Did Barr ask the SNDY to quit the of trump's campaign finance

[miketx]

What does "this plane" mean, loon? Are you losing your mind?

 

[SAYIT]

indictment? What happened?
-------------------------------------------------------------

Cummings has asked for SNDY to provide by Aug. 2 “all evidence collected about the role of any other individual in connection with the campaign finance charges against Cohen, including any evidence relating to the President, and copies of all immunity deals granted, or informal immunity agreement letters or non-prosecution agreements entered into, in this investigation.” The committee is also asking whether Barr or any other senior Justice Department officials weighed in on the case.

Dems ask whether DOJ memo prevented prosecuting Trump for hush payments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

So much hush hush about it. Not to mention tramp lied about it, but what is new, he always lies, he has made lying normal.

Your title makes no sense..
"Did Barr ask the SNDY to quit the of trump's campaign finance"

quit the what of trumps campaign finance?

WTF is the SNDY, anyway?

Poor Pene is more than a bit overcooked.

 

[SAYIT]

Cohen is sitting in prison because he lied for tramp and was involved in a campaign finance scheme, and tramp is not,

it comes down to IS TRAMP ABOVE THE LAW??

Cohen took a fake charge because he thought the fbi would reduce his sentence maybe it did lol

There's no such thing as a "fake charge", dope.

Really??? Then what was all that "Russia, Russia" BS about and WTF are our Hysterical House Dems pursuing with all their time, DOPE?

 

[Indeependent]

What lie?
Trump said he gave money.
You are psychotic.

No he said he knew nothing about it Cohen's deal with Daniels. Only when he was caught, did he said he gave the money.

But the payment was never reported and therefore violated campaign finance laws. You can't pay hush money, even from your own pocket, because to do so violates campaign finance laws, especially if what you're hushing up, would affect voters' opinions of you, like an with a porn star.

Going bareback with a porn star certainly puts the lie to Trump's "germaphobia". Any exchange of bodily fluids with a sex trade worker is high risk for infection.

Too bad Trump is on news video saying he paid off Slut via Cohen.
Where do you psychos hang out?

He lied in the plane. So tramp is above the law, your right wingers know this, but you say nothing. Like he said, he could shoot someone on 5th ave and you guys would defend him.

What plane?
He stated about 1,000 on camera that he had Cohen pay Slut to keep her mouth shut.
She didn’t.
Anything else, you demented pos?

This plane! Every word out of his mouth is a lie!

Cool...
And what did he say a mere week or so later?
He remembered and stated such about 1,000 times.
I think he’s probably screwed so many women he forgot he ordered this particular payment.
I’m surprised Trump, Clinton and Mick Jagger haven’t gotten aids.
So when was he lying?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

but he's becoming more and more unhinged and erratic

He really is, by any objective standard. Mental illness doesn't improve with age.

 

[Dragonlady]

Did Barr ask the SNDY to quit the of trump's campaign finance

Can anyone tell me what this OP title means?

We want to know if Barr was involved and why did the SNDY just quit the indictment, because Barr thinks a president can be indicted.
Barr's Statement to Senate: A Sitting President is Not Immune from Prosecutor Declaration of Indictable Offense

Attorney General William Barr’s prepared statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee appears to mark out a framework that basically says a sitting President is not immune from federal prosecutors making a determination that the President committed an indictable offense.

Whether or not Barr articulated this legal framework to justify his decision in the Mueller investigation, it has two significant implications. First, it would mean that Special Counsel Robert Mueller may now be able to say on the record whether he believes President Donald Trump committed the crime of obstruction. Mueller should have the opportunity to do so in congressional testimony soon. Second, it would mean that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York may make that formal determination as well if federal prosecutors conclude Trump engaged in a criminal conspiracy to make hush money payments in violation of federal campaign finance laws or committed tax and other financial crimes.

Barr’s Clarification on Indictability of a Sitting President

In a nutshell, Barr’s clarification of the Justice Department’s position appears to work in the following way. Before a prosecutor decides to submit a possible indictment to a grand jury, she must take a prior step: decide for herself whether the case involves a prosecutable crime. The Office of Legal Counsel opinions close off the option of prosecution and indictment of a sitting President, but not this prior step. Barr appears to be saying in his prepared remarks that a federal prosecutor (here a special counsel) can and should take that prior step. Decide yes or no on the question whether the President committed a crime.

Here are some of the key passages in Barr’s statement:

“The role of the federal prosecutor and the purpose of a criminal investigation are well-defined. Federal prosecutors work with grand juries to collect evidence to determine whether a crime has been committed. Once a prosecutor has exhausted his investigation into the facts of a case, he or she faces a binary choice: either to commence or to decline prosecution. To commence prosecution, the prosecutor must apply the principles of federal prosecution and conclude both that the conduct at issue constitutes a federal offense and that the admissible evidence would probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a guilty verdict by an unbiased trier of fact. These principles govern the conduct of all prosecutions by the Department and are codified in the Justice Manual.

The appointment of a Special Counsel and the investigation of the conduct of the President of the United States do not change these rules.”

“[A]t the end of the day, the federal prosecutor must decide yes or no.”

The statement is consistent with Barr’s testimony before Congress in April. Barr stated in response to a question from Rep. Charlie Crist (D-Fl), “It was important for people to know the bottom line conclusions of the report,” and “from a prosecutor’s standpoint the bottom line is binary, which is charges or no charges.” The one oddity here is that Barr also refers to bringing a charge, or commencing a prosecution, which appears foreclosed by the Office of Legal Counsel opinions. A more radical reading of Barr’s statement would be that it erases the line drawn by the Office of Legal Counsel.

Mueller’s Opening

In his report, Mueller took the view that he did not have authority under the Justice Department’s standing legal opinions to make a “federal criminal accusation against a sitting President.” Mueller essentially concluded that he only had a one way ratchet: He could make a formal assessment that the President did not commit a crime (see Volume 1 of the Report on Russian interference) but he could not make a formal accusation that a sitting President did commit a crime (Volume 2 on obstruction). Barr’s statement to the Senate may reset that framework. Indeed, Barr’s clarification of the rules appears to state that Mueller has a duty to make the call
------------------------------------------
If he had chosen to indict, barr would of probably said he could not of,

since he followed the OLC last writing , he didn't think he could indict a sitting Potus, and Barr said he made an err and could be indicted,

So what happened to the indictment, did Barr make it disappear?

We want to know if Barr was involved and why did the SNDY just quit the indictment, because Barr thinks a president can be indicted.
Barr's Statement to Senate: A Sitting President is Not Immune from Prosecutor Declaration of Indictable Offense

We should also know if the two life-long Republican fixers (Mueller and Barr) scrutinized Trump's financial documents as part of their investigation:

Did Mueller peek at Trump's tax returns?

"It's entirely possible Mueller did not look at Trump’s tax returns or financials.

"Multiple legal pundits expressed surprise upon release of the Mueller report that there was no section that 'followed the money.'

"There was no reference to Deutsche Bank financial transactions, despite well-publicized reports that Trump owes Deutsche Bank over $300 million, having received financing of over $2 billion since 2000, and that Deutsche Bank has been fined multiple times for money laundering and other financial transgressions.

"Then there was the prize-winning New York Times article explaining how Trump took part in suspect schemes to evade taxes back in the 1990s.

"More recently, the Southern District of New York prosecuted Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen for campaign finance violations at the direction of 'unindicted co-conspirator Individual-1' with regard to the hush money payments made to alleged paramours of 'The Donald' prior to the 2016 presidential election.

"Some would question whether anyone looked at all the 'money pouring in from Russia,' as Donald Trump Jr. once boasted."

Mueller did NOT scrutinize Trump's financials in his report because Rosenstein blocked Mueller's Deutches Banke supeona, and I'd be willing to be bet real money, he blocked access to the President's tax returns as well.

 

[Dragonlady]

Cohen is sitting in prison because he lied for tramp and was involved in a campaign finance scheme, and tramp is not,

it comes down to IS TRAMP ABOVE THE LAW??

Cohen took a fake charge because he thought the fbi would reduce his sentence maybe it did lol

There's no such thing as a "fake charge", dope.

Really??? Then what was all that "Russia, Russia" BS about and WTF are our Hysterical House Dems pursuing with all their time, DOPE?

In order to plead guilty to crimes, you have to provide proof of your guilt. You cannot plead guilty to "fake charges". I know Trump said that but you Russians have to realize that Trump's statements on the law have no basis in fact.

 

[Maxdeath]

Of course you will ignor it

Because it is a stupid, contrived, nebulous question that attempts to contrive the entire left as a monolith to suit your simpleminded nonsense.

And, if you cant "read their minds", what makes you think i can? Your question is mindless, meaningless drivel.

Lol. Of course.whatever you say.

 

[Maxdeath]

Yeah so tell me why everyone that the crazy left has assured us was going to jail any day now for almost three years has yet to be in jail?

No, I will ignore your stupidly worded question.

A better question is: Why was trump surrounded by so many Russian bootlickers and criminals? What does this have to do with trump's bizarre, suspect behavior regarding russia and putin?

Of course you will ignor it. You have no answer. Funny no one complained about those same people being around for years before. Some over ten years. I guess it only matters when someone wants it to.

The only guy who isn't in jail is Trump. Flynn and Gates are about to be sentenced, Manfort is in jail. Papadopolous served his sentence.

Trump's impeachment is mired in legal challenges, and Trump will manage to spin out the rest of his term, but he's becoming more and more unhinged and erratic as his economic and trade policies unravel and take the world's economy down with it. "Trade wars are easy to win", will be written on his tombstone. There's a reason why they're called "trade wars" - because there are always casualties and losses in a war.

While Trump put tariff's on goods and services in order to raise prices on imports and help the US economy, the Europeans and Chinese targeted American businesses and industries which would be most hurt by tariffs. This is a much more effective tactic. The net result has been that after two years of Trump's trade wars, the US trade deficit has been increased by over 20%. Well done President Trump!

Everything Trump touches dies.

Lol. I suppose next you are going to explain just how brilliant the Canadian government is.

 

[georgephillip]

Did Barr ask the SNDY to quit the of trump's campaign finance

Can anyone tell me what this OP title means?

We want to know if Barr was involved and why did the SNDY just quit the indictment, because Barr thinks a president can be indicted.
Barr's Statement to Senate: A Sitting President is Not Immune from Prosecutor Declaration of Indictable Offense

Attorney General William Barr’s prepared statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee appears to mark out a framework that basically says a sitting President is not immune from federal prosecutors making a determination that the President committed an indictable offense.

Whether or not Barr articulated this legal framework to justify his decision in the Mueller investigation, it has two significant implications. First, it would mean that Special Counsel Robert Mueller may now be able to say on the record whether he believes President Donald Trump committed the crime of obstruction. Mueller should have the opportunity to do so in congressional testimony soon. Second, it would mean that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York may make that formal determination as well if federal prosecutors conclude Trump engaged in a criminal conspiracy to make hush money payments in violation of federal campaign finance laws or committed tax and other financial crimes.

Barr’s Clarification on Indictability of a Sitting President

In a nutshell, Barr’s clarification of the Justice Department’s position appears to work in the following way. Before a prosecutor decides to submit a possible indictment to a grand jury, she must take a prior step: decide for herself whether the case involves a prosecutable crime. The Office of Legal Counsel opinions close off the option of prosecution and indictment of a sitting President, but not this prior step. Barr appears to be saying in his prepared remarks that a federal prosecutor (here a special counsel) can and should take that prior step. Decide yes or no on the question whether the President committed a crime.

Here are some of the key passages in Barr’s statement:

“The role of the federal prosecutor and the purpose of a criminal investigation are well-defined. Federal prosecutors work with grand juries to collect evidence to determine whether a crime has been committed. Once a prosecutor has exhausted his investigation into the facts of a case, he or she faces a binary choice: either to commence or to decline prosecution. To commence prosecution, the prosecutor must apply the principles of federal prosecution and conclude both that the conduct at issue constitutes a federal offense and that the admissible evidence would probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a guilty verdict by an unbiased trier of fact. These principles govern the conduct of all prosecutions by the Department and are codified in the Justice Manual.

The appointment of a Special Counsel and the investigation of the conduct of the President of the United States do not change these rules.”

“[A]t the end of the day, the federal prosecutor must decide yes or no.”

The statement is consistent with Barr’s testimony before Congress in April. Barr stated in response to a question from Rep. Charlie Crist (D-Fl), “It was important for people to know the bottom line conclusions of the report,” and “from a prosecutor’s standpoint the bottom line is binary, which is charges or no charges.” The one oddity here is that Barr also refers to bringing a charge, or commencing a prosecution, which appears foreclosed by the Office of Legal Counsel opinions. A more radical reading of Barr’s statement would be that it erases the line drawn by the Office of Legal Counsel.

Mueller’s Opening

In his report, Mueller took the view that he did not have authority under the Justice Department’s standing legal opinions to make a “federal criminal accusation against a sitting President.” Mueller essentially concluded that he only had a one way ratchet: He could make a formal assessment that the President did not commit a crime (see Volume 1 of the Report on Russian interference) but he could not make a formal accusation that a sitting President did commit a crime (Volume 2 on obstruction). Barr’s statement to the Senate may reset that framework. Indeed, Barr’s clarification of the rules appears to state that Mueller has a duty to make the call
------------------------------------------
If he had chosen to indict, barr would of probably said he could not of,

since he followed the OLC last writing , he didn't think he could indict a sitting Potus, and Barr said he made an err and could be indicted,

So what happened to the indictment, did Barr make it disappear?

We want to know if Barr was involved and why did the SNDY just quit the indictment, because Barr thinks a president can be indicted.
Barr's Statement to Senate: A Sitting President is Not Immune from Prosecutor Declaration of Indictable Offense

We should also know if the two life-long Republican fixers (Mueller and Barr) scrutinized Trump's financial documents as part of their investigation:

Did Mueller peek at Trump's tax returns?

"It's entirely possible Mueller did not look at Trump’s tax returns or financials.

"Multiple legal pundits expressed surprise upon release of the Mueller report that there was no section that 'followed the money.'

"There was no reference to Deutsche Bank financial transactions, despite well-publicized reports that Trump owes Deutsche Bank over $300 million, having received financing of over $2 billion since 2000, and that Deutsche Bank has been fined multiple times for money laundering and other financial transgressions.

"Then there was the prize-winning New York Times article explaining how Trump took part in suspect schemes to evade taxes back in the 1990s.

"More recently, the Southern District of New York prosecuted Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen for campaign finance violations at the direction of 'unindicted co-conspirator Individual-1' with regard to the hush money payments made to alleged paramours of 'The Donald' prior to the 2016 presidential election.

"Some would question whether anyone looked at all the 'money pouring in from Russia,' as Donald Trump Jr. once boasted."

Mueller did NOT scrutinize Trump's financials in his report because Rosenstein blocked Mueller's Deutches Banke supeona, and I'd be willing to be bet real money, he blocked access to the President's tax returns as well.

Mueller did NOT scrutinize Trump's financials in his report because Rosenstein blocked Mueller's Deutches Banke supeona, and I'd be willing to be bet real money, he blocked access to the President's tax returns as well.

I guess we shouldn't be surprised when three career Republicans (Mueller, Barr, and Rosenstein) respect a corrupt businessman's "red line" restricting inspection of his family business financial documents?

Reaching a conclusion of "no collusion" without examining relevant financial information makes as much sense as electing an ignorant, racist con man POTUS on a pledge to "drain the swamp."

Did Mueller peek at Trump's tax returns?

"Many old-time federal prosecutors have openly stated on various cable news shows that whenever they had a white-collar case, they would automatically request federal income tax returns from the IRS via a letter signed by a U.S. magistrate or judge, known in the parlance as an ex parte order or 6e letter.

"Back in the day, these letters were often no more than one or two sentences wherein the AUSA would simply say he or she needed them in regard to a financial investigation that was being conducted that may result in prosecution of some type of white-collar crimes, e.g. wire fraud, mail fraud or bank fraud.

"Once again, back in the day, these 6e requests were pretty much rubber-stamped and walked over to the IRS Disclosure Office and submitted with little pushback.

"But that was back in the day. "

 

[Penelope]

Did Barr ask the SNDY to quit the of trump's campaign finance

Can anyone tell me what this OP title means?

We want to know if Barr was involved and why did the SNDY just quit the indictment, because Barr thinks a president can be indicted.
Barr's Statement to Senate: A Sitting President is Not Immune from Prosecutor Declaration of Indictable Offense

Attorney General William Barr’s prepared statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee appears to mark out a framework that basically says a sitting President is not immune from federal prosecutors making a determination that the President committed an indictable offense.

Whether or not Barr articulated this legal framework to justify his decision in the Mueller investigation, it has two significant implications. First, it would mean that Special Counsel Robert Mueller may now be able to say on the record whether he believes President Donald Trump committed the crime of obstruction. Mueller should have the opportunity to do so in congressional testimony soon. Second, it would mean that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York may make that formal determination as well if federal prosecutors conclude Trump engaged in a criminal conspiracy to make hush money payments in violation of federal campaign finance laws or committed tax and other financial crimes.

Barr’s Clarification on Indictability of a Sitting President

In a nutshell, Barr’s clarification of the Justice Department’s position appears to work in the following way. Before a prosecutor decides to submit a possible indictment to a grand jury, she must take a prior step: decide for herself whether the case involves a prosecutable crime. The Office of Legal Counsel opinions close off the option of prosecution and indictment of a sitting President, but not this prior step. Barr appears to be saying in his prepared remarks that a federal prosecutor (here a special counsel) can and should take that prior step. Decide yes or no on the question whether the President committed a crime.

Here are some of the key passages in Barr’s statement:

“The role of the federal prosecutor and the purpose of a criminal investigation are well-defined. Federal prosecutors work with grand juries to collect evidence to determine whether a crime has been committed. Once a prosecutor has exhausted his investigation into the facts of a case, he or she faces a binary choice: either to commence or to decline prosecution. To commence prosecution, the prosecutor must apply the principles of federal prosecution and conclude both that the conduct at issue constitutes a federal offense and that the admissible evidence would probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a guilty verdict by an unbiased trier of fact. These principles govern the conduct of all prosecutions by the Department and are codified in the Justice Manual.

The appointment of a Special Counsel and the investigation of the conduct of the President of the United States do not change these rules.”

“[A]t the end of the day, the federal prosecutor must decide yes or no.”

The statement is consistent with Barr’s testimony before Congress in April. Barr stated in response to a question from Rep. Charlie Crist (D-Fl), “It was important for people to know the bottom line conclusions of the report,” and “from a prosecutor’s standpoint the bottom line is binary, which is charges or no charges.” The one oddity here is that Barr also refers to bringing a charge, or commencing a prosecution, which appears foreclosed by the Office of Legal Counsel opinions. A more radical reading of Barr’s statement would be that it erases the line drawn by the Office of Legal Counsel.

Mueller’s Opening

In his report, Mueller took the view that he did not have authority under the Justice Department’s standing legal opinions to make a “federal criminal accusation against a sitting President.” Mueller essentially concluded that he only had a one way ratchet: He could make a formal assessment that the President did not commit a crime (see Volume 1 of the Report on Russian interference) but he could not make a formal accusation that a sitting President did commit a crime (Volume 2 on obstruction). Barr’s statement to the Senate may reset that framework. Indeed, Barr’s clarification of the rules appears to state that Mueller has a duty to make the call
------------------------------------------
If he had chosen to indict, barr would of probably said he could not of,

since he followed the OLC last writing , he didn't think he could indict a sitting Potus, and Barr said he made an err and could be indicted,

So what happened to the indictment, did Barr make it disappear?

We want to know if Barr was involved and why did the SNDY just quit the indictment, because Barr thinks a president can be indicted.
Barr's Statement to Senate: A Sitting President is Not Immune from Prosecutor Declaration of Indictable Offense

We should also know if the two life-long Republican fixers (Mueller and Barr) scrutinized Trump's financial documents as part of their investigation:

Did Mueller peek at Trump's tax returns?

"It's entirely possible Mueller did not look at Trump’s tax returns or financials.

"Multiple legal pundits expressed surprise upon release of the Mueller report that there was no section that 'followed the money.'

"There was no reference to Deutsche Bank financial transactions, despite well-publicized reports that Trump owes Deutsche Bank over $300 million, having received financing of over $2 billion since 2000, and that Deutsche Bank has been fined multiple times for money laundering and other financial transgressions.

"Then there was the prize-winning New York Times article explaining how Trump took part in suspect schemes to evade taxes back in the 1990s.

"More recently, the Southern District of New York prosecuted Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen for campaign finance violations at the direction of 'unindicted co-conspirator Individual-1' with regard to the hush money payments made to alleged paramours of 'The Donald' prior to the 2016 presidential election.

"Some would question whether anyone looked at all the 'money pouring in from Russia,' as Donald Trump Jr. once boasted."

Mueller did NOT scrutinize Trump's financials in his report because Rosenstein blocked Mueller's Deutches Banke supeona, and I'd be willing to be bet real money, he blocked access to the President's tax returns as well.

Mueller did NOT scrutinize Trump's financials in his report because Rosenstein blocked Mueller's Deutches Banke supeona, and I'd be willing to be bet real money, he blocked access to the President's tax returns as well.

I guess we shouldn't be surprised when three career Republicans (Mueller, Barr, and Rosenstein) respect a corrupt businessman's "red line" restricting inspection of his family business financial documents?

Reaching a conclusion of "no collusion" without examining relevant financial information makes as much sense as electing an ignorant, racist con man POTUS on a pledge to "drain the swamp."

Did Mueller peek at Trump's tax returns?

"Many old-time federal prosecutors have openly stated on various cable news shows that whenever they had a white-collar case, they would automatically request federal income tax returns from the IRS via a letter signed by a U.S. magistrate or judge, known in the parlance as an ex parte order or 6e letter.

"Back in the day, these letters were often no more than one or two sentences wherein the AUSA would simply say he or she needed them in regard to a financial investigation that was being conducted that may result in prosecution of some type of white-collar crimes, e.g. wire fraud, mail fraud or bank fraud.

"Once again, back in the day, these 6e requests were pretty much rubber-stamped and walked over to the IRS Disclosure Office and submitted with little pushback.

"But that was back in the day. "

I really doubt that Mueller seen his tax returns, as he would of said so in the report, don't you think?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

indictment? What happened?
-------------------------------------------------------------

Cummings has asked for SNDY to provide by Aug. 2 “all evidence collected about the role of any other individual in connection with the campaign finance charges against Cohen, including any evidence relating to the President, and copies of all immunity deals granted, or informal immunity agreement letters or non-prosecution agreements entered into, in this investigation.” The committee is also asking whether Barr or any other senior Justice Department officials weighed in on the case.

Dems ask whether DOJ memo prevented prosecuting Trump for hush payments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

So much hush hush about it. Not to mention tramp lied about it, but what is new, he always lies, he has made lying normal.

What lie?
Trump said he gave money.
You are psychotic.

No he said he knew nothing about it Cohen's deal with Daniels. Only when he was caught, did he said he gave the money.

But the payment was never reported and therefore violated campaign finance laws. You can't pay hush money, even from your own pocket, because to do so violates campaign finance laws, especially if what you're hushing up, would affect voters' opinions of you, like an with a porn star.

Going bareback with a porn star certainly puts the lie to Trump's "germaphobia". Any exchange of bodily fluids with a sex trade worker is high risk for infection.

Too bad Trump is on news video saying he paid off Slut via Cohen.
Where do you psychos hang out?

He lied in the plane. So tramp is above the law, your right wingers know this, but you say nothing. Like he said, he could shoot someone on 5th ave and you guys would defend him.

What plane?
He stated about 1,000 on camera that he had Cohen pay Slut to keep her mouth shut.
She didn’t.
Anything else, you demented pos?

What plane?
He stated about 1,000 on camera that he had Cohen pay Slut to keep her mouth shut.

Derp....

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Cohen is sitting in prison because he lied for tramp and was involved in a campaign finance scheme, and tramp is not,

it comes down to IS TRAMP ABOVE THE LAW??

Cohen took a fake charge because he thought the fbi would reduce his sentence maybe it did lol

There's no such thing as a "fake charge", dope.

Really??? Then what was all that "Russia, Russia" BS about and WTF are our Hysterical House Dems pursuing with all their time, DOPE?

Huh?
Trump wasn't charged as Cohen was, dope.

 

[SAYIT]

Cohen is sitting in prison because he lied for tramp and was involved in a campaign finance scheme, and tramp is not,

it comes down to IS TRAMP ABOVE THE LAW??

Cohen took a fake charge because he thought the fbi would reduce his sentence maybe it did lol

There's no such thing as a "fake charge", dope.

Really??? Then what was all that "Russia, Russia" BS about and WTF are our Hysterical House Dems pursuing with all their time, DOPE?

Huh?
Trump wasn't charged as Cohen was, dope.

It is obvious to all but the most bitter losers that my comment was directed at the moron who said "There's no such thing as a fake charge."

They are, of course, the bread & butter of your media and you swallow every drop.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Cohen is sitting in prison because he lied for tramp and was involved in a campaign finance scheme, and tramp is not,

it comes down to IS TRAMP ABOVE THE LAW??

Cohen took a fake charge because he thought the fbi would reduce his sentence maybe it did lol

There's no such thing as a "fake charge", dope.

Really??? Then what was all that "Russia, Russia" BS about and WTF are our Hysterical House Dems pursuing with all their time, DOPE?

Huh?
Trump wasn't charged as Cohen was, dope.

It is obvious to all but the most bitter losers that my comment was directed at the moron who said "There's no such thing as a fake charge."

They are, of course, the bread & butter of your media and you swallow every drop.

That was me, you incompetent dolt.

The media doesn't file criminal charges, dope.

 

[Penelope]

I never realized the Potus could be above the law so much, esp when you have the AG and Moscow Mitch protecting you as well as the judges you put on the bench. Well Nixon seems like a Saint compared to this Potus.

 

[georgephillip]

Did Barr ask the SNDY to quit the of trump's campaign finance

Can anyone tell me what this OP title means?

We want to know if Barr was involved and why did the SNDY just quit the indictment, because Barr thinks a president can be indicted.
Barr's Statement to Senate: A Sitting President is Not Immune from Prosecutor Declaration of Indictable Offense

Attorney General William Barr’s prepared statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee appears to mark out a framework that basically says a sitting President is not immune from federal prosecutors making a determination that the President committed an indictable offense.

Whether or not Barr articulated this legal framework to justify his decision in the Mueller investigation, it has two significant implications. First, it would mean that Special Counsel Robert Mueller may now be able to say on the record whether he believes President Donald Trump committed the crime of obstruction. Mueller should have the opportunity to do so in congressional testimony soon. Second, it would mean that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York may make that formal determination as well if federal prosecutors conclude Trump engaged in a criminal conspiracy to make hush money payments in violation of federal campaign finance laws or committed tax and other financial crimes.

Barr’s Clarification on Indictability of a Sitting President

In a nutshell, Barr’s clarification of the Justice Department’s position appears to work in the following way. Before a prosecutor decides to submit a possible indictment to a grand jury, she must take a prior step: decide for herself whether the case involves a prosecutable crime. The Office of Legal Counsel opinions close off the option of prosecution and indictment of a sitting President, but not this prior step. Barr appears to be saying in his prepared remarks that a federal prosecutor (here a special counsel) can and should take that prior step. Decide yes or no on the question whether the President committed a crime.

Here are some of the key passages in Barr’s statement:

“The role of the federal prosecutor and the purpose of a criminal investigation are well-defined. Federal prosecutors work with grand juries to collect evidence to determine whether a crime has been committed. Once a prosecutor has exhausted his investigation into the facts of a case, he or she faces a binary choice: either to commence or to decline prosecution. To commence prosecution, the prosecutor must apply the principles of federal prosecution and conclude both that the conduct at issue constitutes a federal offense and that the admissible evidence would probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a guilty verdict by an unbiased trier of fact. These principles govern the conduct of all prosecutions by the Department and are codified in the Justice Manual.

The appointment of a Special Counsel and the investigation of the conduct of the President of the United States do not change these rules.”

“[A]t the end of the day, the federal prosecutor must decide yes or no.”

The statement is consistent with Barr’s testimony before Congress in April. Barr stated in response to a question from Rep. Charlie Crist (D-Fl), “It was important for people to know the bottom line conclusions of the report,” and “from a prosecutor’s standpoint the bottom line is binary, which is charges or no charges.” The one oddity here is that Barr also refers to bringing a charge, or commencing a prosecution, which appears foreclosed by the Office of Legal Counsel opinions. A more radical reading of Barr’s statement would be that it erases the line drawn by the Office of Legal Counsel.

Mueller’s Opening

In his report, Mueller took the view that he did not have authority under the Justice Department’s standing legal opinions to make a “federal criminal accusation against a sitting President.” Mueller essentially concluded that he only had a one way ratchet: He could make a formal assessment that the President did not commit a crime (see Volume 1 of the Report on Russian interference) but he could not make a formal accusation that a sitting President did commit a crime (Volume 2 on obstruction). Barr’s statement to the Senate may reset that framework. Indeed, Barr’s clarification of the rules appears to state that Mueller has a duty to make the call
------------------------------------------
If he had chosen to indict, barr would of probably said he could not of,

since he followed the OLC last writing , he didn't think he could indict a sitting Potus, and Barr said he made an err and could be indicted,

So what happened to the indictment, did Barr make it disappear?

We want to know if Barr was involved and why did the SNDY just quit the indictment, because Barr thinks a president can be indicted.
Barr's Statement to Senate: A Sitting President is Not Immune from Prosecutor Declaration of Indictable Offense

We should also know if the two life-long Republican fixers (Mueller and Barr) scrutinized Trump's financial documents as part of their investigation:

Did Mueller peek at Trump's tax returns?

"It's entirely possible Mueller did not look at Trump’s tax returns or financials.

"Multiple legal pundits expressed surprise upon release of the Mueller report that there was no section that 'followed the money.'

"There was no reference to Deutsche Bank financial transactions, despite well-publicized reports that Trump owes Deutsche Bank over $300 million, having received financing of over $2 billion since 2000, and that Deutsche Bank has been fined multiple times for money laundering and other financial transgressions.

"Then there was the prize-winning New York Times article explaining how Trump took part in suspect schemes to evade taxes back in the 1990s.

"More recently, the Southern District of New York prosecuted Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen for campaign finance violations at the direction of 'unindicted co-conspirator Individual-1' with regard to the hush money payments made to alleged paramours of 'The Donald' prior to the 2016 presidential election.

"Some would question whether anyone looked at all the 'money pouring in from Russia,' as Donald Trump Jr. once boasted."

Mueller did NOT scrutinize Trump's financials in his report because Rosenstein blocked Mueller's Deutches Banke supeona, and I'd be willing to be bet real money, he blocked access to the President's tax returns as well.

Mueller did NOT scrutinize Trump's financials in his report because Rosenstein blocked Mueller's Deutches Banke supeona, and I'd be willing to be bet real money, he blocked access to the President's tax returns as well.

I guess we shouldn't be surprised when three career Republicans (Mueller, Barr, and Rosenstein) respect a corrupt businessman's "red line" restricting inspection of his family business financial documents?

Reaching a conclusion of "no collusion" without examining relevant financial information makes as much sense as electing an ignorant, racist con man POTUS on a pledge to "drain the swamp."

Did Mueller peek at Trump's tax returns?

"Many old-time federal prosecutors have openly stated on various cable news shows that whenever they had a white-collar case, they would automatically request federal income tax returns from the IRS via a letter signed by a U.S. magistrate or judge, known in the parlance as an ex parte order or 6e letter.

"Back in the day, these letters were often no more than one or two sentences wherein the AUSA would simply say he or she needed them in regard to a financial investigation that was being conducted that may result in prosecution of some type of white-collar crimes, e.g. wire fraud, mail fraud or bank fraud.

"Once again, back in the day, these 6e requests were pretty much rubber-stamped and walked over to the IRS Disclosure Office and submitted with little pushback.

"But that was back in the day. "

I really doubt that Mueller seen his tax returns, as he would of said so in the report, don't you think?

I really doubt that Mueller seen his tax returns, as he would of said so in the report, don't you think?

Trump bragged he could make money by running for POTUS.
If anyone in his orbit conspired with Russians to enhance his prospects in the general election, Trump would have found a way to derive income from the process. Apparently, it was too difficult for prosecutors to connect the dots between Trump's financial records and the dozens of contacts between members of his campaign and Russians close to the Kremlin.

I'm beginning to wonder if Trump will be allowed to resign and pardoned the same way Nixon was since there are many Republicans AND Democrats in high places who don't want the full story of his crony capitalism to become public?