Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Next President of the United Fates of America
On Friday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “O’Reilly Factor,” George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley argued that there is no perjury case against Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and that because there is no evidence of collusion between the Trump team and the Russians, calls for a special counsel are “getting ahead of your skis on this.”

Turley stated that not only did Sessions not commit perjury, it isn’t even close. Turley continued that Sessions was asked a “fairly convoluted” question that he answered. Turley granted that while the answer was “inartful.” And Sessions should have corrected his testimony, “that’s not perjury.”

The discussion then turned into calls for a special counsel. Turley stated that in order to have a special counsel, you have to “articulate what it is that they’re investigating.”

He added, “[T]he problem is that we don’t have any evidence of collusion. But, even if you go to say that maybe there was collusion, the question is, what’s the crime? It’s not a Logan Act violation of interfering with foreign relations. … We haven’t had any allegations of money being exchanged from the Russians. So — and so, the question is, what is the special counsel going to investigate? Is he going to come in and say, yep, we were hacked by the Russians, much like we’ve hacked other countries? Is he going to investigate some nameless guy in St. Petersburg? You usually have to articulate some type of criminal act, and that hasn’t happened yet. Now, maybe evidence will come forward, but until it does, you’re getting ahead of your skis on this.”

Turley concluded, “The White House has not exactly been performing as well as it should. It’s been sort of three beats behind. For example, in the Sessions case, there should have been a clarifying letter that was sent, and this would have been a total non-issue. He should have recused himself.”

Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett

http://theduran.com/obama-replies-trumps...ap-charge/


Barack Obama publishes legalistic reply to Trump’s wiretap charge

Alexander Mercouris
March 4,2017
Barack Obama's response to Donald Trump's claims of wiretapping does not deny it happened, merely that he ordered it.

Barack Obama’s spokesman Kevin Lewis has issued a statement on his behalf responding to President Trump’s tweets about the wiretaps of his office.
 
The statement reads as follows

A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice.  As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance of any US citizen.  Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.

This statement is classic Obama.  It appears on its face to be clear and complete, but in reality it is nothing of the sort
The statement does not deny that Donald Trump’s office in Trump Tower was wiretapped. Nor does it deny that Donald Trump’s ‘associates’ (a flexible word the precise meaning of which has never been made clear) or members of his campaign team were placed under surveillance.

Instead it indirectly denies that Obama himself or people working directly under him in the White House ordered these actions.  It does so by denying they have ever ordered surveillance of any US citizen, something which by the way is almost certainly true.

The statement hints than any order to wiretap Donald Trump’s office or for carrying out surveillance on Donald Trump’s ‘associates’ was the work of officials in the Justice Department, and it seeks to shift responsibility – or blame – onto them.

This too is almost certainly true. However it neglects to say that some of these officials were people whom Obama himself appointed, and who were therefore part of his administration.

Obama’s statement is a lawyer’s reply.  Obama is of course himself a lawyer, but there is no doubt this statement was prepared after consultation with his lawyers.  In fact they probably drafted it.

We are at a very early stage in this matter.  There are multiple investigations underway, some launched by the outgoing Obama administration against the incoming Trump administration, and some launched by the current Trump administration against the preceding Obama administration.  There are also separate inquiries underway in Congress.  It seems there are rules prohibiting public discussion of these inquiries or even in some cases disclosure of their existence.

Obama’s highly legalistic statement today – which reads very much like a defence statement – however gives a good flavour of the direction some of these inquiries are taking, and of the sort of defence of his actions which Obama – if pressed – will make.  As I have said previously, there is no doubt the wiretaps were legal since they were approved by a court.

 Unsurprisingly therefore Obama is taking a legal route to defend himself.

[Image: All-Ears-jpeg-sm.jpg]

Did Obama wiretap Trump during election? Cartoon from 2013 may shed some light. Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2013.

 http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/03/04...J3Fb0FB.99

[Image: 17098473_1637128712981011_10411408649964...e=5970E5F5]


No shit .
Doh
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - by Wook - 03-04-2017, 05:17 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)