits the disclosure of information related to an ongoing criminal investigation can provide one link in a chain establishing if the President was attempting to obstruct justice. Other "links" could be the President authorizing the release of sensitive information in the FISA application by Devin Nunes that the DOJ/FBI was objecting to stating that the release would compromise the Russia-Trump investigation.

So the question for the investigators is why has Donald Trump made requests that would compromise the integrity of the Russia-Trump criminal investigation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Rosenstein signed off on at least one FISA warrant application using the unverified dossier to justify secret surveillance of team Trump,
All applications for FISA surveillance are signed off by top members of the DOJ and FBI.

The Nunes allegation that the FISA warrant was issued because of the Steele "dossier" (Steele's memos to the FBI) was debunked by the rebuttal of the House Intelligence Committee Democrats. Carter Page was placed under surveillance by a FISA judge based upon evidence gathered over several years starting in 2013 when he was involved with Russian spies in NYC. Carter Page was not a member of the Trump campaign in 2013 (no one was) and he wasn't a member of the Trump campaign when the FISA surveillance warrant was issued debunking the claim that the surveillance was an attack on Team Trump.

The information in the Steele dossier has, for the most part, been verified. Only a few detains lack verification. For example.

Steele, in his memo to the FBI made a controversial claim about Trump having an encounter with prostitutes in 2013. Steele cited when this happened, that it occurred in the Moscow Ritz Hotel, and that Trump stayed in the same room (Presidential Suite) that the Obama's had previously used.

Trump's original alibi to James Comey was that he didn't spend the night in Moscow in 2013. That turned out to be a lie. The verifiable facts are that Trump did spend the night at the Ritz in Moscow at the time that Steele stated, that he did stay in the Presidential Suite that the Obama's had stayed in that Steele stated, and he had more than enough time to have prostitutes visit his room and perform the acts alleged by Christopher Steele. So everything Steele stated to the FBI has been verified except the actual sex acts by prostitutes but Trump did have ample time for those sex acts to occur.

So we have the President that originally lied about all of the information Steele provided and then had to change his alibi when the facts revealed he was lying. Is there any reason to believe that Trump isn't still lying about the prostitutes considering he lied about everything else related to his stay in Moscow in 2013.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
... after Comey's firing he escorted Mueller to the WH where he was recommended as a candidate to be reappointed as FBI director, and he appointed Mueller as special council after Trump rejected the idea. But hey, the Resistance conspiracy theory requires ignoring the facts so Trump pressured Rosenstein to obstruct the Russian investigation.
I'm not exactly sure of what the point is here. Rosenstein appointed Mueller after Trump fired Comey. Trump was not consulted about the assignment of Robert Mueller as Special Council. The fact that Comey and Mueller know each other from their time in the FBI doesn't have anything to do with the Russia-Trump investigation nor would it have any influence with Robert Mueller's investigation of whether Trump obstructed justice.

Trump's inappropriate requests (or orders) that cumulatively can be evidence of an attempt obstruct justice have nothing to do with who Rod Rosenstein selected to be the Special Counsel. As noted if Trump directed Rod Rosenstein to create a memo justifying the firing of Comey that would be highly inappropriate. Rod Rosenstein's memo itself has gaping holes in it where allegations of "wrongdoing" by Comey could have been authorized by the DOJ and they wouldn't constitute wrongdoing if Comey had approval or direction from the DOJ related to his actions.

Rosenstein apparently never talked to Loretta Lynch or Sally Yates about whether Comey's press conference was authorized by the DOJ. Rosenstein apparently never talked with Lynch or Yate about whether they'd approved Comey prepared statement to the press.

Even having Rosenstein prepare a memo that lacked any supportive DOJ Inspector General findings was highly irregular and discredits the Rosenstein memo (that Trump admitted really had nothing to do with the firing of Comey because Trump had already decided to fire Comey over the "Russia thing").

Trump's seeking to provide a false cover story to rationalize the firing of Comey because of the "Russia thing" can certainly be used as evidence of an intentional act to obstruct justice by the President.

The only connection I can see is that Rod Rosenstein, knowing how inappropriate Trump's demand that he produce a memo to rationalize firing Comey, knew that he had to appoint an independent Special Counsel to protect the integrity of the DOJ/FBI criminal Russia-Trump investigation. Robert Mueller was an unusual choice because prior precedent established that a prosecutor appointed by the opposing political party would lead the investigation. Nixon, a Republican, was investigate by Cox, a Democrat appointee. Clinton, a Democrat, was investigated by Starr, a Republican appointee. Only Mueller's exceptional reputation for integrity that no one, Democrat or Republican, disputed made him the ideal choice where prior precedent could be ignored.
__________________
I CAN EXPLAIN IT TO YOU
BUT I CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT FOR YOU
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 06-04-2018, 12:32 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,150
Thanks: 1,436
Thanked 2,195 Times in 1,736 Posts
Default Re: Rod Rosenstein - Memo on Comey

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Only a true Resistance zealot would believe as the OP claims Bill Clinton's tarmac meeting with AG Loretta Lynch the week before Hillary was to be interviewed by the FBI was "social." Comey's FBI had no interest in investigating this obvious corruption. Instead, the FBI focused its attention on finding the source of the leak that revealed the meeting to the media. Before Congress Comey admitted the meeting compromised Lynch but hey it was just social, trust me. But don't worry, Comey the immaculate had already written Hillary's exoneration letter.
Only a conspiracy theorist that ignores the facts would consider the tarmac meeting between former President Bill Clinton and AG Loretta Lynch anything other than a social meeting. Here's the "facts" that dispute the conspiracy theory.

General information (facts):

The meetings between former presidents and current heads of departments is consider to be a social courtesy and is an accepted protocol for former presidents.

These meetings are by chance where the former President and the Department head happen to run into each other. This often occurs during travel at hotels and airports.

These are never "secret" meetings but, because they impromptu (occur by chance) they're unplanned events that don't show up on the Department head's schedule for the day and so the media doesn't have information in advance about them.

They're also social meetings that don't discus any sensitive department/agency business (a former president no longer has the clearance necessary to discuss department business) they aren't really newsworthy so the press and media don't report typically on them.

No one is prevented from discussing the meeting or what took place at the meeting with anyone, including the press, because the meetings are social and not government related. Always remember that at least one person, the former President, cannot be told they can't discuss the meeting because they're not under the authority of the department head.

Specifics of the tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and AG Loretta Lynch:

A private meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch never occurred. The meeting was actually between Bill Clinton, Loretta Lynch, and her husband Stephen Hargrove.

The meeting was in the main cabin of Loretta Lynch's aircraft allowing anyone onboard, including the pilot and other members of the DOJ, to listen in on what was being discussed. There was never any attempt or opportunity Lynch and Clinton to discuss anything in private.

The FBI, after the incident received press coverage, did seek out a local law enforcement officer that was apparently seated close to the discussion and had overheard everything. He wasn't a "leaker" but instead an independent witness to the conversation. When located he was interviewed by the press and confirmed that the entire conversation was social discussing travel, golf, and grandchildren (the same information provided by Lynch and Bill Clinton about the meeting).

The meeting was so "normal" by all standards that Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton never anticipated the rise of the Conspiracy Theory that originated with the meeting was detailed in the press. Lynch later stated in hindsight that because of the BS speculation by conspiracy theorists she would have declined the meeting but thought nothing improper about it at the time because nothing improper took place.

Lynch later decided that to avoid any perception of impropriety, even though nothing improper had occurred, that she would allow the FBI in consultation with DOJ career prosecutors make the decision on whether to prosecute or not. She did not recuse herself, because a conflict of interest did not exist, although she had Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates deal with the Clinton investigation after her decision.

Finally we know that the meeting had no influence on the actual investigation. The DOJ never provided any directions to the FBI on the investigation and only career DOJ prosecutors were involved in the final decision that there were no grounds for any criminal prosecution of Hillary Clinton related to her use of a private emails account and server.

The entire "tarmac" meeting was a great big "nothing-burger" based upon the facts related to it.

The final conspiracy theory related to the Clinton email investigation is that the outcome was determined in advance because James Comey had produced a draft statement clearing Hillary Clinton before Hillary Clinton was interviewed by the FBI. This ignores the fact that the FBI had already reviewed all of the emails and none of those emails were "branded" as containing classified information. Hillary Clinton never had the authority to determine if information was classified (nor did James Comey nor do any appointees to head departments) and they all must rely on the "branding" of documents in determining of the document is classified or not. Hillary Clinton's testimony in her interview was not going to change the fact that the lack of "branding" as classified information prevented any prosecution for emails on her server that contained classified information. The determination that some information was classified was made by professionals that do have the authority to define classified material but that determination was made "after the fact" by the investigation. Her testimony was nothing but fluff to fill out a box in the investigation check list.

There was never any reason to doubt the results of the investigation that was conducted in an unbiased manner by career investigators at the FBI. There was never any reason to doubt the fact that Hillary Clinton did not commit a crime that could be successfully prosecuted. There was never any doubt about any aspect of the Clinton email investigation but there was reason to doubt the subsequent events where there was Republican bias in the aftermath including the editorializing of the decision in the James Comey press release (that may have been approved by the DOJ) and the letter to Congressional Republicans notifying them that the Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner's computer were going to be reviewed (that also noted there was no evidence suggesting anything was wrong with these emails and it didn't state that the Clinton email investigation was being reopened).

So if there was any bias it was Republican bias after the investigation and there was never any evidence of any Democratic influence during or after the Clinton email investigation.

James Comey has since admitted that he may have made mistakes in his handling of the aftermath of the Clinton email investigation but no one at the DOJ, including the DOJ Inspector General that would be responsible for investigating and making that determination, has claimed there was anything improper with the investigation itself.
__________________
I CAN EXPLAIN IT TO YOU
BUT I CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT FOR YOU
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 06-04-2018, 01:14 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 75,249
Thanks: 53,613
Thanked 25,552 Times in 18,177 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Rod Rosenstein - Memo on Comey

Quote:
Originally Posted by GetAClue View Post
The real bottom line, after over a year of investigation, there has been no evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians. This investigation needs to end and allow the administration to focus on the job they were elected to do.
How 'bout 6 years?

The investigation of Bill Clinton began in January 1994, when Attorney General Janet Reno appointed special prosecutor Robert Fiske to head the Whitewater investigation.
In December 1997, Starr shut down the Whitewater investigation because of insufficient evidence.

The short investigation, combined with Fiske's announcement that there was "no evidence that issues involving Whitewater, or other personal legal matters of the president or Mrs. Clinton, were a factor in [Vince] Foster's suicide," caused Republicans to declare Fiske "unfit for the job,"

When Congress decided to reauthorize the independent counsel investigation, the three-judge panel overseeing the independent counsel decided to replace Fiske with another attorney, Kenneth Starr.

In December 1997, Starr shut down the Whitewater investigation because of insufficient evidence.

A month later, Linda Tripp called Deputy Independent Counsel Jackie Bennett and said she had taped conversions with Monica Lewinsky about an affair with the president.

Three separate inquiries found insufficient evidence linking them [Bill & Hillary Clinton] with the criminal conduct of others related to the land deal. The matter was handled by the Whitewater Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr. The last of these inquiries came from the final Independent Counsel, Robert Ray, (who replaced Starr) in 2000.
link
__________________
Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it.

___Hebrews 13:2
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 06-05-2018, 07:27 AM
GetAClue's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Northern Ohio
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,051
Thanks: 2,696
Thanked 1,731 Times in 1,002 Posts
Default Re: Rod Rosenstein - Memo on Comey

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
How 'bout 6 years?

The investigation of Bill Clinton began in January 1994, when Attorney General Janet Reno appointed special prosecutor Robert Fiske to head the Whitewater investigation.
In December 1997, Starr shut down the Whitewater investigation because of insufficient evidence.

The short investigation, combined with Fiske's announcement that there was "no evidence that issues involving Whitewater, or other personal legal matters of the president or Mrs. Clinton, were a factor in [Vince] Foster's suicide," caused Republicans to declare Fiske "unfit for the job,"

When Congress decided to reauthorize the independent counsel investigation, the three-judge panel overseeing the independent counsel decided to replace Fiske with another attorney, Kenneth Starr.

In December 1997, Starr shut down the Whitewater investigation because of insufficient evidence.

A month later, Linda Tripp called Deputy Independent Counsel Jackie Bennett and said she had taped conversions with Monica Lewinsky about an affair with the president.

Three separate inquiries found insufficient evidence linking them [Bill & Hillary Clinton] with the criminal conduct of others related to the land deal. The matter was handled by the Whitewater Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr. The last of these inquiries came from the final Independent Counsel, Robert Ray, (who replaced Starr) in 2000.
link
Is your last name Dodge?

How about we stick to this thread topic? If you wish to discuss the Clinton case, start another thread.
__________________
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead - Thomas Paine
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 06-05-2018, 08:32 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 15,715
Thanks: 8,590
Thanked 9,291 Times in 5,697 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Rod Rosenstein - Memo on Comey

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Let's do a close examination of the facts so that we can eliminate the right-wing misinformation and conspiracy theories.




https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/witch%20hunt

The DOJ/FBI investigation does not publicly release information of the ongoing investigation, except for that information provided in court filings related to criminal indictments and convictions, and at no time has it attempted to harass President Trump. The DOJ/FBI investigation is solely dedicated to finding the evidence of criminal wrongdoing and has never demonstrated any political bias in conducting it's investigation.

There's never been any evidence that the investigation is anything other than a criminal investigation and it certainly isn't a witch hunt. The criminal indictments and convictions demonstrate it's exclusively about enforcement of the law and there's been no effort by the DOJ/FBI to harass Donald Trump.



Donald Trump was/is a "subject" of the investigation (a person involved in activities under investigation) but not a "target" of the investigation (a person where evidence exists that they committed a crime) at the time. All "subjects" are investigated to determine their role and if they were involved in any criminal acts.

DOJ/FBI policy prohibits the DOJ/FBI from publicly releasing any information about an ongoing criminal investigation.

The DOJ/FBI policy exists because the public release of information related to an ongoing investigation compromises the integrity of the investigation.

Comey could tell Trump at the time when asked that Trump wasn't being investigated as a "target" of the investigation but that's a private disclosure and it's only accurate at the time of disclosure. Comey and Rosenstein refused to publicly state that Trump wasn't a "target" of the investigation because that would have violated DOJ/FBI policy that goes back decades.

The only wrongdoing related to this is Trump's request that Comey and/or Rosenstein violate the DOJ/FBI policy that prohibits the release of information related to an ongoing criminal investigation that would compromise the integrity of the investigation.



The crime of obstruction of justice requires the prosecution to provide evidence of "intent" by the person. An attempt to have Comey or Rosenstein violate DOJ/FBI policy that prohibits the disclosure of information related to an ongoing criminal investigation can provide one link in a chain establishing if the President was attempting to obstruct justice. Other "links" could be the President authorizing the release of sensitive information in the FISA application by Devin Nunes that the DOJ/FBI was objecting to stating that the release would compromise the Russia-Trump investigation.

So the question for the investigators is why has Donald Trump made requests that would compromise the integrity of the Russia-Trump criminal investigation.



All applications for FISA surveillance are signed off by top members of the DOJ and FBI.

The Nunes allegation that the FISA warrant was issued because of the Steele "dossier" (Steele's memos to the FBI) was debunked by the rebuttal of the House Intelligence Committee Democrats. Carter Page was placed under surveillance by a FISA judge based upon evidence gathered over several years starting in 2013 when he was involved with Russian spies in NYC. Carter Page was not a member of the Trump campaign in 2013 (no one was) and he wasn't a member of the Trump campaign when the FISA surveillance warrant was issued debunking the claim that the surveillance was an attack on Team Trump.

The information in the Steele dossier has, for the most part, been verified. Only a few detains lack verification. For example.

Steele, in his memo to the FBI made a controversial claim about Trump having an encounter with prostitutes in 2013. Steele cited when this happened, that it occurred in the Moscow Ritz Hotel, and that Trump stayed in the same room (Presidential Suite) that the Obama's had previously used.

Trump's original alibi to James Comey was that he didn't spend the night in Moscow in 2013. That turned out to be a lie. The verifiable facts are that Trump did spend the night at the Ritz in Moscow at the time that Steele stated, that he did stay in the Presidential Suite that the Obama's had stayed in that Steele stated, and he had more than enough time to have prostitutes visit his room and perform the acts alleged by Christopher Steele. So everything Steele stated to the FBI has been verified except the actual sex acts by prostitutes but Trump did have ample time for those sex acts to occur.

So we have the President that originally lied about all of the information Steele provided and then had to change his alibi when the facts revealed he was lying. Is there any reason to believe that Trump isn't still lying about the prostitutes considering he lied about everything else related to his stay in Moscow in 2013.



I'm not exactly sure of what the point is here. Rosenstein appointed Mueller after Trump fired Comey. Trump was not consulted about the assignment of Robert Mueller as Special Council. The fact that Comey and Mueller know each other from their time in the FBI doesn't have anything to do with the Russia-Trump investigation nor would it have any influence with Robert Mueller's investigation of whether Trump obstructed justice.

Trump's inappropriate requests (or orders) that cumulatively can be evidence of an attempt obstruct justice have nothing to do with who Rod Rosenstein selected to be the Special Counsel. As noted if Trump directed Rod Rosenstein to create a memo justifying the firing of Comey that would be highly inappropriate. Rod Rosenstein's memo itself has gaping holes in it where allegations of "wrongdoing" by Comey could have been authorized by the DOJ and they wouldn't constitute wrongdoing if Comey had approval or direction from the DOJ related to his actions.

Rosenstein apparently never talked to Loretta Lynch or Sally Yates about whether Comey's press conference was authorized by the DOJ. Rosenstein apparently never talked with Lynch or Yate about whether they'd approved Comey prepared statement to the press.

Even having Rosenstein prepare a memo that lacked any supportive DOJ Inspector General findings was highly irregular and discredits the Rosenstein memo (that Trump admitted really had nothing to do with the firing of Comey because Trump had already decided to fire Comey over the "Russia thing").

Trump's seeking to provide a false cover story to rationalize the firing of Comey because of the "Russia thing" can certainly be used as evidence of an intentional act to obstruct justice by the President.

The only connection I can see is that Rod Rosenstein, knowing how inappropriate Trump's demand that he produce a memo to rationalize firing Comey, knew that he had to appoint an independent Special Counsel to protect the integrity of the DOJ/FBI criminal Russia-Trump investigation. Robert Mueller was an unusual choice because prior precedent established that a prosecutor appointed by the opposing political party would lead the investigation. Nixon, a Republican, was investigate by Cox, a Democrat appointee. Clinton, a Democrat, was investigated by Starr, a Republican appointee. Only Mueller's exceptional reputation for integrity that no one, Democrat or Republican, disputed made him the ideal choice where prior precedent could be ignored.
As usual a long tiresome screed in an attempt to filibuster past the corruption of the FBI by Comey and the special counsel witch hunt.

We know from text messages among themselves senior members of the FBI had a deep seated hatred for Trump which they openly shared in the workplace. We know from Comey's testimony before Congress he leaked classified government documents to the media, a felony, in hopes of getting a special counsel appointed after he was fired. We know Rosenstein paraded Mueller as a replacement for Comey just days before appointing him as special counsel. Finally after more than a year Mueller the grand inquisitor, has produced zero indictments or convictions of any member of Trump's campaign or staff for charges of conspiring with the Russians. Mueller's team of zealot prosecutors even pled for more time to prepare their case when some of the Russians they indicted unexpectedly responded.

All the pious braying about the Impeccable credentials of a fired director and a disappointed job seeker as prosecutor along with mumbling about secret evidence and the rule of law doesn't disguise the fact this is a witch hunt.

Comey stated before Congress he refused Trump's request to publicly reveal the President was not being investigated for collusion with the Russians based on an inane obligation to correct. There was no mention of so-called compromising the investigation, Comey was just playing a political game with the FBI investigation of letting a President he despised twist in the wind.
__________________
The Democrat's strategy for the Trump Presidency is the same one used by Stalin's secret police chief "show me the man and I will show you the crime."
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 06-06-2018, 09:25 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,150
Thanks: 1,436
Thanked 2,195 Times in 1,736 Posts
Default Re: Rod Rosenstein - Memo on Comey

Quote:
Originally Posted by GetAClue View Post
The real bottom line, after over a year of investigation, there has been no evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians. This investigation needs to end and allow the administration to focus on the job they were elected to do.
Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort secretly met with Russian delegates to secure the assistance of Russian intelligence (GRU) at Trump Tower on June 9, 2016. The express purpose, established in advance and documented by Trump Jr's emails, was to secure access to the DNC/Clinton campaign emails (dirt on Hillary Clinton) that the Trump Campaign knew that Russian intelligence had in it's possession.

Within days of that June 9th meeting Russian intelligence made those emails available through WikiLeaks to aid the Trump campaign.

Quote:
Definition of collusion

: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose - acting in collusion with the enemy
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collusion

The emails were illegally obtained, any actions by the Russians to interfere in our election was illegal, and any attempt to secure access to the emails from the Russians by the Trump campaign was "collusion with an enemy" of the United States.

As the facts show, in spite of the claims that the June 9th meeting was unfruitful, the Trump campaign secured exactly what it went to the secret meeting to obtain from Russian intelligence. The emails were made available to the Trump campaign to help Trump win the election.

This wasn't the only attempted collusion to secure the assistance of foreign governments by the Trump campaign. The campaign also went to a secret meeting about securing assistance from the Saudi's and from Qatar. The broker at that secret meeting addressing assistance from Saudi Arabia and Qatar is a witness for the Mueller investigation. once again a clearly documented case of collusion because the assistance doesn't have to actually occur. Only the attempt to secure the illegal assistance is necessary for the collusion to exist.

It was the evidence of collusion by members of the Trump campaign that turned the original FBI investigation from a foreign intelligence investigation into a criminal investigation.


What many of Trump followers mean when they claim that "no evidence of collusion exists" is actually a claim that no proof of a quid pro quo deal between Putin and Trump exists but they don't actually know that. One thing we do know is that we don't know what evidence the Mueller investigation actually has and Mueller may have a ton of incriminating evidence against the Trump campaign and Donald Trump

There's a huge difference between "I don't know of evidence" and "Mueller doesn't have evidence" because we don't know what evidence Mueller does have.
__________________
I CAN EXPLAIN IT TO YOU
BUT I CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT FOR YOU

Last edited by ShivaTD; 06-06-2018 at 09:32 AM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
comey, memo, rod, rosenstein

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0