Dear Maxine Waters

Perhaps you’re not aware that the POTUS can declassify anything. Carter exposed the F117 in a speech. Please tell us what classified information Trump gave the Russians? Abusing pardons! Have you looked at the Obama and Clinton pardons? Working with Russians to get dirt? Well too bad they only talked about sanctions and adoptions! But Hillary paid for the Steele Dossier, compiled with the help of Russian agents and a British spy. And violated the election laws by reporting it as legal fees and having Perkins pay for it. So intention actions, so Hillary committed a felony.

 

Obstruction of justice? Explain how. Trump planned on firing Comey. Al Franken said Comey should be fired. You critiqued Comey and said he advanced Russia’s cause in the election. So Trump asked repeatedly if he was under investigation. And repeatedly was told he wasn’t. So he felt free to fire an incompetent employee. And he did.

 

As to the FEC violation plead by Cohen. You have faulty logic. Cohen, according to his lawyer, plead out to save millions in legal fees and protect his family. Too bad Mueller has a Darth Vader view on his plea deals, and feels free to change them after they are made. And, while Cohen may by plea by guilty technically, of the election campaign violation, that does not imply Trump is. As you should be aware, the felony violation applies only upon a finding of intent. Many factors make this difficult to prove. From Stormy’s deal being in process before the campaign started, Stormy initiated the negotiations, and chose the timing. The Playboy playmate also started her moves before the election started, and ultimately Cohen's offer was refused. Cohen also provided this same service for other powerful people, so it wasn’t election oriented. It was the perfectly legal save public image and family.

 

You’re out on all counts Maxine Waters. But do continue raving. It helps for the Trump 2020 campaign and the 2018 mid-terms.

Comments

Dino Manalis Added Sep 14, 2018 - 8:28am
 Maxine cries for Trump's impeachment and she fuels extreme hatred!
Johnny Fever Added Sep 15, 2018 - 5:49am
To be sure, there is plenty to criticize Maxine Waters for, this article references none of them.  Don’t mistake me, I think all the stuff you highlighted are great arguments in Trump’s favor. However there is an argument for investigating Trump on account of the fact he fired Comey when it was learned Comey was investigating Trump. In addition, Trump’s personal lawyer plead guilty for doing something illegal on behalf of Trump.
 
The issue I have with your article is that Maxine Waters advocates harassing people on account of the fact they work for Trump or are of the GOP party.  Inciting violence is illegal.  It’s also illegal to invade someone’s personal privacy and bark things at them while they’re trying to have dinner. 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Sep 15, 2018 - 9:52am
Mad Maxine is the gift that keeps on giving causing more to see how batshit crazy the dems are and walk away.
 
Comey is the dirtiest of dirty cops and deserved to be fired and deserves to live a long life on his knees in a 4x4x4 chain link enclosure with a bag over his head until death. 
John Minehan Added Sep 15, 2018 - 2:19pm
Just remember the concept of "OADR:"  Originating Agency Determination Required. 
 
The President CAN'T "declassify anything" (although he is unlikely to be sanctioned for errors and he could pressure the originating agency to declassify the information).
 
"Obstruction of justice? Explain how. Trump planned on firing Comey. Al Franken said Comey should be fired. You critiqued Comey and said he advanced Russia’s cause in the election. So Trump asked repeatedly if he was under investigation. And repeatedly was told he wasn’t. So he felt free to fire an incompetent employee. And he did."
 
Actually, it depends.
 
Probably the best analogy comes from Labor Law.
 
In an "at-will" employment state, anyone can normally be fired at any time for any reason or no reason.  There are exceptions for those hired under contracts either collective agreements, as with unions, or personal services contracts, as with doctors or entertainers who may only be removed under the terms of the agreement. 
 
Additionally, and pertinent to this discussion, "any reason" does not include pernicious reasons.  So I can't fire everyone who is Black or Jewish or a naturalized US Citizen or over 40 or pregnant for that reason alone.
 
Comey as FBI Director is an Executive Branch Employee.  He serves at the pleasure of the President.  The President can fire the FBI Director.  However, firing an FBI Director for a reason OTHER than "good cause shown" is vanishingly rare. 
 
If Trump fired Comey because Comey was getting too close to Trump, it would likely be obstruction.  The notion of "self-dealing" existed at Common Law before the Constitution and the Constitution does not say that it does not apply to the President.
 
Would the same be true if the President felt he was getting too close to his campaign?  Based on the events with Richard Nixon, that seems likely, even though that case did not come down to impeachment. 
Wolf Angel Added Sep 15, 2018 - 11:54pm
Johnny and John, et al.  This article was edited from a specific forum dialog. So it’s not an extremely detailed treatise on, well, anything. It points out a few issues with Maxine Waters “impeach, impeach, impeach,...” rhetoric. 
 
As to firing Comey. Democrats wanted him fired before Trump was elected. Waters and Al Franken were particularly vocal. Trump’s major error firing Comey? Not doing it on Jan 21. Trump isn’t a lawyer, he isn’t a politician. He repeatedly asked if he was being investigated and was told he wasn’t... As POTUS he had no confidence in Comey, so he fired him. He couldn’t work with him. There really wasn’t an alternative. No man is an island applies. Comey was not unique at the FBI, and had a full staff working the issues. Being fired didn’t stop the investigation. It didn’t even impede it. 
 
But the real situation was Comey was incompetent. He assumed roles delegated to the DOJ and AG, so he was a rogue employee. Announcing no charges or further investigation of Hillary Clinton if you’re curious. Those responsibilities fall to the DOJ. Even Loretta Lynch wasn’t happy with Comey doing her job. Comey’s rationalization? Lynch had a conflict of interest.
 
The President requires staff he trusts in the executive branch. They serve at the pleasure, as noted. 
 
The legislative branch has broad investigative powers currently, and if the President is suspect, in my opinion, they should control the investigation. Right now the legislature can’t get the information that they require from the special prosecutor. The authorization for the special prosecutor needs to be amended. Require a budget with overage authorization. Limit the time period, allow the special prosecutor to petition for and justify extensions. Mandate a quiet period around federal elections. If something outside the mandate is found, not only turn prosecution over to the appropriate agency, but then stop meddling in it. 
 
One thing is sure; we will, as the American people, learn from the experience. And hopefully extract what we can to modify the process for the future.
 
Bless you all, get ready to vote in November.
Wolf Angel Added Sep 16, 2018 - 12:11am
John, one more comment regards declassifying information. 
 
In the Department of the Navy versus Egan the majority ruled: "The President, after all, is the ‘Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States’" according to Article II of the Constitution, the court’s majority wrote. "His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security ... flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."
 
This power has also been expanded to govern all classified information. This is because the top of the civil and military chain of command is the president. Additionally an EO order is at the heart of our system to classify information. It has been modified by presidents several times. And it is generally acknowledged that EOs can’t restrict the president’s behavior. So, the President is in every executive agency, constitutionally. So, no limits to what he can declassify. And if Congress attempts to place such limits it would be a clearly unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. 
 
Here’s a link to the EO. 
https://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/cnsi-eo.html
 
The president qualifies as a supervisory official, Part 3, section 3.1, b(3)...
Jeffry Gilbert Added Sep 16, 2018 - 1:33am
But the real situation was Comey was incompetent
 
Comey is much worse than that. 
 
He's the dirtiest of dirty cops. 
 
He's going down. 
 
John Minehan Added Sep 16, 2018 - 3:27pm
"The grant or denial of security clearance to a particular employee is a sensitive and inherently discretionary judgment call that is committed by law to the appropriate Executive Branch agency having the necessary expertise in protecting classified information."
 
Thus, POTUS, who does not have "the necessary expertise," would have been better served to have pulled Comey's access and referred the matter to CCF for adjudication.