Thread: Trump pressures Justice Department to investigate ‘Crooked Hillary’

Trump pressures Justice Department to investigate ‘Crooked Hillary’

November 3 at 8:01 AM

President Trump on Friday pressured the Department of Justice — and specifically the FBI — to investigate Hillary Clinton, ticking through a slew of issues involving the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee and her party, and urging law enforcement to “do what is right and proper.”

Trump's advocacy for criminal probe of his political opponent marked a significant breach of the traditional boundaries within the executive branch designed to prevent investigations from being politicized.

In a Thursday radio interview, Trump said “the saddest thing” about being president is that he is not supposed to give orders to the Justice Department or FBI. The president said he was “very frustrated” that he could not be involved with those agencies, and said it was “very discouraging to me” that they were not “going after Hillary Clinton.”

“Hopefully they are doing something and at some point, maybe we are going to all have it out,” Trump said Thursday on “The Larry O'Connor Show.”

Trump has long been annoyed, and at times angry, with Attorney General Jeff Sessions for not taking on Clinton more aggressively and for not better protecting him from the wide-ranging Russia probe led by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III, the president's advisers have said.

As he departed the White House Friday morning for an 12-day trip to Asia, Trump told reporters: “A lot of people are disappointed in the Justice Department, including me.”

In a series of Friday morning tweets, Trump claimed there was mounting public pressure for the Justice Department to investigate Clinton. Trump suggested law enforcement reopen its probe of the deleted emails from Clinton's private server while she was secretary of state, as well as a Russian uranium sale and the international business of Democratic super-lobbyist Tony Podesta.

Trump also raised the Clinton campaign's joint fundraising agreement with the Democratic National Committee that effectively gave her control over the party's finances, strategy and staffing before the primaries began. The details were outlined in a new book by former DNC interim chair Donna Brazile.

Trump tweeted: “Everybody is asking why the Justice Department (and FBI) isn't looking into all of the dishonesty going on with Crooked Hillary & the Dems . . . New Donna B book says she paid for and stole the Dem Primary. What about the deleted E-mails, Uranium, Podesta, the Server, plus, plus . . . People are angry. At some point the Justice Department, and the FBI, must do what is right and proper. The American public deserves it!”

In a fourth tweet, Trump alleged that “the real story on Collusion” is the fundraising agreement noted in Brazile's book. The president appears to be conflating collusion with a foreign government, which is a subject of Mueller's Russia investigation, with the financial arrangement Clinton's campaign made with the DNC.

And in a fifth tweet on the subject, Trump invoked Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who said Thursday on CNN that she believed the Democratic primaries were rigged in Clinton's favor.

Using his pejorative nickname for Warren, the president tweeted (apparently misspelling the word led): “Pocahontas just stated that the Democrats, lead by the legendary Crooked Hillary Clinton, rigged the Primaries! Lets go FBI & Justice Dept.”

This marks only the latest attempt by Trump to use his presidential bully pulpit to influence the criminal justice process. He has delivered off-the-cuff remarks this week recommending punishment for Sayfullo Saipov, the suspect accused of killing eight people with a rental truck in New York. Trump at first said he was considering sending Saipov to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but then reversed course and advocated a civilian trial in federal court for the terrorism suspect he called “an animal.”

he Justice Department is a part of the executive branch; the attorney general is nominated by the president. So it is normal for the White House to direct the Justice Department on broad policy goals. But unlike other executive branch agencies, the Justice Department traditionally enjoys a measure of independence, especially when it comes to individual criminal investigations. Government lawyers have long sought to enforce a clear line preventing White House officials from influencing specific investigations or prosecutions to ensure such work is not politicized.

The president directing a particular investigation — especially of a former political rival — would be viewed by most in law enforcement as inappropriate. When Trump made similar comments on the campaign trail a year ago, even former Republican attorney general Michael Mukasey, a vocal Clinton critic, said Trump ordering a prosecution of her would be “like a banana republic.”

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment Friday.

In his Thursday radio interview, Trump said, “You know, the saddest thing is, because I am the president of the United States I am not supposed to be involved with the Justice Department. I'm not supposed to be involved with the FBI. I'm not supposed to be doing the kind of things I would love to be doing and I am very frustrated by it.”

Trump continued by referencing a salacious research dossier detailing Trump's ties to Russia, which was initially sponsored by the conservative Washington Free Beacon and later paid for by the Clinton campaign and DNC, through the Perkins Coie law firm.

Trump added on the radio show: “I look at what's happening with the Justice Department, why aren't they going after Hillary Clinton with her emails and with her dossier, and the kind of money . . . I don't know, is it possible that they paid $12.4 million for the dossier . . . which is total phony, fake, fraud and how is it used? It's very discouraging to me. I'll be honest.”

Trump has not provided evidence to support his $12.4 million figure, and he may have grossly exaggerated how much the dossier cost. Fusion GPS, the firm that commissioned the dossier, has said it paid former British spy Christopher Steele $168,000 for his research, according to Reuters.

The Washington Post has reported that the Clinton campaign paid Perkins Coie $5.6 million in legal fees from June 2015 to December 2016, and the DNC paid the firm $3.6 million since November 2015, according to campaign finance records. But the filings do not detail how that money was spent, so it is impossible to tell how much work was related to the dossier research and how much was for legal services.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.419bd2a8cba2

Mr President
you said if you became President she would be in jail( well your our President now how come she not in jail yet? & as for OBama he should have been in jail also . & another thing if our congress don't do the job why don't you fire them all . your the boss Now )your doing good so far

The president directing a particular investigation — especially of a former political rival — would be viewed by most in law enforcement as inappropriate. When Trump made similar comments on the campaign trail a year ago, even former Republican attorney general Michael Mukasey, a vocal Clinton critic, said Trump ordering a prosecution of her would be “like a banana republic.”

Oh my God, people are so stupid. The President is supposed to direct justice in this country, that is one of the things he was elected to do. I understand that "law enforcement" would like its own hand, its own political vendettas, its own political witch hunts, but that isn't legal. The DOJ has a boss and it's not itself, it's not Congress, it's the President of the United States, just like the Commerce Department, the Treasury Department, the Education Department, the Highway Department, all federal Cabinet Departments are managed and directed by the President of the United States. He must of course follow the Constitution and the laws, but he has management authority as well as prosecutorial discretion as we all know from the actions of past Presidents, numerous court rulings on this subject, and the powers of pardon and clemency.

UNSEAL BARRY SOTERO'S RECORDS...TAKE HIM DOWN AND PELOSI!

DOJ Sources: Sessions Has Not Recused Himself from Potential Uranium One Probe

Sessions could recommend internal DOJ investigation into Uranium One deal or appoint outside special counsel
Attorney General Jeff Sessions / Getty Images

BY: Susan Crabtree
November 3, 2017 10:40 pm
Department of Justice (DOJ) sources disputed reports late Friday that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recused himself from decisions involving potential investigations into alleged corruption surrounding a deal that gave Russia control of a large portion of U.S. uranium-mining capacity.
DOJ officials told the Free Beacon that Sessions has not recused himself from deciding how the Justice Department should respond to recent reports raising questions about the Obama administration’s approval of a 2010 purchase of Uranium One, which controlled 20 percent of U.S. uranium, by Russian energy company Rosatam.
Sessions, in his role as attorney general, could recommend an internal DOJ investigation into the matter or appoint an outside special counsel to handle it.
For months, President Donald Trump has blasted Sessions for recusing himself from the probe into Russian meddling in the election and Moscow’s alleged ties to the Trump campaign. Sessions’s recusal led to the appointment of former Robert Mueller as special counsel in charge of the Russia probe.
Following Mueller's first round of indictments in the Russia probe this week, Trump expressed frustration over his inability to get involved in Justice Department decisions and what investigations it launches.
On Friday morning he tweeted: "Everybody is asking why the Justice Department (and FBI) isn’t looking into all of the dishonesty going on with Crooked Hillary & the Dems…"
By week’s end, conservatives who support Sessions became increasingly concerned that Trump would decide to fire Sessions if the attorney general did not provide clarity about his recusal and whether he would be involved in decisions regarding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and any improper role she might have played in the Uranium One deal.
Sessions’s defenders point to his decision last week to lift a gag order on an FBI informant with detailed knowledge of a Russian bribery scheme linked to the Uranium One deal as evidence that is has not recused himself from the issue. The Obama-era DOJ had imposed the non-disclosure agreement and reportedly threatened the informant with litigation if he broke it.
Rick Manning, the president of Americans for Limited Government, a conservative nonprofit, on Friday issued a statement, saying that Sessions "is in the game" on Uranium One and knocking down reports claiming otherwise.
Manning, citing what he called an "unimpeachable source," said Sessions is on the Uranium One case.
"The fact that the attorney general ended the non-disclosure agreement for the Uranium One whistleblower provides the proof that Sessions is actively involved in the Uranium One case," he said. "Unfortunately, the attorney general cannot conduct any investigations through press releases and sound bites allowing the rest of us to receive a blow-by-blow description of every action that might be under way."
GOP lawmakers have launched their own investigations into the matter after the Hill and Circa News reported new details of an extensive Russian bribery scheme aimed at expanding Moscow’s control of U.S. nuclear energy supplies. Three congressional committees are now looking into the bribery scheme and whether it influenced then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s decision to sign off on the acquisition.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, was the first lawmaker to press the Justice Department and other federal agencies for information about the Uranium One deal, asking Sessions during an Oct. 19 hearing whether the agency was investigating the deal and the surrounding Russian bribes.
At the time, Sessions responded that it would be inappropriate to disclose whether Justice is looking into to the matter but tried to assure Grassley that his concerns would be addressed.
He also said he doubted Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would be the right person to look into the matter because he had handled the prosecution of those implicated in the Russian bribery scheme while he was serving as a U.S. attorney in Maryland before he became a top DOJ official.
Last week, Grassley appeared exasperated by the lack of clarity about whether Sessions could launch an investigation into Uranium One.
"Whoever in DOJ is capable w authority to appoint a special counsel shld do so to investigate Uranium One ‘whoever’ means if u aren’t recused," he tweeted.
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R., Fla.) said earlier this week that Sessions met with House Judiciary Committee Republicans in late September and told them that his recusal prevented any involvement in potential investigations into Uranium One or anything that involved the 2016 campaign, the candidates, or Russia.
According to a Breitbart report, when Gaetz asked Sessions to appoint a special counsel to look into the Uranium One deal, the attorney general abruptly stood up and said he couldn’t discuss the matter because of the recusal and left the room.
That left the House Judiciary Republicans with a group of aides to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who Gaetz said showed "no interest" in discussing a potential Uranium One Justice Department investigation.
Gaetz said Sessions’s "broad" interpretation of the recusal puts Rosenstein in charge, which he called "troubling."
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.), who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, as well as Reps. Ron DeSantis, (R., Fla.), Louis Gohmert, (R., Texas), and Jim Jordan, (R., Ohio), all members of the panel, also were at the late September meeting with Sessions.
Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores earlier this week said she did not believe that others remembered Sessions making the statements about his recusal that Gaetz claimed but would not comment directly or not about whether Sessions was recused from the Uranium One issue.
Sessions, an early Trump supporter and frequent campaign surrogate, in early March recused himself from any Department of Justice investigations into President Trump’s campaign and any alleged ties to Russia. It is unclear, however, how far the recusal extended.
The recusal came after a storm of criticism over Sessions’s failure to disclose two instances in which he met Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, during his Senate confirmation hearings.
Trump and other Republicans pushed back, pointing to numerous contacts Kislyak had with high-profile Democrats, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and several Democratic senators.
The Hill newspaper and Circa News reported new details of a sweeping multimillion dollar racketeering scheme by Russian nuclear officials on U.S. soil that involved "bribery, kickbacks, money laundering and extortion."
The report indicated that an FBI informant had information that FBI agents suggested that political pressure was exerted during the Justice Department probe of the bribery scheme and that there was specific evidence that could have scuttled approval of the Uranium One deal.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) approved the controversial Uranium One deal in 2010. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-Attorney General Eric Holder served on CFIUS at the time the agency approved the deal. She has said she knew nothing about the Russian racketeering.
Grassley and other GOP lawmakers have questioned the propriety of millions of dollars the Clinton Foundation received from "interested parties" in the uranium deal and have highlighted a $500,000 payment Bill Clinton received for a speech in Moscow before a Russian-government aligned bank. That speech took place the same month the Russians began the process of acquiring Uranium One.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/doj-s...ium-one-probe/

Originally Posted by southBronx

Mr President
you said if you became President she would be in jail( well your our President now how come she not in jail yet? & as for OBama he should have been in jail also . & another thing if our congress don't do the job why don't you fire them all . your the boss Now )your doing good so far

Just like his promise to end DACA immediately after moving into the White House, he also back-tracked on his insistence that Hillary Clinton be jailed for things that were known at the time.

Mr. Trump, who branded his rival “Crooked Hillary” and said she would go to jail if he were president, said in an interview with reporters and editors at The New York Times that he was no longer interested in pursuing Mrs. Clinton, in part because he wanted to heal the wounds of a divisive campaign.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/u...stigation.html

I hope he is waiting for the Supreme Court Justice picks to be in place and then go after them with a fury. If he does anything now, I doubt anything will get done, I think he knows this. We need to get all our ducks in a row.

Game of cat and mouse right now.

Vote out the Democrats and the Rino's.