Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: Will Giuliani rat out Trump?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    teh intarweb
    Posts
    5,283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Green Man View Post
    Some are federal statutes, others state.
    And all are ginned up sour grapes, if not outright fabrications.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

    George Orwell



    Police dog 1, bad guy nothin':

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Fly-over country
    Posts
    7,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bear View Post
    And all are ginned up sour grapes, if not outright fabrications.
    Investigations are like onions, you pull some peel off and there's more underneath. At this point there seems to be little political appetite for prosecuting the former president however much prosecutorial appetite there may be.

    State prosecutors may have fewer inhibitions than the federal ones.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Green Man View Post
    Investigations are like onions, you pull some peel off and there's more underneath. At this point there seems to be little political appetite for prosecuting the former president however much prosecutorial appetite there may be.

    State prosecutors may have fewer inhibitions than the federal ones.
    If any Presidents need indicted they should look at the present one and his former boss...

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    5,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Green Man View Post
    Investigations are like onions, you pull some peel off and there's more underneath. At this point there seems to be little political appetite for prosecuting the former president however much prosecutorial appetite there may be.

    State prosecutors may have fewer inhibitions than the federal ones.



    What about the Biden Crimes???

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Posts
    783

    Default

    Under Guliani, the escape doors to the roof of the World Trade Center were locked, so I've read.
    Evidently he was part of the problem, along with the Bushwhackers and many other USA officials who assisted in planting the various explosives in the building ahead of the detonations. On top of that, all other USA officials are not interested in the Truth, but in maintaining cover stories for the guilty.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Fly-over country
    Posts
    7,137

    Default

    Judge orders release of DOJ memo justifying not prosecuting Trump

    Amy Berman Jackson blasts former Attorney General William Barr's spin on the Mueller report as "disingenuous."

    By JOSH GERSTEIN
    05/04/2021 02:59 PM EDT
    Updated: 05/04/2021 03:28 PM EDT

    https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/04/trump-obstruction-justice-doj-485360


    A federal judge has ordered the release of a key Justice Department memo supporting former Attorney William Barr’s conclusion that former President Donald Trump should not be prosecuted for obstruction of justice over episodes investigated by special counsel Robert Mueller.

    U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued that ruling in a withering opinion that accused Barr of being “disingenuous” when describing Mueller’s findings and found that the Justice Department was not candid with the court about the purpose and role of the 2019 memo prepared by Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel.

    In response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, Justice Department attorneys argued that the memo was part of the process of advising Barr on whether Trump should be prosecuted, but Jackson said the analysis consisted of a post hoc rationalization of a decision already made.

    “The review of the document reveals that the Attorney General was not then engaged in making a decision about whether the President should be charged with obstruction of justice; the fact that he would not be prosecuted was a given,” wrote Jackson, an appointee of former President Barack Obama.

    Jackson linked Justice Department’s effort to keep the memo secret to Barr’s initial descriptions of Mueller’s conclusions, declaring both efforts misleading.

    “Not only was the Attorney General being disingenuous then, but DOJ has been disingenuous to this Court with respect to the existence of a decision-making process that should be shielded by the deliberative process privilege," she wrote. "The agency’s redactions and incomplete explanations obfuscate the true purpose of the memorandum, and the excised portions belie the notion that it fell to the Attorney General to make a prosecution decision or that any such decision was on the table at any time.”

    Justice Department attorneys also argued that the memo is covered by attorney-client privilege, but Jackson said much of it didn’t seem to contain legal advice or conclusions. “The Court is not persuaded that the agency has met its burden to demonstrate that the memorandum was transmitted for the purpose of providing legal advice, as opposed to the strategic and policy advice that falls outside the scope of the privilege,” the judge wrote.

    Jackson noted that another D.C-based federal judge, Reggie Walton, previously criticized Barr’s early description of the Mueller report. She said that criticism was “well-founded.”

    Jackson released her opinion in part Monday after reviewing the memo herself, a process which she noted that the Justice Department “strongly resisted.” She withheld some portions that include the details of the memo from the version of her decision that was made public.

    The Justice Department can appeal Jackson’s decision to force release of the memo.

    A department spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling. Efforts to reach the former officials named in the decision for comment were not successful.

    The freedom-of-information suit Jackson ruled on Monday was filed in 2019 by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

    While it is unclear if it influenced her ruling, Jackson had a close-up view of one of the biggest firestorms of Barr's tenure as attorney general: his decision to overrule front-line prosecutors and effectively withdraw their recommendation of a seven-to-nine year sentence for President Donald Trump's longtime adviser Roger Stone on charges of lying to Congress and witness tampering. Jackson — who was the judge in Stone's trial — wasn't openly critical of Barr's move, but made clear in court that she believed it deviated from the administration's stated policy on sentencing matters.

    Jackson wound up sentencing Stone to three-and-a-half years in prison, but Trump commuted the sentence and eventually pardoned Stone outright.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Posts
    783

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivan88 View Post
    Under Guliani, the escape doors to the roof of the World Trade Center were locked, so I've read.
    xx

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    155

    Default

    Kinda as a side note Ivan. Have you actually read art of the deal? I ask not because I believe it will change your mind about anything, but it is an interesting view into DJT. My conclusions didn't really change but we had guys like him in the Navy and when wheeler dealer is your lot in life it did put a bit different perspective on the why behind the man's mindset right or wrong. Guliani is a tried and true new yorker which in my own experience means dirty as they come. You have to be to survive to where he got to in the politics of that city. NOT a justification, simply an observation of fact for what it's worth. Were you or I from that kind of upbringing, our outlook on life would probably be vastly different to the people we are today. Again I don't judge just observe. We all have our fish to fry so to speak. ymmv

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    5,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Green Man View Post
    Judge orders release of DOJ memo justifying not prosecuting Trump

    Amy Berman Jackson blasts former Attorney General William Barr's spin on the Mueller report as "disingenuous."

    By JOSH GERSTEIN
    05/04/2021 02:59 PM EDT
    Updated: 05/04/2021 03:28 PM EDT

    https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/04/trump-obstruction-justice-doj-485360


    A federal judge has ordered the release of a key Justice Department memo supporting former Attorney William Barr’s conclusion that former President Donald Trump should not be prosecuted for obstruction of justice over episodes investigated by special counsel Robert Mueller.

    U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued that ruling in a withering opinion that accused Barr of being “disingenuous” when describing Mueller’s findings and found that the Justice Department was not candid with the court about the purpose and role of the 2019 memo prepared by Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel.

    In response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, Justice Department attorneys argued that the memo was part of the process of advising Barr on whether Trump should be prosecuted, but Jackson said the analysis consisted of a post hoc rationalization of a decision already made.

    “The review of the document reveals that the Attorney General was not then engaged in making a decision about whether the President should be charged with obstruction of justice; the fact that he would not be prosecuted was a given,” wrote Jackson, an appointee of former President Barack Obama.

    Jackson linked Justice Department’s effort to keep the memo secret to Barr’s initial descriptions of Mueller’s conclusions, declaring both efforts misleading.

    “Not only was the Attorney General being disingenuous then, but DOJ has been disingenuous to this Court with respect to the existence of a decision-making process that should be shielded by the deliberative process privilege," she wrote. "The agency’s redactions and incomplete explanations obfuscate the true purpose of the memorandum, and the excised portions belie the notion that it fell to the Attorney General to make a prosecution decision or that any such decision was on the table at any time.”

    Justice Department attorneys also argued that the memo is covered by attorney-client privilege, but Jackson said much of it didn’t seem to contain legal advice or conclusions. “The Court is not persuaded that the agency has met its burden to demonstrate that the memorandum was transmitted for the purpose of providing legal advice, as opposed to the strategic and policy advice that falls outside the scope of the privilege,” the judge wrote.

    Jackson noted that another D.C-based federal judge, Reggie Walton, previously criticized Barr’s early description of the Mueller report. She said that criticism was “well-founded.”

    Jackson released her opinion in part Monday after reviewing the memo herself, a process which she noted that the Justice Department “strongly resisted.” She withheld some portions that include the details of the memo from the version of her decision that was made public.

    The Justice Department can appeal Jackson’s decision to force release of the memo.

    A department spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling. Efforts to reach the former officials named in the decision for comment were not successful.

    The freedom-of-information suit Jackson ruled on Monday was filed in 2019 by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

    While it is unclear if it influenced her ruling, Jackson had a close-up view of one of the biggest firestorms of Barr's tenure as attorney general: his decision to overrule front-line prosecutors and effectively withdraw their recommendation of a seven-to-nine year sentence for President Donald Trump's longtime adviser Roger Stone on charges of lying to Congress and witness tampering. Jackson — who was the judge in Stone's trial — wasn't openly critical of Barr's move, but made clear in court that she believed it deviated from the administration's stated policy on sentencing matters.

    Jackson wound up sentencing Stone to three-and-a-half years in prison, but Trump commuted the sentence and eventually pardoned Stone outright.

    What about FBI refusing to Charge Billory for her crimes??

    Your Marxist allies only support political charges against the so called Right..

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    3,298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Green Man View Post
    On the criminal side there's Obstruction of Justice, Campaign finance Violations, Federal Tax Charges, New York State Tax Charges, NY Real-Estate Fraud, the Emoluments Cases and Congressional Tax and Financial Records Cases. There are other civil cases too numerous to mention.

    I'm not in a position to opine on the validity or not of any particular case listed above or not listed.
    There are two sets of lawbooks.


    Leftism Is a Religion Without The Ability To Forgive

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •