The Trump thread: All things Donald

[Athos_131]

The increasingly suspicious pattern behind Trump’s nominees

President Trump is not a man in a hurry to fill top-level vacancies in his administration. He hasn’t nominated someone for 1 in every 5 top jobs. He has left “acting” officials in charge of the huge bureaucracies for months at a time without selecting replacements. He has yet to name ambassadors in some of the most important diplomatic outposts in the world.

But he has reportedly taken a keen interest in confirming one official: his pick for . . . IRS chief counsel?

It’s not difficult to surmise a very self-serving reason for that. And other recent Trump appointments only reinforce the possibility that his motives aren’t entirely pure here.

The New York Times reported Thursday night that Trump pushed to put the IRS nomination of Michael J. Desmond on the fast track. Maggie Haberman and Nicholas Fandos write that Trump asked Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in early February to take it up even before taking up Trump’s attorney general nomination of William P. Barr. That’s remarkable, given the gravity of the office Barr was being nominated to and his now-much-discussed role in overseeing the end of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation.

The effort is problematic for a number of reasons. One is that Democrats at the time had been telegraphing a push to use an obscure federal law to force the IRS to share Trump’s long-hidden tax returns. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.) previewed that battle shortly after Democrats won back the House in November. And given the law’s obscurity, there will almost definitely be a protracted legal battle that would involve the IRS chief counsel.

Another reason, as the Times notes, is that Desmond has personal ties to Trump:

In July, when Mr. Desmond was first being considered by the Senate Finance Committee, Bloomberg reported that he had briefly advised the Trump Organization on tax issues before Mr. Trump took office. James Wilkinson, a spokesman for Mr. Desmond, told Bloomberg that Mr. Desmond had helped with “a discrete reporting matter for a subsidiary company that was resolved with no tax impact.”

In private practice, Mr. Desmond worked for a time alongside William Nelson and Sheri Dillon, who currently serve as tax counsels to the Trump Organization.

Adding to the intrigue is a fast-emerging pattern of Trump installing people who have publicly taken his side on some issues of very serious interest — and often very personal interest — to Trump.

The recently confirmed head of the IRS, Commissioner Charles Rettig, in 2016 wrote an op-ed arguing Trump shouldn’t release his returns.

Before Trump nominated him as attorney general, Barr had publicly criticized Mueller’s probe and even wrote a lengthy, unsolicited memo to the Justice Department (that he shared with many people around Trump) arguing that Mueller’s obstruction of justice inquiry wasn’t warranted.

Barr’s predecessor in that role, Matthew G. Whitaker (whom Trump elevated to that job after Jeff Sessions’s exit), was once a CNN pundit who mused about ways someone in that position could defund Mueller’s investigation.

Trump’s new nominee for the Federal Reserve, Stephen Moore, has taken a position out of step with most other economists by calling for slashing the Fed’s interest rates by half a percentage point. He also in December called on Fed Chair Jerome H. Powell to resign over the Fed’s decision to hike the rate. Both track with Trump’s very public attacks on Powell’s interest-rate decisions, which Trump has suggested have hamstrung his economic progress.
Trump’s rumored next nominee for the Fed, former GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain, once praised the Fed’s rate hikes as “good news” but in a January interview reversed course and said he was concerned the hikes were overly aggressive.

I’m not the first to note or assemble these examples and make the point that perhaps Trump is trying to install people to do his bidding — or suggest that some of these people may have been auditioning for these jobs with their public comments. Nor would it be unusual for a president to install like-minded people in positions of power.

But these are all issues in which Trump has a very vested personal interest. Barr has gone on to characterize the Mueller report in a way that allowed Trump to claim total exoneration and has made Mueller’s team uncomfortable. Trump’s public pressure on the Fed not to raise interest rates is out of line with how presidents usually talk about the Fed, and he clearly views it as hurting his political stock. Trump rather obviously doesn’t want to release his tax returns.

And the timing of his push for Desmond’s confirmation — just weeks after Democrats gained the power to try to force the issue — is very difficult to dismiss as a coincidence. Especially against the backdrop of all these other examples.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

U.S. Ethics Office Declines to Certify Mnuchin’s Financial Disclosure

WASHINGTON — The top federal ethics watchdog said on Thursday that Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s sale of his stake in a film production business to his wife did not comply with federal ethics rules, and it would not certify his 2018 financial disclosure report as a result.

Although Mr. Mnuchin will not face penalties for failing to comply, he has been required to rewrite his federal ethics agreement and to promise to recuse himself from government matters that could affect his wife’s business.

Mr. Mnuchin in 2017 sold his stake in StormChaser Partners to his then-fiancée, Louise Linton, as part of a series of divestments before becoming Treasury secretary. Since they are now married, government ethics rules consider the asset to be owned by Mr. Mnuchin, potentially creating a conflict of interest for an official who has been negotiating for expanded access for the movie industry as part of trade talks with China.

The controversy over Mr. Mnuchin’s finances has become an unwanted distraction in recent weeks as the Trump administration has been engaged in intense negotiations with China on a wide range of trade matters. While Robert Lighthizer, President Trump’s top trade official, has been leading the talks, Mr. Mnuchin has been the point person for promoting the film industry because of his background as a Hollywood producer and investor.

Mr. Mnuchin said last month at a Senate hearing that he was told by Treasury ethics officials that he was allowed to sell his stake in StormChaser to Ms. Linton, an actress and producer. However, the Office of Government Ethics was not made aware of that guidance and had not approved it.

In a letter to Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and the chairman of the Finance Committee, the ethics office said that it could not certify Mr. Mnuchin’s report but that because he had modified his ethics agreement and agreed to recuse himself from matters that might affect StormChaser’s film business, he and Ms. Linton could continue to hold the asset.

Several Trump administration officials have faced red flags and ethical questions over their financial holdings. In February, the ethics office declined to certify the 2018 financial disclosure of Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary, because of an inaccuracy in his report.

The Treasury’s assistant general counsel, Brian J. Sonfield, said that the department’s former top ethics official had cleared Mr. Mnuchin’s arrangement, according to a letter he wrote this week to Emory Rounds, the director of the ethics office. He said that the Treasury believes that Ms. Linton’s ownership of the business is “consistent with all applicable ethics laws and regulations.”

In a separate letter to Mr. Sonfield this week, Mr. Mnuchin wrote that, unless he receives a written waiver, he will recuse himself from any government activity that could benefit StormChaser’s movie business. He added that StormChaser did not own or have financial interests in films that are being marketed internationally. He also said he would recuse himself from any tax policy matters that could affect the kinds of independent films that StormChaser holds.

“If while I am secretary the nature of StormChaser’s business practices or the types of films it owns or produces changes, I will seek further guidance from the department’s ethics official, who will consult with O.G.E.,” Mr. Mnuchin wrote.

A Treasury spokesman, Tony Sayegh, tweeted a statement saying that the ethics issue was the result of a technical difference between federal ethics officials and Treasury’s ethics staff.

“We are pleased that OGE has approved an updated ethics agreement recognizing that he may hold an interest in that asset,” Mr. Sayegh said.

It is extremely rare for cabinet officials to not have their financial records certified, said Virginia Canter, a former senior ethics counsel at the Treasury Department. In 2001, Paul H. O’Neill, President George W. Bush’s Treasury secretary, divested his holdings in Alcoa, an aluminum producer, because of conflicts of interest.

Ms. Canter said she was surprised that Mr. Mnuchin was blaming Treasury’s ethics officials for the lapse, arguing that it was ultimately his responsibility to meet the government’s requirements.

“What’s he doing being involved in intellectual property matters that could affect the entertainment industry in the negotiations with China?” Ms. Canter said. “It raises an appearance issue.”

The explanation from Mr. Mnuchin did not satisfy some Democrats on Thursday.

Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Finance Committee, said that he remained baffled by how the Treasury and the ethics office handled the matter and that he planned to review Mr. Mnuchin’s modified ethics agreement.

“Before being confirmed by the Senate, he signed an ethics agreement that said he would divest from StormChaser Partners L.L.C.,” Mr. Wyden said. “Rather than divest, he violated the spirit of his ethics agreement by selling his interest to his then-fiancée and then he violated the letter of the agreement when he reacquired the assets upon their marriage.”

#Resist

[Athos_131]

  Should the entire files of the FBI and Justice Department regarding Hillary Clinton be made public? The FBI Director preempted the decision not to charge Hillary Clinton, which was not the FBI's to make, was up to the Attorney General to make such a decision.

  AG Lnych was not a Judge, or a Lawmaker, not was Director Comey a Judge or a Lawmaker, yet the full report, with all the details about Hillary Clinon, including the details about her Campaign, John Podesta, the DNC Hacking and Wikileaks, have not been made public, or issued in full to anyone, yet.

  This is the Justice Department we have, a part of the Executive Branch, btw.
Congress has its own Investigators, and may do it's own investigations of course regardless of what they may 'see' as to Special Counsel report findings.
There is no obligation for AG Barr to produce a 'edited' Mueller Report, by law. for viewing of the public or Congress.

  He may do so, and is not obligated at all. Carping about a schedule for any release is show boating, and is for use in fund raising by the Democrat party.
The MSM is allied with the Democrats of course, sees no double standard there.

#Resist

[psiberzerker]

  AG Lnych was not a Judge, or a Lawmaker, not was Director Comey a Judge or a Lawmaker, yet the full report, with all the details about Hillary Clinon, including the details about her Campaign, John Podesta, the DNC Hacking and Wikileaks, have not been made public, or issued in full to anyone, yet.

Which one of those destroyed evidence?

[joan1984]

Who are you suggesting is or has destroyed evidence?

Not Senate confirmed AG Barr, I trust, or are you accusing SC Mueller?

Has any evidence been destroyed? How do you know that as fact?

(Other than Hillary Clinton and her cohorts destroying government propety in the attempts at destruction of the contents of her Server.)

[psiberzerker]

Who are you suggesting is or has destroyed evidence?

Not Senate confirmed AG Barr, I trust.

Senate Confirmation is not proof of no wrongdoing.  What do you think Redacting means?  Documents.  Editing documents to remove any incriminating evidence.  That is not the Attorney General's job, he's supposed to Prosecute.  

(Other than Hillary Clinton and her cohorts destroying government propety in the attempts at destruction of the contents of her Server.)

I'm sure you have something to support that claim.  How long has that investigation gone on?  Again, when Hillary is alleged to have done something (With nothing to back it up) she's assumed guilty.  When Trump and his staff publicly confess to doing something far worse, they're above the law.

Is it wrong when a president, his family, and staff does it, or not?  We do not have a separate set of standards for Democrats, and Republicans.  That's not how the law works.

[joan1984]

https://news.yahoo.com/u-attorney-general-barr-release-201158465.html
U.S. Attorney General Barr will release
redacted copy of Mueller report by mid-April

"...Barr said in his letter on Friday that certain information must be redacted before the report is released, including secret grand jury information, intelligence sources and methods and information that by law cannot be public or might infringe on privacy..."

[Lois]

None of the actions you cite are or were illegal.

Congress is not privy to what the SC found on legal activity.

You are not privy to the 'why' answers to political questions.

No one is privy to another American's legal activity, or thoughts.

Our option will be to express our doubts by choosing at the Polls.

What is clear, reading the Muller report or not, is that Trump has not acted prudently, especially with regards to the Russians.

Why did he hire Manafort? Why was a Russian pro-expansionist platform added to the official Tump campaign platform?

Why did he fire Comey and then boast about it to the Russian ambassador?   Why did he provide the Russians with confidential intellegence provided to us by Israel, compromising their sources?

Why did Trump side with Putin against our own intellegence services over the issue of Russian interference in our election?

Why did he twice meet with Putin privately, with no aids present?

Was he colluding or just smoking crack?

Then you think it is perfectly legal for a president of the United States to be under foreign influence and work against the interests of our country?  Because the things I listed all indicate this.

[psiberzerker]

U.S. Attorney General Barr will release redacted copy of Mueller report by mid-April

That's still not Legal.  It's obstruction of justice, interfering with a Federal investigation, and abuse of his position as Attorney General.  His job is to Prosecute defendants in government.  Not cover up investigations into government corruption.  He should be disbarred, and tried as a conspirator, unless he releases the full report, with all evidence.

Let me put it to you this way:  This is a dangerous precedent for all Prosecutors in America.  If you are assaulted, robbed, or murdered by let's say the Mayor of your city, the District Attorney can seize all evidence, and cut out anything that incriminates the man who did it to you, before it goes before a judge.

Any DA, in any jurisdiction, against any citizen, to protect any official.  This is the precedent you're supporting.  Absolute power to get away with anything, including Murder, if you just appoint the man who's willing to cover it up.  It gives powers to the President, and anyone he appoints that they should Never have.  It breaks the law, down to it's very foundations.

It enables a tyrant.

[psiberzerker]

#QuixoticEvil

He apparently believes that he can kill cancer, by fighting windmills, and get jobs back for the coal miners.

Because everyone knows that coal mining isn't remotely carcenogenic.

[joan1984]

  

"..Then you think it is perfectly legal for a president of the United States to be under foreign influence and work against the interests of our country?  Because the things I listed all indicate this..."

 I think legal actions are just that, legal actions.

  Your imagination, and that of leftist promoting media and Democrats, are taking 'opinion' and 'imagination' and 'supposition' and trying to make a legal case from such nonsense.

  How about the 'conspiracy and collusion' with Russia that for more than two years, you and your media, and your supported politicians have told us was a fact, was already in evidence, was a sure thing, and would hang this President, to the detriment of our Nation, here and abroad... now found not true, no collusion, no conspiracy, by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, fulfilling his purpose, delivering his conclusion... not illegal, actions along this line.

  Say "Aaahhh!", Please.  Plan your next charges, take your troubles to your local politician, use your Vote the way others have, to attain what you seek, no matter how bizarre your wishes. Believe the Special Counsel, and relax.

  You were sure. Hard to now believe all you thought was incorrect, and yet, there it is. Get over it.

[psiberzerker]

I think legal actions are just that, legal actions.

Yeah, you just seem to think that a Prosecutor rewriting the Investigation, so he doesn't have to Prosecute the defendant (In this case, the President that appointed him to make this go away) is a Legal Action.  It isn't.

How about the 'conspiracy and collusion' with Russia that for more than two years, you and your media, and your supported politicians have told us was a fact, was already in evidence, was a sure thing, and would hang this President, to the detriment of our Nation, here and abroad... now found not true, no collusion, no conspiracy, by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, fulfilling his purpose, delivering his conclusion... not illegal, actions along this line.

Even the Barr report says, in no certain terms, that it DOES NOT EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT.  And yet, in your imagination, it does.  Now, let's talk about those charges, shall we?  There were 3 of them, that Muller was specifically told to investigate:  Campaign Finance Fraud:  Collusion with a foreign power, and Obstruction of Justice.  What happened to that first one?  Barr doesn't mention it, in his summary.  Is that the part that he's been redacting for weeks?

If there's NO EVIDENCE, then what is it taking weeks to redact?  Everyone in the Congressional Comittee that can read the FULL REPORT has the security clearence to read it, uunredcted.  There's no National Security issue there, so there's no need to redact, anything from the report, before it's submitted to the people it's supposed to go to.

By the person who's job it is to Prosecute the President.  The Attorney General.  

Plan your next charges, take your troubles to your local politician, use your Vote the way others have, to attain what you seek, no matter how bizarre your wishes.

LOL, I have.  My local politician is Beto O'Rourke.

Believe the Special Counsel, and relax.

I will, when his full report is released.  I don't believe the Attorney General, because he has no power to withhold, and redact the investigation, doing so is a crime.

[joan1984]

  Campaign Finance Fraud was not among the items Special Counsel was tasked to investigate. Not named as such. What may come about as he investigated Russian Collusion with the President, and his Campaign, was within SC purview and so Special Counsel did look at various actors and their activity in that regard and found no actions rising to justify charges, beyond the persons who have already been charged. Most if not all negotiated pleas to such charges.

  No charges directly involved the Republican Campaign, or persons acting on behalf of the Campaign for any charges.

  The Russia Collusion investigation was found unworthy of further charges. The Campaign finance spin off investigations of individuals in Trump's orbit went nowhere, and so no charges were ever brought in that regard.

  Special Counsel Mueller chose not to charge, and not to exonerate, regarding any supposed Obstruction Of Justice. Special Counsels and Prosecutors generally do not 'exonerate' under the U.S. System Of Justice. They bring charges if warranted, and no charge if no charge is warranted, and the Prosecutor is entrusted to make that determination.

  Every Citizen is presumed Innocent, until proven guilty in a court of law. That is how the system works. I presume SC Mueller had his reasons, in the case of Obstruction Of Justice, not to make any recommendation. That decision was therefore left, within the U.S. Department of Justice, to the U.S. Attorney General.

  Could be some of the other Prosecutors on Mueller's Team have strong feeling on one or more issues, which differ from Mueller, and still Mueller found no reason to bring a charge. Is this a bit of 'mischief' on Bob Mueller's part, to leave some 'balls in the air' to so speak, maybe a way to allow those seeking any shred of hope to cancel the results of the 2016 elections to flower?

  Some believe that Mueller is not one to make mischief. Some believe he had satisfied his own commission with the findings he presented, to the best of his own ability, and just did not feel the same as some of his staff. Whatever.

  Congress is free to investigate, should they bring Impeachment Proceedings.
The Executive Agencies are not under obligation to share Grand Jury Testimony or other evidence covered as Confidential in Mueller's Confidential Report to the Attorney General.

[Athos_131]

  No charges directly involved the Republican Campaign, or persons acting on behalf of the Campaign for any charges.

Mueller indicts Roger Stone, says he was coordinating with Trump officials about WikiLeaks' stolen emails

Roger Stone has been indicted by a grand jury on charges brought by special counsel Robert Mueller, who alleges that the longtime Donald Trump associate sought stolen emails from WikiLeaks that could damage Trump's opponents while in coordination with senior Trump campaign officials.

The indictment's wording does not say who on the campaign knew about Stone's quest, but makes clear it was multiple people. This is the first time prosecutors have alleged they know of additional people close to the President who worked with Stone as he sought out WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

"After the July 22, 2016, release of stolen (Democratic National Committee) emails by Organization 1, a senior Trump Campaign official was directed to contact STONE about any additional releases and what other damaging information Organization 1 had regarding the Clinton Campaign. STONE thereafter told the Trump Campaign about potential future releases of damaging material by Organization 1," prosecutors wrote.
The indictment also says: "During the summer of 2016, STONE spoke to senior Trump Campaign officials about Organization 1 and information it might have had that would be damaging to the Clinton Campaign. STONE was contacted by senior Trump Campaign officials to inquire about future releases by Organization 1."
Stone was arrested by the FBI Friday morning at his home in Florida, his lawyer tells CNN. He was indicted Thursday by a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia on seven counts, including one count of obstruction of an official proceeding, five counts of false statements, and one count of witness tampering.
Shortly after Stone appeared in federal court, he emerged to a crowd filled with both protestors and supporters -- some shouting their support as others chanted "lock him up." Stone told reporters and the crowd that he would plead not guilty to the charges, which he believes are politically motivated.
"After a two-year inquisition, the charges today relate in no way to Russian collusion, WikiLeaks collaboration or any other illegal act in connection with the 2016 campaign," he said.
Stone also said he would not testify against the President.
"I have made it clear I will not testify against the President. Because I would have to bear false witness against him," Stone said.
The FBI also executed a search warrant at Stone's New York residence, according to Kristin Davis who shares the duplex with Stone.
Stone's attorney, Grant Smith, told CNN in a statement that Stone's misstatements were due to forgetfulness and were "immaterial." He also said Stone did not receive materials from WikiLeaks ahead of their public release.
"They found no Russian collusion or they would have charged him with it," Smith said.
Jay Sekulow, an attorney for the President, told CNN in a statement: "The indictment today does not allege Russian collusion by Roger Stone or anyone else. Rather, the indictment focuses on alleged false statements Mr. Stone made to Congress."
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders told CNN's John Berman on "New Day" Friday, "This has nothing to do with the President and certainly nothing to do with the White house. This is something that has to do solely with that individual, and not something that affects us here in (the White House)."

Stone appeared in federal court in Fort Lauderdale late Friday morning. He was released on a $250,000 signature bond.
The indictment
On October 7, 2016, after WikiLeaks released its first set of then-Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta's emails, prosecutors say Stone received a text message from "an associate of the high-ranking Trump campaign official" that said "well done," signaling that the Trump campaign was looped in on Stone's quest for dirt on Democrats.
The associate and the high-ranking campaign official are not named in the complaint, though the indictment describes how Stone told a reporter that what Assange had in the unreleased emails was good for the Trump campaign. Stone responded at the time, "I'd tell [the high-ranking Trump Campaign official] but he doesn't call me back."
An email matching that wording that was published by The New York Times shows that the official Stone referred to was Steve Bannon.
After the October 7 releases, Stone boasted to "senior Trump Campaign officials" that he had correctly predicted the data dump, prosecutors say.
However, the indictment doesn't detail direct communication Stone or others may have had with Assange.
Stone has maintained publicly that he did not know in advance about what WikiLeaks would release. That alleged lie, which he also told to Congress, forms the basis for some of his other criminal charges in Friday's indictment.
The indictment also alleges that Stone lied to Congress about "his communications with the Trump Campaign about Organization 1." In the indictment, Organization 1 is WikiLeaks.

The indictment unsealed Friday after Stone's arrest makes clear he communicated with multiple people about what Assange knew, and they were providing him updates from Assange and what Stone wanted to communicate with him. Prosecutors cite text messages and emails he exchanged with the people about what Assange had, and one sent a photo of himself standing outside the Ecaudorian embassy in London, where Assange has stayed for years.
The men passed on much of the information after WikiLeaks began speaking publicly about stolen documents it had but before all had been released.
According to previous reporting, those people included radio host Randy Credico and Jerome Corsi. They are unnamed in the indictment and have not been charged with crimes.
Corsi confirmed to CNN that he is "Person 1" in the indictment and that the statements about him in the indictment are "accurate."
"What is contained in the indictment confirms I did nothing wrong," Corsi said.
Corsi also said Stone and his allies should be advised "the investigation being done by the special counselor is extremely thorough," Corsi said. Corsi has been interviewed by Mueller's team multiple times and confirmed to CNN in November that he was in plea negotiations with Mueller's team.
"They have everything," he said. "I can tell you that from first-hand experience."
Stone also communicated with a "supporter involved with the Trump Campaign" via a text message about what else Assange had.
Witness tampering
Stone was also indicted on a witness tampering charge for his alleged attempts to sway Credico's story before he testified to Congress — even tapping into language from mob movies and citing disgraced President Richard Nixon, who Stone once worked for.
Credico is identified as "Person 2" in the indictment -- one of the people who was communicating with Stone about what Assange knew -- his lawyer, Martin Stolar, confirmed to CNN.
"Randy is a witness," Stolar said, and will testify if needed in proceedings involving Stone.
Stone has claimed that Credico, a progressive New York political activist and radio host, served as his backchannel to WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign. Credico has denied that he acted as an intermediary.

Over text message, Stone told Credico, "'Stonewall it. Plead the fifth. Anything to save the plan' ... Richard Nixon," prosecutors said. Stone warned Credico he would get "indicted for perjury" because he could contradict Stone's testimony. "And if you turned over anything to the FBI you're a fool," Stone told Credico later via text.
Multiple times, Stone told him to do a "Frank Pentangeli," a reference to a "The Godfather: Part II" character who was a former Corleone ally who later feigns innocence to Congress before killing himself.
He also called him "a rat" and a "stoolie," prosecutors say. He threatened to take away Credico's dog — a fluffy white therapy pet named Bianca who even later went with Credico into his grand jury appearance — and told him "Prepare to die [expletive]," prosecutors wrote.
Credico pleaded the Fifth Amendment and did not answer questions in a House Intelligence Committee interview.
Those communications led to a witness tampering charge against Stone.
Early morning raid
A number of law enforcement vehicles with silent sirens flashing pulled in front of Stone's home on a darkened Ft. Lauderdale street just after 6 a.m. Friday morning.
About a dozen officers with heavy weapons and tactical vests fanned out across Stone's lawn.
Law enforcement shined a flashlight into Stone's front door before one officer rapped against it, shouting, "FBI. Open the door."
Seconds later, the agent shouted, "FBI. Warrant."
A second-floor light turned on and moments later, Stone appeared in the front entryway. He confirmed who he was to law enforcement.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

  Special Counsel Mueller chose not to charge, and not to exonerate, regarding any supposed Obstruction Of Justice. Special Counsels and Prosecutors generally do not 'exonerate' under the U.S. System Of Justice. They bring charges if warranted, and no charge if no charge is warranted, and the Prosecutor is entrusted to make that determination.

The DOJ policy is you cannot indict Donnie.  It is Congress' duty to oversee Donnie.

As usual you have the facts wrong.

#Resist

[joan1984]

  Thank you. Roger Stone has been charged, and we shall see the result of all that in time. I would like to see a special counsel for all the 2016 Presidential Campaign efforts, going into all the detail including Podesta's and DNC hacking of emails, and Wikileaks.

  Much still to answer in that regard.

[Athos_131]

When General Flynn has been made whole in every way, I will be partially satisfied; and I hope to see many of these cretins, you all know the names well, dragged through the courts, dragged in cuffs with their families in early morning raids, and broken financially, and professionally, prior to finding themselves incarcerated.

Why does a man who pleaded guilty need to be "made whole"?  If he wasn't guilty he would not have pleaded that.

Facts are not your friend apparently.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

  Thank you.

Fuck you.

#Resist

[joan1984]

  We agree, and the needs of Congress are their own to pursue.
Congress has much power under an Impeachment Process.
Congress has its own Investigators, and can do a fine job, am sure.

  Special Counsel Mueller chose not to charge, and not to exonerate, regarding any supposed Obstruction Of Justice. Special Counsels and Prosecutors generally do not 'exonerate' under the U.S. System Of Justice. They bring charges if warranted, and no charge if no charge is warranted, and the Prosecutor is entrusted to make that determination.

The DOJ policy is you cannot indict Donnie.  It is Congress' duty to oversee Donnie.

As usual you have the facts wrong.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

  We agree, and the needs of Congress are their own to pursue.
Congress has much power under an Impeachment Process.
Congress has its own Investigators, and can do a fine job, am sure.

  Special Counsel Mueller chose not to charge, and not to exonerate, regarding any supposed Obstruction Of Justice. Special Counsels and Prosecutors generally do not 'exonerate' under the U.S. System Of Justice. They bring charges if warranted, and no charge if no charge is warranted, and the Prosecutor is entrusted to make that determination.

The DOJ policy is you cannot indict Donnie.  It is Congress' duty to oversee Donnie.

As usual you have the facts wrong.

#Resist

For someone who whined about how much the Special Counsel cost I find it odd you would not want Congress to save time and money by not seeing the full document by Mr. Mueller in order to not have to go back over the same territory.

You must get very tired of getting ratioed on Twitter.

#Resist