President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

Brilliant move by Giuliani, there is now no Campaign Financial law crime that the Never-Trumpers can scream about.

As for firing Comey, no it is not Obstruction of Justice. Article 2 of the Constitution allows the President of the United States to fire any Executive Branch Employee for any reason, at any time. Comey needed to be fired, he did a sloppy job with the Crooked Hillary Email Investigation, potentially allowed subordinates to give Hillary a pass. Not acceptable, plus he would not tell people, Trump was not under investigation, with also the recommendation from Rod Rosenstein, Trump can legally fire the FBI Director as he chooses.

Giuliani spoke to the President after revealing the reimbursement, Trump was very happy with him, had spoke before hand.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Mick

Brilliant move by Giuliani, there is now no Campaign Financial law crime that the Never-Trumpers can scream about.

As for firing Comey, no it is not Obstruction of Justice. Article 2 of the Constitution allows the President of the United States to fire any Executive Branch Employee for any reason, at any time. Comey needed to be fired, he did a sloppy job with the Crooked Hillary Email Investigation, potentially allowed subordinates to give Hillary a pass. Not acceptable, plus he would not tell people, Trump was not under investigation, with also the recommendation from Rod Rosenstein, Trump can legally fire the FBI Director as he chooses.

Giuliani spoke to the President after revealing the reimbursement, Trump was very happy with him, had spoke before hand.

Must be getting a bit tiring covering for Trump all the time Mick !

It's sort of irrelevant what Giuliani says though. Either there is a record of this payment or there isn't.

Originally Posted by Mr K

Must be getting a bit tiring covering for Trump all the time Mick !

Not covering for anyone just being realistic and factual, without suffering from Trump derangement syndrome.

In other news, U.S prisoners are to be released from North Korea, at the request of President Trump, huge huge potential story of the decade, Obama’s tried and failed (like he failed at other things) not one sniff in the one sided liberal press. They are Pathetic.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Mick

Not covering for anyone just being realistic and factual, without suffering from Trump derangement syndrome.

In other news, U.S prisoners are to be released from North Korea, at the request of President Trump, huge huge potential story of the decade, Obama’s tried and failed (like he failed at other things) not one sniff in the one sided liberal press. They are Pathetic.

Yes being liberal is terrible isn't it ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libera..._United_States

Liberalism in the United States is a broad political philosophy centered on the unalienable rights of the individual. The fundamental liberal ideals of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion for all belief systems, and the separation of church and state, right to due process, and equality under the law are widely accepted as a common foundation across the spectrum of liberal thought.

Horrifying stuff.

Still no comment on the prisoners release thanks to Trump I see..

When it comes to the news, yes it is terrible.

You're pissed off all the time with Corbyn being smeared in the UK media, this one lopsidedness hysteria in the media, with Trump is NO different!!!

Originally Posted by Mick

Still no comment on the prisoners release thanks to Trump I see..

When it comes to the news, yes it is terrible.

You're pissed off all the time with Corbyn being smeared in the UK media, this one lopsidedness hysteria in the media, with Trump is NO different!!!

Do you mean besides CNN, the Washington Post, the Independent, USA Today, The Hill, NBC, the Telegraph, the BBC, the New York Post, the Washington Post, the Financial Times, Newsweek, Sky, Reuters, and NPR?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...033_story.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/03/polit...ers/index.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8334111.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ing/575125002/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-43983719

http://thehill.com/policy/internatio...isoner-release

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/t...-camps-n870966

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...cans-detained/

https://nypost.com/2018/05/02/north-...ng-with-trump/

https://www.ft.com/content/871bce30-...e-22951a2d8493

http://www.newsweek.com/north-korea-...g-trump-908695

https://news.sky.com/story/north-kor...ports-11356535

http://www.reuters.tv/v/tvr/2018/05/...ave-been-moved

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...in-north-korea

re one-sided smearing of Trump, what about what I posted earlier today - it was Fox News who said Guiliani had contradicted Trump, and that was a problem - were Fox News smearing Trump?

“You have the president on tape on Air Force One saying he did not know about the payment, and you’ll have to ask Michael Cohen about that,” Ingraham said. “Rudy just goes on with Hannity and says ‘Oh no, he reimbursed them.'”

"I love Rudy, but they better have an explanation for that,” she added. “That's a problem."

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/38...stormy-daniels

I could have saved you from all that googling Hugh by saying, no comments from Mr K on the prisoners release. You just wasted time with all that searching... My point still stands. The media is one sided and pathetic.

Originally Posted by Mick

I could have saved you from all that googling Hugh by saying, no comments from Mr K on the prisoners release. You just wasted time with all that searching... My point still stands. The media is one sided and pathetic.

It took me a few minutes - very little effort.

You said

not one sniff in the one sided liberal press. They are Pathetic.

I just provided evidence that your statement was "alternative facts".

Nope, you provided no such thing. You’re wrong yet again. My point still remains.

BREAKING: Federal Investigators wiretapped Trump lawyer, Michael Cohen, one call to White House said to have been intercepted.

This could put whomever authorised that wiretap in very serious legal peril, as intercepting calls to the White House breaches National Security and Executive Privilege laws.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/michae...18-5?r=US&IR=T

I assume they got a warrant to do so with the Judge who granted it being well aware of the implications.

[1andrew1]

Trump says he reimbursed lawyer for porn star ‘hush money’
The president originally told reporters in April that he had been unaware of the payment by attorney Michael Cohen to Stephanie Clifford, whose stage name is Stormy Daniels, shortly before the 2016 election.
However, Mr Trump wrote on Twitter on Thursday morning that Mr Cohen had entered into a non-disclosure agreement with Ms Clifford to “stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair”. Such agreements, the president added, are “very common among celebrities and people of wealth”.

https://www.ft.com/content/41ec33fa-...9-37318e776bab

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Mick

Nope, you provided no such thing. You’re wrong yet again. My point still remains.

He did provide it there for your point does not stand.

Originally Posted by Mick

Nope, you provided no such thing. You’re wrong yet again. My point still remains.

Your point that the liberal press weren’t covering Trump’s initiative on getting Korean prisoners released and I showed that they were?

OK, then...

---------- Post added at 20:47 ---------- Previous post was at 20:38 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

I assume they got a warrant to do so with the Judge who granted it being well aware of the implications.

This thread, by a US lawyer and former Federal prosecutor, explains it - Prosecutors would have detailed how they were handling calls that could be a privileged in their application for the wiretap, and the judge would have reviewed and approved it.

It’s worth reading.

Renato Mariotti
@renato_mariotti

Replying to @renato_mariotti
1/ Today @NBCNews reported that federal law enforcement wiretapped Michael Cohen’s phones in the weeks leading up to the search of his office, home, and hotel room.

Feds tapped Trump lawyer Michael Cohen's phones
nbcnews.com

2/ As a starting point, a wiretap means federal law enforcement was investigating *ongoing* criminal activity. In order to obtain a wiretap, investigators had to convince a judge that Cohen would use the phone to communicate regarding criminal activity during the 30-day period.

3/ That is different from a search warrant, which often seeks evidence of *past* crimes. To get the search warrant, the prosecutors had to convince the judge that evidence would be found in a location. That evidence (documents, etc.) could be about crimes from months ago.

4/ In contrast, the wiretap seeks the ability to intercept calls in the future. So the prosecutors had to convince the judge that there was good reason to believe that Cohen would have conversations that would be evidence of a crime within the next 30 days.

5/ Typically the way prosecutors do this is by recording a call between the person using the phone and a cooperator during which criminal activity is discussed. There are other ways to prove a phone is being used to discuss crime, but the evidence on that point must be solid.

6/ That isn’t enough, though, because wiretaps require prosecutors to convince the judge that the wiretap is *necessary.* If prosecutors can only prove that Cohen is talking with their cooperator, they don’t need a wiretap because they can just record calls with the cooperator.

7/ So prosecutors also have to show the judge that Cohen used the phone to communicate with others who are part of the criminal activity. This is typically done by looking at phone records and providing evidence that others in contact with the phone are committing crime.

8/ Wiretaps are difficult to get. A normal wiretap has to be approved by a supervisor at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, then by special attorneys at the Justice Department, then by a Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and then by a judge. This one certainly got additional scrutiny.

9/ Once a judge signs a warrant, calls are screened by monitors at the FBI. Each monitor listens and determines early in the call if it is (1) not related to criminal activity or (2) privileged. If they determine the call is unrelated to crime or privileged, they stop listening.

10/ (Sometimes they “spot check” calls that are very long to see if the previously unrelated to crime has taken a turn and is now about criminal activity.)

11/ It is highly unusual to wiretap an attorney’s phone because so many of the conversations could be privileged. A wiretap like this would receive extra scrutiny from the Justice Department and the judge even if Cohen didn’t represent the president.

12/ When a phone is wiretapped, typically the investigation is “covert.” In other words, the person doesn’t know they’re being investigated. If the investigation isn’t covert, the person is unlikely to use the phone to discuss crime.

13/ For that reason, prosecutors who have a wiretap typically keep the investigation under wraps even if the person is in the process of committing a crime, unless serious crimes are being committed that could harm others, evidence is being destroyed, or they have what they need.

14/ For that reason, the search warrants executed at Cohen’s home, office, and hotel room are now much more interesting. Executing a search warrant means that the investigation is no longer hidden, and in the most “in your face” way possible.

15/ Prosecutors had to know that if they executed the search warrants, Cohen would be much less likely to talk on the phone about crime going forward. So why ruin their wiretap? Either they already had enough evidence to make their case, or they thought he would destroy evidence.

16/ Either reason is very bad news for Cohen. So who told NBC News about the existence of the wiretap? My guess is either Cohen’s camp or Trump’s camp. The existence of the wiretap may have been revealed to them by prosecutors, and they could have reason to leak. /end

ADDENDUM: Prosecutors would have detailed how they were handling calls that could be a privileged in their application for the wiretap, and the judge would have reviewed and approved it.