Likewise, no comment.
No, why would it?
If it the law supposedly broken by Biden is a felony
.
Lol @ D’Anconia. You really should research sometimes before dropping your obvious truth bombs.
For dirt on Biden - yes - for Dirt on Trump, also yes - but so it can be buried.
Let’s also note (given the likely sources from which Giuliani would have been hearing of these crimes):
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/13/fec-election-foreign-trump-1364598
Of course, one might note that there are people in the world who perform investigations.
There are also people in the world who you can ask to perform illicit activities and then, legally, be able to refuse to answer questions about that on the basis of attorney-client privilege. These people are not professionals at performing investigations and one would generally not choose them for such a purpose since that’s not what they’re good at.
I bolded the most fascinating part of your quote, Walken.
Whatever the Intelligence Committee does with this evidence, I hope SDNY uses it in their own case(s) to indict Trump while he is in office (assuming their is evidence to do so, and what are the odds?), so we can finally get a definitive ruling from the SCOTUS on that horrible DOJ OLC memo that says a president can’t be indicted while in office. I notice the Israelis don’t have a similar prohibition. Also noted several of our own district and circuit courts made a point to say in their recent rulings that there has never been definitive guidance on this issue. There needs to be, and this is just the president for it.
Man’s starting to grow on me.
If he starts handing over emails and texts, then I’ll call him a national hero regardless of his motives. For the moment I’m just glad to see that so far he hasn’t paraded out any outlandish accusations and that he’s still warming up to the side of good.
The Congressional Research Service doesn’t appear to agree.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL34303
None of those apply to simply not reporting a crime.
It will all be labeled a deep fake.
“Folks, this is a deep fake from the deep state!”
The 40 percent will buy it, or they’ll simply acquiesce on their way to the Right to Life rally or (evangelical) church or both.
How craven will the Senate be?
Fox’s Chris Wallace interviews Sen. Kennedy (R-La), via Aaron Rupar, Vox:
Here’s video of the phone call between Bartiromo and Nunes on Fox, via Aaron Rupar, Vox:
Aaron Rupar, Vox:
I feel like a few forces in the Republican Party are going to pretty quickly slap this sort of talk down, before they start backing the party into a corner where people start asking, “Then why are we helping Ukraine?”
Falsities are for the lay-people and elections, not national security policy.
The existence of SOME in the very title of the report lends credence to the strong possibility it is not an exhaustive list.
Depends on the degree to which the Republicans in question are indebted to/compromised by the Kremlin. National security considerations, in that case, might be expected to take a back seat to covering of asses.
Even more comically, his cite discusses 18 U.S. Code § 4.Misprision of felony that I cited (I’m going to guess he didn’t bother to even click on my link or he would have known that it didn’t link to obstruction of justice. Clicking is hard). Also, I love that D’Anconia didn’t get any further than the first paragraph of the summary. LOL Reading is hard.
Now, I know D’Anconia is going to hang his hat on the fact that misprision of a felony isn’t technically obstruction of justice (and will try to use this as a tangential distraction from the thrust of the current discussion on the thread), so let’s just leave it at it appears that Guiliani may have broken the law, which was the obvious spirit of the question being asked even though it was phrased around a specific statute. What saves Guiliani is:
1 - The DoJ isn’t going to come after him because they’re corrupt; and,
2 - He may not have committed the fourth element of the crime of misprision.
I’m not a lawyer, and obviously the evidence at this point is only his laughably inept public statement. But maybe as they dig deeper into his other criminal activities they may find that he did some concealing of Trump’s crimes. That would be a shame.
Also, the whole thing is pointless since Guiliani doesn’t have any insurance relating to the Bidens.
For the record:
- As noted, “some of” the statutes is a different thing than “an authoritative list of”.
- If someone puts a strawberry and a banana on a table and announces, “These are ALL the fruits of the world”, and then you show a lime, the lime doesn’t stop being a fruit.
- But, likewise, if the pre-eminent expert on fruit does compile a genuinely complete selection of fruits on a (very large) table, and you show a beet (because it’s sweet), that doesn’t make the beet a fruit. And you should be sceptical that you have outdone an expert, in general.
- As I read it, in order to commit misprision of felony, you have to perform an “affirmative act to conceal the crime”. Meaning that you aren’t guilty simply by, say, being too busy to report or on edge about reporting because the local gang has a custom of beheading people who report crimes. You have to do something pro-active like continuing to conceal the crime when directly asked about it by the authorities, hiding evidence related to the crime, etc.
If the Feds ask him what crime he is aware of, he will have to answer them (and they should go ask him, given that he has made the admission on TV). But if they ask him why he didn’t report, if he explains something like, “I’m not an expert on criminal law and I wanted to run the information by an expert before filling a crime report”, then he would potentially be in the clear. Granted, they’ll then ask, “Then why did you say that you knew you had criminal information?” Which he can easily explain as political puffery.
How he then explains the obvious follow-up, “How exactly would it be that releasing anti-Biden puffery to the public would serve as insurance against President Trump throwing you under the bus, when you were being hired to find and release anti-Biden puffery to the public?” I could not say.
All of everyone’s texts are on the record, since 2018:
(Presuming that the Democrats go for them, that the Supreme Court allows them to have them, and the White House doesn’t delete them.)
This is a bit of older news, but I can’t resist…
About three weeks ago, when there was first talk of putting Jim Jordan on the committee, I saw an article on AlterNet about it, which included this picture. This was the first photo I had seen of him, or at least the first that I noticed.
That evil smirk on his face reminded me of some one. I’ve seen that face before! Who could it be? Why YES, of course! I knew it! It’s THIS guy! Who could be mistaken?
