Monday, May 20, 2019

Obstruction Got Nixon and Clinton: It Will Get Trump and Serve Justice Properly

Trump creating Constitutional crisis right in our face
(Showtime: Make no mistake about it)


Big News: Trump orders Don McGahn not to testify before Congress. This is clearly a blatant and obvious obstruction of justice move by Trump – there is no doubt about that.

My view: The House must commence impeachment now – see historical examples below:

WASHINGTON (NY TIMES) — Trump today (Monday, May 20, 2019) directed his former White House counsel, Don McGahn to defy a congressional subpoena and skip a hearing scheduled for Tuesday (May 21, 2019) thus denying House Democrats testimony from one of the most important eyewitnesses to Trump’s attempts to obstruct the Russia investigation.

The House Judiciary Committee had subpoenaed McGahn to appear. The White House presented McGahn and the committee with a 15-page legal opinion from the DOJ stating: Congress may not constitutionally compel the president’s senior advisers to testify about their official duties.”

Pat Cipollone, current White House counsel, wrote the letter to the Judiciary Committee and added:Because of this constitutional immunity, and in order to protect the prerogatives of the office of the presidency, the president has directed Mr. McGahn not to appear at the Committee’s scheduled hearing on Tuesday.”

McGahn now technically faces a choice over whether to show up to the hearing and parry questions from Democrats or skip the session altogether. 

McGahn has maintained throughout that he will follow the White House’s guidance, according to a person close to him.

Democrats on the Judiciary Committee were livid, if not entirely surprised by the White House’s intervention. The committee’s chairman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said last week that he was prepared to have his panel vote to hold McGahn in contempt of Congress if he does not show up on Tuesday.

Though a black mark on a witness’s record, a contempt citation would most likely result in the House turning to a federal court to try to enforce its subpoena. 

At the same time, if he defies the White House, McGahn could not only damage his own career in Republican politics but also put his law firm, Jones Day, at risk of having the president urge his allies to withhold their business. 

The firm’s Washington practice is closely affiliated with the Republican Party. A lawyer for Mr. McGahn declined to comment on Monday.

Note: History is Not on Trump’s Side in this Case. Two examples illustrate this point:

Richard M. NIXON: He refused to release W/H tapes, but on July 24, 1974, the Supreme Court ordered him to comply. On July 27, 29, and 30, 1974, the House Committee approved three articles of impeachment: (1) obstruction of justice, (2) abuse of power, and (3) contempt of Congress. Facing that, Nixon resigned a few days later.

William J. “BILL” CLINTON: He was impeached in December 1998 by the House of Representatives and led to a trial in the Senate on two charges: (1) obstruction of justice, and (2) perjury. He was not removed from office.

Related from Business Insider – this key part:

W/H press secretary Sarah Sanders pointed to a new memo from the DOJ’s OLC: Stating that, based on long-standing, bipartisan, and Constitutional precedent. The former Counsel to the President cannot be forced to give such testimony, and Mr. McGahn has been directed to act accordingly.” 

Indeed, the OLC memo said:Congress may not constitutionally compel the President's senior advisers to testify about their official duties.”

But as legal experts were quick to point out, the opinion doesn't account for one important possibility: McGahn choosing to testify before lawmakers.

From Steve Vladeck, Law Professor at the University of Texas wrote on Twitter:McGahn does NOT have to comply with Trump's instruction: The key here is what the OLC opinion does not say - that McGahn can be barred from voluntarily testifying before Congress. All it says on that front is that he can't be punished for refusing to testify (Part IV), not that the President has any means of stopping him from doing so. Whether or not the OLC opinion is correct that McGahn can't be punished for refusing to testify (which is the weakest part of the analysis, in my view), there's nothing in these 15 pages that remotely supports the idea that McGahn can somehow be 'blocked from testifying.”

Eric Columbus, who served as senior counsel to the deputy attorney general under former President Barack Obama, echoed that view, tweeting:McGahn does NOT have to comply with Trump's instruction.”

The OLC memo said in part:Coercing senior presidential advisers into situations where they must repeatedly decline to provide answers, citing executive privilege, would be inefficient and contrary to good-faith governance.”

Eric Columbus then tweeted:Executive privilege has no force against a former employee who wants to testify.”

My 2 cents: As I said above, history on this subject is against Trump.

We shall see – probably will go to the USSC – we shall see. Stay tuned.

Thanks for stopping by.

Saturday, May 18, 2019

Trump "No Collusion, No Obstruction, Totally Exonerated: Oops Not Quite Yet

From Mueller: Disputes total Trump exoneration claim

Tosses ball to Congress IAW Rules Mueller Followed

Trump says Mueller totally cleared him of “collusion” (which is not a real crime) and obstruction justice (which is a real crime).

Two short reminders of that:

Trump when Mueller report hit the news

From CBS news highlights from Mueller  

Recent obstruction: Trump told former W/H counsel Don McGahn to “Fire Sessions” then double-talked and lied about that.

Then Trump asked Corey Lewandowski to deliver a letter to Sessions about being fired. (Note: Lewandowski did not and also he did not tell Trump he didn’t), but all that was overhead by Reince Priebus and Hope Hicks at the time.

Then later another effort and suggestion by Trump to “remove Mueller” spoken to McGahn – that followed (again) by another Trump denial about any instructions to McGahn to lie about that, too.

Two related story sources:

Analysis from the Washington Post (via MSN) from Glenn Kessler.

Specific pages (74 to 97) in the Mueller Report from Just Security.

My 2 cents: Trump’s efforts to obstruct were not only his major concern. But, about what Mueller found, or did not find.

Trump efforts are clearly outlined in Mueller report for one purpose: Trump was afraid of what Mueller would find (monetary ties to Russia, and elsewhere and yes, exposure from the so-called “pee-pee tapes” or far worse) by some notions.

That is 100% clear in my mind as I read Trump’s efforts to obstruct as outlined in Mueller and redacted out – un-redacted is the proof or not we need to see.

And, continuing we see why Trump is still worried sick and trying every way possible to block former aides from testifying before Congress and telling them to not hand over documents and such.

This truly is worse than Watergate and the worse crisis ever and still developing daily it seems.

Stay tuned, and thanks for stopping by.

Friday, May 10, 2019

Giuliani Seeks Ukraine Help for Trump 2020: Truly Astonishing and Troublesome Story

Who me? I'm off to Ukraine to get help for 2020 win.
Why you asking? Nothing illegal about that.
(Psst: Overt now; then Covert later, right, Rudy)

MAJOR UPDATE (May 11, 2019) (new photo updated too):


Giuliani scraps his plans to go the Ukraine and seek their help to benefit Trump in 2020 – has now scrapped those plans citing concerns about who he would be dealing with there.

My insert: LOL LOL LOL – what a joke – he got tons of heat for a stupid, perhaps even unlawful idea in the first place – what a moron Rudy Gee is … a sad, sad human being.

NEW YORK (PBS from The AP) — Democrats (and others) denounced a plan by Trump’s personal attorney to push Ukraine to open investigations that he hopes could benefit Trump politically, saying it was an overt attempt to recruit foreign help to influence a U.S. election.

Now, Giuliani has scrapped plans to visit Ukraine, citing concerns about who he would be dealing with there saying in part to Fox News on Friday (May 10):I’ve decided … I’m not going to go to the Ukraine. I’m not going to go because I think I’m walking into a group of people that are enemies of the president … in some cases enemies of the United States, and in one case an already convicted person who has been found to be involved in assisting the Democrats with the 2016 election.”

(My 2nd insert: LOL LOL LOL: What a weasel Giuliani is).

Giuliani had said earlier (re: original article below) that he would to travel to Kiev in the coming days to urge the government: (1) to investigate the origins of special counsel Robert Mueller’s recently concluded probe into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, and (2) about the involvement of former Vice President Joe Biden’s son worked in a gas company as attorney adviser that was owned by a Ukrainian oligarch.

Joe Biden is the early Democratic front-runner to challenge Trump in the 2020 election. The Biden campaign has denied that Biden or his son, Hunter, did anything improper (clarified and explained below):

Background on that follows from article journalist:

The trouble began when right-wing bloggers sought to meld two points into a single conspiracy in which Joe Biden had the prosecutor sacked to protect his son’s business interests. On this particular issue, I have a genuine insight into what happened, having written extensively about Hunter Biden’s ex-employer, Mykola Zlochevsky. As a result, when journalists seek the fire behind the smoke in the Biden-Ukraine tale, they often call to ask my opinion.

Many are eager to flesh out what seems a satisfyingly simple conspiracy, but I have to tell them: It isn’t true. The timeline doesn’t work. 

The investigation into Burisma, Hunter Biden’s employer, had ground to a halt long before the prosecutor was sacked

A subsequent probe into the company’s owner was opened because of a request from Ukrainian legislators, not because of prosecutorial initiative.

There is, in short, no there there; the bloggers are putting two and two together — and coming up with 22.


My Original Post Follows:

WASHINGTON (NY Times) — Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s personal lawyer, is encouraging Ukraine to wade further into sensitive political issues in the United States, seeking to push the incoming government in Kiev to press ahead with investigations that he hopes will benefit Trump.

Giuliani said he plans to travel to Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in the coming days and wants to meet with the nation’s president-elect to urge him to pursue inquiries that allies of the White House contend could yield new information about two matters of intense interest to Trump:

* One is the origin of the special counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

* The other is the involvement of former Vice President Joe Biden’s son in a gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch.

(Related from the Washington Post here).

Giuliani’s plans create the remarkable scene of a lawyer for the president of the United States pressing a foreign government to pursue investigations that Trump’s allies hope could help him in his re-election campaign. 

And it comes after Trump spent more than half of his term facing questions about whether his 2016 campaign conspired with a foreign power.

Giuliani said:We’re not meddling in an election, we’re meddling in an investigation, which we have a right to do.”

Then he added:There’s nothing illegal about it. Somebody could say it’s improper. And this isn’t foreign policy — I’m asking them to do an investigation that they’re doing already and that other people are telling them to stop. And I’m going to give them reasons why they shouldn’t stop it because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government.”

My 2 cents: So, benefiting from a foreign government’s election help (Ukraine) to enable Trump to win in 2020 is okay, but it was “a lie, a hoax, a witch hunt, and not collusion” in 2016 when the focus was on Russia helping Trump win?

What crock of s**t to say the least. So, this approach and words from the personal attorney of the President of United States is okay just because he says so?

This is truly an amazing and astonishing story. This should be a campaign issue of grave concern. Why? How can we trust any information from Ukraine, when we weren’t willing to believe or trust info from Russia (tongue-in-cheek intended)?

This amounts to a ton of hypocritical GOP BS and it is a huge disconnect with the public’s best interests and truly unbelievable.

I guess Rudy Gee's bottom line, if successful will be to say like Trump, Jr. said about getting Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton: If true, I love it.

Thanks for stopping by.



Tuesday, May 7, 2019

Donald J. Trump Abuse of Power & Obstruction of Justice: Judge, Jury, Executioner

Trump: Fired Comey (Disloyal); Wanted DOJ to Prosecute 
Clinton (Political Opponent); told McGahn to Fire Mueller
and Now to Keep Quiet


Trump at it again: Lawlessness, abuse of power, one-man showboating, and more blatant obstruction of justice – when will this nightmare end? The latest follows:

ABC News story and with 3-minute video below and letter to congress are also included.

W/H tells Congress in essence “Don McGahn won’t testify” and has been told to ignore your subpoena. So, Trump instructions to McGahn apparently are: “Mum’s the word, so zip it.”

If McGahn had been Trump’s personal attorney, then yes, attorney-client privilege would apply, but McGahn was White House attorney, ergo: He was the people’s attorney not Trump’s personal attorney like Michael Cohen was.




My 2 cents: What does all mean? Well judicial showdown in the making just like when Nixon pulled his obstruction of justice and abuse of power ploys. Trump is following suit and this may be worse.

We shall see, but I honestly believe that Congress is on firm legal ground – Trump is not. 

This whole mess is what many predicted: A Constitutional crisis ala Donald J. Trump’s making. As plain as day.

This image comes to mind encompassing this president everything thus far:


Thanks for stopping by.

Friday, May 3, 2019

GOP Dirty Tricks: Past from Atwater, Stone, Rove, and Bannon — Now From Trump

Fetch Lies and Dirty Tricks” 
(Good Dawg) 

Trump's fav phrase Fake News
(But, never fake from him)

Whew boy, here we go again … Trump camp dirty tricks redux – related article for 2020 election (a run down on DEM candidates here).

This story headline:

Lock her up redux? Biden’s son becomes the right’s new target

Highlights and introduction from this story:

Trump’s political allies and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani have begun mobilizing to cast a legal cloud over Joe Biden and demanding that the DOJ should open an investigation that could ensnare the former vice president as he launches his 2020 presidential bid.

Giuliani (May 2) tweet:Biden conflicts are too apparent to be ignored and should be investigated quickly and expeditiously.”

The suggestion of illegal behavior and the specter of putting a political opponent behind bars sounded familiar to some senior campaign aides to Hillary Clinton, who believe Trump and his allies are running a version of their “Crooked Hillary” playbook from 2016.

Says Jesse Ferguson, a senior spokesperson on the Clinton campaign: Last time, he had the right-wing conspiracy media to boost his chants of lock her up, but this time he's going to actually weaponize the federal government against our nominee.”

The attacks on Biden pivot off the lucrative business activities of his son Hunter during the Obama administration, most notably Hunter’s work on the board of a Ukrainian energy company, Burisma Holdings.

As part of a long campaign to pressure Ukraine to combat corruption in 2015 and 2016, then-Vice President Biden leveraged financial aid to the country in order to persuade the government to fire the country’s top prosecutor.

Full story continues at the link.

My 2 cents: What is driving this latest? This might help answer that:

* Giuliani has been suggesting that the Biden case must be investigated as part of the larger inquiry into the origins of the Russia investigation, which may involve Ukraine. 

In a Fox News interview in early April, Giuliani spoke at length about the Biden case but said it was only because of broader questions about the Russia investigation, saying: “I'm bringing it up now because I want Ukraine — I don't care about Joe Biden. I want that Ukraine investigated. Because I think in the Ukraine, we are going to find a lot of answers for how the Steele dossier was put together.

Then AG Barr told Congress that he is looking into the origins of the Russia investigation.

* KEY BACKGROUND:  Some veterans of Democratic presidential campaigns see echoes of 2016 in the way the story had staying power in the conservative media ecosystem and then gradually reemerged into the mainstream.

Dan Pfeiffer, former Obama aide, tweeted:It's happening all over again. Peter Schweizer does oppo research funded by conservative interests -- > NYT credulously writes it up -- > Trump and his allies bully the DOJ into investigating -- > Trump claims his opponent is corrupt.”

Ken Vogel, the story’s author responded: “If you think this is oppo from @peterschweizer or @RudyGiuliani, you did not read the story very carefully.

Schweizer then responded to Pfeiffer on Twitter:It's called investigative journalism not oppo research. What facts to do dispute?”

More info on Schweizer: He is a conservative journalist who published “Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends” in 2018, a book looking at potential corruption of Republican and Democratic establishment figures. 

On the cover, Biden features prominently and is joined by Barack Obama, Mitch McConnell, Jared Kushner, and John Kerry. The book dedicates significant portions to Hunter Biden’s private-sector work, including in Ukraine.

Schweizer also is the author of the 2015 bookClinton Cash” with the encouragement of Breitbart’s Steve Bannon.

He is also the president of the Government Accountability Institute, a group funded by the Mercer family — which also bankrolled Breitbart at the time of “Clinton Cash.” The book was ultimately cited in a large investigation by The New York Times about a Russia uranium deal and a subsequent story about the Clinton Foundation’s work in Haiti.

More on that Uranium-One story here and my input:

Bogus Claim: Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, was involved of the transfer of U.S. uranium reserves to the new Russian owners of an international mining operation in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Facts: The mining company, Uranium One, was originally based in South Africa, but merged in 2007 with Canada-based UrAsia Energy.
Shareholders there retained a controlling interest until 2010, when Russia’s nuclear agency, Ros-atom, completed purchase of a 51% stake.

Hillary Clinton played a part in the transaction insofar as it involved the transfer of ownership of a material deemed important to national security — uranium, amounting to one-fifth of U.S. reserves (a fraction re-estimated by the NRC at closer to one-tenth of the United States’ uranium production capacity in 2017) — thus requiring the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), on which the U.S. Secretary of State sits but NOT voting major member.

During the same time frame that the acquisition took place, the Clinton Foundation accepted contributions from nine individuals associated with Uranium One totaling more than $100 million, book written by the discredited author of the book: CLINTON CASH): Peter Schweizer, former Sarah Palin campaign operative.

Peter Schweizer’s book is poorly written, sloppily documented, and proves nothing that suggested any wrongdoing by either Bill or Hillary Clinton.


B/L: This is how the GOP operates: They duck, dodge, deflect, and deny everything away from themselves while painting all DEMS, Hillary Clinton, and Obama and devils and the worst people ever on Earth – this is their latest stunt. Will it work – probably?

Thanks for stopping by and stay tuned for more on this subject and dirty tricks.




Sunday, April 28, 2019

Trump: The Man, The Con, The Liar, Where We Are, Where We Go Now Post-Mueller

Trump Responds to Being Told Special Counsel Appointed

Trump Written Responses to Mueller Questions
(Best Memory Ever He Once Said)

So, Impeach Trump or Not
(Poll changes with new info)

Now a historical fact: The public was duped about Donald J. Trump from day-one. Here is a very fine reminder from American Prospect (October 2018).

FACT: Trump loyalists “provoked and stoked by Trump and his raw hatred for DEMS, Hillary Clinton, or anyone else hit with his rabid insults, name-calling, and sick nasty labeling apparently then and now means more to them than any reality about the real not the reel Trump.”

Even as he ran for president it was obvious that Trump was not simply someone who ignored some inconvenient rules or regularly stretched the truth in his life's work of self-promotion. 

He may well be the single-most corrupt major business figure in America. Not so much because of the scale of his corruption — there are Wall Street bankers who pulled scams with bigger dollar amounts — but because of its variety, its sheer depravity, and the way it was woven into everything Trump ever did or continues to do. He is the poster for being an expert con-artist.

Trump was: Scamming struggling people out of their money for bogus Trump University, lending his name to pyramid schemesrefusing to pay vendors, exploiting foreign workers with less-than-legal wages or flat out using illegal labordoing business with the mob, or building properties that for some mysterious reason became the go-to vehicle for Russian oligarchs and mobsters to launder their money.

Trump's corruption is so comprehensive and widespread that it's difficult to imagine him in his pre-presidential life getting through a single day without pulling a con on somebody. 

Now over two years into his presidency, we're still learning more about his unethical behavior and, yes, the crimes pointed out in the Mueller report – and getting the un-redacted version will seal Trump’s fate and rightly so.

Finally this reminder how we got to where we are now – short 3-minute clip from Meet the Press segment – an excellent review:



My 2 cents: Boy how millions have been duped, or as Trump would say: “Bigly, believe me, bigly, best ever.”

Thanks for stopping by and sharing this reminder, as if anyone needed to be reminded just how awful Trump is – even as he reminds us daily.



Saturday, April 27, 2019

Trump Happy-Feet Dance: No Collusion, No Obstruction Says 100 Percent Cleared

Trump Tweet Plagiarizes Game of Thrones Movie Title


No Trump “Obstruction” Right? Not quite – cite from Mueller the buzz (and celebrating) from Trump and his sycophants:

Lead-in Introduction:Last week’s release of Robert Mueller’s report, even in redacted form, highlights a president and his regime typified by disdain for the rule of law, democratic norms, and any principles…”

Part of Barr’s rationale for exonerating Trump on obstruction, even though Mueller hadn’t, was that Mueller had cleared Trump of conspiracy as Barr wrote in in initial summary: 

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that 'the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,’ and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction.”

It’s correct that the lack of an underlying crime can be a mitigating circumstance when it comes to obstruction; if you don’t have something to cover up, after all, it suggests your intent wasn’t so corrupt but, in this case, there were underlying crimes — lots of them.

* Trump’s own aides pleaded guilty to lying at various junctures.
* Trump Campaign Chairman, Paul Manafort, was convicted of a series of crimes.
* Trump’s personal lawyer and so-called “FixerMichael Cohen is ready to start his 3-year prison term.
* Trump himself has even been implicated in Cohen-related crimes, e.g., campaign finance violations (checks as proof).

Trump rather obviously didn’t like the story line that Russia made the difference in electing him, so he also had a political motive to want to hamper the investigation. 

When Trump was told Mueller had been appointed a special counsel, Trump said: I’m f—ked” and “This is end of my presidency.”

So the idea that Trump had nothing to hide — including crimes — by obstructing the investigation is pretty far-fetched.

Trump accused of crimes in the Cohen case: An offshoot of the above is the argument that not only are there underlying crimes, but also that Trump himself has been accused of one. But that’s just not true.

FYI: Trump has indeed been named by the SDNY as a participant in Cohen’s campaign finance violations, which relate to the hush-money payments made to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal.

However, being named as part of a scheme isn’t the same as being accused of a crime. Routine fact twisting ala Trump: He argues that he didn’t direct Cohen to do anything illegal, even trusted him not to, all the while tasking Cohen with handling the hush money payments.

How ironic is that – the worst part and SOP for Trump: He expects and demands to be believed and trusted.

As it was with Mueller, it’s not clear whether the SDNY isn’t accusing Trump of a crime because he’s a sitting president or because it hasn’t established that his conduct was criminal, or just as with Mueller, it’s possible the SDNY thinks Trump committed a crime but just can’t or won’t say so. 

But we simply don’t know at this point, so to say Trump has been accused of a crime is wrong. To say he’s been implicated in one is more accurate.

Thanks for stopping by and sharing this fine article.

Sunday, April 21, 2019

Giuliani Certifiable: “There’s nothing wrong with taking information from Russians.”

With a lawyer like Rudy Gee, how can you lose?
(Easily is my first guess)


Quite long post re: timeline on the issue of “collusion” (from Axios): Cooperating or benefitting from Russian 2016 interference.

November 11, 2016: Hope Hicks denies a report that Russian experts were in contact with the Trump campaign: “It never happened. There was no communication between the campaign and any foreign entity during the campaign.”

December. 18, 2016: Kellyanne Conway denies that there was any contact between the campaign and Russians:Those conversations never happened. I hear people saying it like it’s a fact on television. That is just not only inaccurate and false, but it’s dangerous.”

February. 16, 2017: Trump says during a press conference:I have nothing to do with Russia. To the best of my knowledge no person that I deal with does.”

March 2017: Donald Trump Jr. says: “Did I meet with people that were Russian? I’m sure, I’m sure I did. ... But none that were set up. None that I can think of at the moment.”

I note for Trump Jr: Does not June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Kushner and Manafort and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya not ring a bell – oops.

July 8, 2017: Trump Jr. responds to a Times report about the now-infamous June Trump Tower meeting with a Kremlin-linked lawyer: “We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at that time and there was no follow-up.”

July 9, 2017: Trump Jr. issues a second statement, after it's revealed that he set up the meeting after being promised damaging information on Hillary Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.”

December. 28, 2017: Trump says in an interview with the Times, “There is no collusion, and even if there was, it’s not a crime.”

July 29, 2018: Giuliani says on Fox News, “When I say the Trump campaign, I mean the upper levels of the Trump campaign. I have no reason to believe anybody else [colluded]. The only ones I checked with obviously are the top four or five people.”

May 16, 2018: Giuliani tells Fox News' Laura Ingraham that looking for political dirt is a common practice, but that the important thing is that the campaign didn't use it: “Even if it comes from a Russian, or a German, or an American, it doesn’t matter. And they never used it, is the main thing. They never used it. They rejected it.”

July 30, 2018: Giuliani doubles down on collusion not being a crime: “I don't even know if that's a crime, colluding with Russians. Hacking is the crime. The president didn't hack! He didn't pay for the hacking.”

December. 16, 2018: Giuliani addresses reports that Michael Cohen has given special counsel Robert Mueller valuable information about possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia: “I have no idea what they're talking about. I know that collusion is not a crime. It was over with by the time of the election.”

January. 16, 2019: Giuliani says on CNN, “I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or between people in the campaign…If the collusion happened, it happened a long time ago.”

April 21, 2019, Giuliani on live TV, proof positive, I believe that shows that Giuliani is patently insane by any definition and that “collusion” in any form was at the heart of the Trump-Russian connection – even though “collusion (the word)” is not a coded crime, but everything connected with it is – a huge difference in my mind.

Here is CNN interview with Giuliani (with this 3-minute video segment) – absolutely insane man – totally and combative defending Trump.

Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union” Sunday (April 21): “There’s nothing wrong with taking information from Russians.”

That remark came after Tapper asked Giuliani to comment on a statement from Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) who responded to the findings of the Mueller report saying that he was appalled members of the Trump campaign “welcomed help from Russia.”

Giuliani said about Romney, alleging he had accepted dirt on people while running for president against former President Barack Obama in 2012 saying to Tapper: “Stop the bull. Stop the pious act.”

Tapper pressed him asking him if there was a difference between taking opposition research from Americans and taking it from American adversaries.

Giuliani said before even concluding about Romney:What a hypocrite. Any candidate in the world — in America — would take information. Who says it’s even illegal?”

Related these statements here from Former US Attorney Preet Bharara, a CNN legal analyst, said in a separate interview during the same program:

The idea that it is OK, separate and apart from it being a criminal offense, that we should be telling future candidates in the run-up to an election in 2020 that if an adversary, a foreign adversary, is offering information against a political opponent, that it's okay and right and proper and American and patriotic, it seems he's saying, to take that information and that's okay – that's an extraordinary statement and I would hope he would retract it.”

My 2 cents and notes: Hey, Rudy Gee, you’re the lawyer and you should know this part of the law – I’m a mere novice but I found out what the law says. To wit from US Legal.com.

The offense of property possession of stolen property is made up of two parts:

First: A person charged with this offense must have property that was (or was partly) gained by theft, fraud, or any other crime.

Second: The person must have known that the property was stolen or gained by fraud. Also, if the prosecutor can show that it was obvious that a reasonable person would have thought the property was stolen and the accused failed to investigate whether it was stolen or not, he or she can be found guilty of possession of stolen property.

Plus this critical point re: hacked emails and right of free speech argument to possess & use them, etc., extract here from this lengthy article (The Atlantic):

While there is no evidence that the Trump campaign aided in the Russian hacking of Hillary Clinton, John Podesta, and DNC, campaign-finance laws prohibit candidates from accepting “anything of value from a foreign national.”

The Trump campaign could face legal exposure, then, if a prosecutor could prove that Trump or his campaign associates made an agreement with Russia to publish the stolen emails — which were clearly valuable to the campaign, given how often Trump quoted from them during rallies — via a third party such as WikiLeaks, as Bob Bauer, a former White House counsel to President Barack Obama, has written.

So, is that part done? I don’t think so – it may be part of those two ongoing Mueller referrals or the 12 state criminal referrals – time will tell.

Related this lawsuit address this topic (111 pages) and can be read here – cases filed in the SDNY.

Thanks for stopping by.