Posted on 01/18/2019 10:07:04 AM PST by Seizethecarp
When Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) asked President Trump’s nominee for attorney general, William P. Barr, earlier this week whether it would be a crime if “the president tried to coach somebody not to testify, or testify falsely,” Barr was unequivocal: “Yes,” the nominee told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Under an obstruction statute, yes.”
Now that an explosive story published Thursday by BuzzFeed News alleges that Trump did just that, by ordering Michael Cohen, his former attorney, to lie to Congress, Barr’s answer presents the White House with a new quandary — the president’s own choice for the nation’s top law enforcement official has described such conduct as “classic” obstruction of justice. Barr said the same when pressed by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), as well as in his own written statements. He has affirmed his view at least three times, both in a once-private memo and in sworn testimony.
The White House’s difficulty isn’t that Barr spoke out of turn or betrayed an unconventional opinion in line with Democratic talking-points, said David Alan Sklansky, a Stanford law professor. The problem for Trump, who pushed out Jeff Sessions as attorney general after seething that he had failed to protect him from the inquiry led by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, is rather that a view more favorable to the president would have been indefensible, the criminal law scholar said.
The nominee’s clearly stated judgment "limits his ability to take a particular position in defense of the president, but that position would have been an untenable one anyway,” Sklansky said in an interview with The Washington Post. “It would have been more awkward to defend the nomination of an attorney general who didn’t think this is obstruction of justice. It’s not a controversial position.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Knowing a little bit now about what kind of a man and what kind of President he is, do you think President Trump will stand for any of these devious plans the corrupt dim party might be planning.
I have never felt more secure in the knowledge that our President has all that is necessary to go on offense against these cretins.
“There are 20 Bush League Republican Senators that would love to get rid of President Trump”
They value their own careers far, far more.
It would be certain and immediate political suicide for any Republican.
These dolts think that we're going to sit around and let them remove President Trump, and then come for our guns afterwards.
Gonna be the opposite of that, Bozochildren. ;-)
Nothing about Trump’s campaign or adm. can come NEAR the “O” level of fraud, corruption, incompetence, nepotism, lies, treason, malfeasance, executive OVER REACH....etc.
NOTHING!!
Trump is verbally careless, however, and he could have written anything. Including something that could be construed as a smoking gun.
Could Cohen bring Trump down? Ask yourself if David Kendall, had he flipped and told the truth about any number of things, could have brought Bill Clinton down. That didn't happen because BillyJeff had the sense to hire a real lawyer, of the tough and elite variety, not a bottom feeding grifter.
On another note, I keep hearing about videos at You Tube regarding envelopes First Ladies and some others received at the Bush funeral. What is that about? Not one media outlet has covered this.
Reportedly?
This seems to be following the same pattern that brought the Pee Dossier to light.
Buzzfeed reports that ‘a’ dossier exists. Other news outlets report that Buzzfeed claims a dossier exists. None of them reported that said dossier was paid for by Team Clinton through shell groups.
Now, the newsies are reporting that Buzzfeed is reporting that Trump told Cohen to lie. Even one of the two reporters who broke said story now claims the report was based on unseen documentation from other sources.
Why not repeat the pattern? It sort of worked the first time.
Don't assume that it's fake news. The Democrat senators probably know exactly what Mueller has, and they are preparing the battlefield.
I’ve always been of the impression that Trump doesn’t even use email.
But somehow the reporter can’t remember where he got that info from?
So we had better look to Nathan Bedford Forrest for advice in that situation.
Sounds like they are tying to ramp up another investigation based on made up BS stories published on BS media sites just like the whole Russia collusion BS investigation.
Can you clarify something? The Russia Trump Tower stuff ended in 2016. Cohen testified to Congress in 2017. Or am I wrong about the latter?
So Democrats are concerned about lying. Why did they decide twenty years ago to acquit President Cllntion of perjury?
President Trump didn’t lie under the oath. All Democrats have is the uncorroborated allegation of a convicted felon the President told him to lie to Congress.
Hardly a credible witness, a perjurer who’ll say anything to get favorable treatment.
And even if it was true - so what? It doesn’t involve abuse or malfeasance of public office.
Trump doesn’t use email nor texts. Big thing is why would it be significant for Cohen to lie about the Tower project to Congress, it doesn’t seem like a big deal to tell someone to lie about it
Maybe the news of the dossier wasn’t fake, because it did exist, but it was based on manufactured unverified evidence.
No worries, it will only take Mueller another 2 or 6 years to investigate this, depending on whether Trump is reelected or not.
The Swamp wouldn't have violated attorney-client privilege to "get" Rapin Bill.
I don't know. One of the other stories made reference to internal company communications, and any emails could, I suppose, have been written by others.
I am entirely agnostic about the Buzzfeed story. Perhaps it is another false report. Perhaps Mueller has something. Trump is incredibly careless verbally. I hope he is more careful in writing, but based on his tweets, I wouldn't bet on it.
The fact that Trump was interested in doing a deal in Moscow has always been well know. The fact that Trump, at X point in the campaign, said he had no business dealings in Russia is on the record. We can speculate endlessly about hypotheticals. Trump may have said, sort of truthfully, that he had no business dealing, even though at that very moment he was diligently working to pull off a deal. This would rest on making the distinction that his hope of a future deal did not, in the present tense, constitute a business interest in Russia. That would be a messy distinction to defend, especially with virtually the entire news media howling his guilt, but if that is where we are, Trump needs to be very, very careful about what he says. And we need to hope he has careful and consistent in what he has said in the past.
I seem to recall a furor over, It depends on what the meaning of the word is, is." I hope that's not where this is headed.
Another hypothetical is that Trump will take the position that the Moscow deal became an unlikely, low-priority backburner project sometime in 2015, and that later updates continuing through the 2016 primary season were perfunctory and essentially immaterial. Or that lower level people kept working the project but that Trump's personal involvement was de minimis. A whole lot of stories will need to line up properly to hold that together.
Or perhaps the Buzzfeed story is yet another exercise in guilt by innuendo, based on stringing together trivialities viewed in the worst possible light.
The sooner Mueller makes his report, the better.
I am not saying this is true but the leftists in the 1990’s during the Clinton impeachment scandal told us that suborning perjury is not big deal, impossible to prove and is never really ever prosecuted. Anyone else remember that?
Ok so its a “bombshell” “crime” for somebody to express reluctance to having their personal lawyer testify about them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.