Hair on Fire Alert: Donald Trump Spoke to Two Witnesses After Their Interviews with Mueller, Going So Far As to Ask Don McGahn If the Interviewers Had Been "Nice"

A reasonable recap of a very unreasonable media freakout.

Sexton quotes Jonathan Turley:

Law Professor Jonathan Turley was asked about the breaking story on Fox News this afternoon and agreed it was "problematic." "There have been serious problems in minding the line in these types of contacts," Turley said. He added, "Those types of slips are prolonging this investigation, fueling allegations when we still don't have a clear crime that is linked to the president."

So the bottom line here is that what Trump did isn't illegal but it's definitely unwise because it makes the Special Counsel focus in on him when, thus far, there's no evidence he’s done anything wrong.

You can watch the full video of the discussion with Turley at the link.

Turley also asks, in a different article, if Andrew McCabe could be charged with perjury the way Michael Flynn was.

According to [] reports, investigators believed that McCabe misled them about his approval of a leak to the media on the Clinton investigation. An alleged false or misleading statement by McCabe could rekindle questions about how the Justice Department addresses alleged false statements within its own ranks.

Ultimately, Inspector General Michael Horowitz has the authority to refer a matter to criminal investigators investigators in cases of false statements or other crimes. He can also refer matters to state bars in cases of professional misconduct by lawyers. He could do either in the matter of McCabe if investigators conclude that McCabe intentionally misled them. However, if history is any guide, McCabe is unlikely to find himself facing a charge.

It is a perceived luxury enjoyed by federal prosecutors that routinely charge others with even borderline false statements but rarely face such charges themselves. While most prosecutors adhere to the highest ethical standards, a minority of Justice Department lawyers have been accused of false or misleading statements in federal cases. However, they are virtually never charged with false statements by their colleagues. There is no such reluctance in using this easily charged crime against targets outside of the department.

Yes, that's as imagined it would be.

So what we have here are prosecutors looking to charge Trump for something that is not a crime while giving their Government Colleague a pass on something that actually is a crime.

OUT: You want more Trump? This is how you get more Trump.

IN: You want actual revolution? This is how you get actual revolution.

posted by Ace at 02:30 PM

| Access Comments