Trump Hints At Legal Action Against Mueller’s Team: The ’13 Angry Democrats’

President Donald Trump suggested Monday that “13 angry Democrats” on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team could face legal action over alleged “conflicts of interest.”  This comes after the investigation has already run into numerous snags, including Mueller’s inability to produce any evidence.

“The 13 Angry Democrats in charge of the Russian Witch Hunt are starting to find out that there is a Court System in place that actually protects people from injustice…and just wait ’till the Courts get to see your unrevealed Conflicts of Interest!” Trump said.

The 13 Angry Democrats in charge of the Russian Witch Hunt are starting to find out that there is a Court System in place that actually protects people from injustice…and just wait ‘till the Courts get to see your unrevealed Conflicts of Interest!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 7, 2018

Trump did not provide proof of the alleged conflicts, yet Mueller has yet to provide any evidence in his two-year-long investigation that would warrant keeping it open.  CNN has reported that several members of Mueller’s team have donated to Democrats, and the dossier which allegedly spurred the investigation was paid for by Hillary Clinton’s team.  Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election also has been being pushed hard by propagandists and puppets in the mainstream media.

As if it adds any credence, CNN thought it noteworthy to mention that Mueller is a Republican who was appointed by President George W. Bush, and the man who appointed him as special counsel, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, was appointed by Trump. So if Mueller is a Republican, then Trump probably wasn’t referring to him as one of the ” 13 angry Democrats.” But that’s only if one was expecting CNN to not spin this into some kind of propaganda piece.

Trump has repeatedly denied collusion with Russia to win the election, and considering the investigation into such has gone on for two years without any evidentiary basis for it, it certainly looks like it’s a witch hunt.  He denied that he’s obstructed the probe and has defended his actions as “fighting back” against “the Russia Witch Hunt.”

The Russia Witch Hunt is rapidly losing credibility. House Intelligence Committee found No Collusion, Coordination or anything else with Russia. So now the Probe says OK, what else is there? How about Obstruction for a made up, phony crime.There is no O, it’s called Fighting Back

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 7, 2018

“There is no O, it’s called Fighting Back,” the President tweeted, later suggesting that the investigation was being dragged out so it could damage Republicans in the midterm elections.

Is this Phony Witch Hunt going to go on even longer so it wrongfully impacts the Mid-Term Elections, which is what the Democrats always intended? Republicans better get tough and smart before it is too late!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 7, 2018

Several of the questions that Mueller is interested in asking Trump have been leaked. Many are related to possible obstruction of justice actions. Trump said last week that such questions amount to a “setup and trap” and that it would “seem very hard to obstruct justice for a crime that never happened!”

Last month, Trump hinted to Fox & Friends that he might “at some point” step in and take some kind of action against the Justice Department, which is overseeing the special counsel investigation.

 

State Of Washington v. Trump: Audio From The Appeals Court Hearing

The Justice Department has asked the Court U.S. of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to reverse a lower-court order barring travel-ban enforcement.

The proceeding and oral arguments will be heard at 6 p.m. EST, The hearing will be conducted telephonically, meaning that the judges and attorneys will be participating from their chambers and offices in different parts of the country. The proceeding does not take place in a courtroom, nor will there be any subsequent press conferences at a courthouse.

A live audio stream of the proceeding will be available beginning at 2:55 p.m.  Follow the hearing live with this feed.

Here are some of the key highlights from the hearing, courtesy of The Hill:

Administration lawyer faces more questions: 7:02 p.m.

In a short rebuttal, Flentje grew heated when pressed by Friedland on the plaintiff"s submitted evidence that Trump has supported a Muslim ban in the past. He said it"s "extraordinary" to second-guess the president"s authority over national security "based on newspaper articles."

But Clifton asked whether he denies those statements were made. "No," Flentje replied.

Judges question states" claims of religious discrimination: 6:40pm

Judges pressed Purcell to back up the plaintiffs" claims that Trump"s executive action amounts to religious discrimination.  The states said they believe the order violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another. "I"m not persuaded," Clifton said. The countries targeted "encompass only relatively small percentage of Muslims."

Purcell said states just needed to prove the order was motivated, in part, by a desire to discriminate against Muslims, citing Trump"s remark in December 2015 about a "total and complete shutdown on Muslims entering the United States." "There are statements that are rather shocking evidence of intent to discriminate against Muslims," Purcell said. "The public statement from the president and his top advisers."

Purcell said it is "remarkable" to have this much evidence of intent before the official pre-trial process known as discovery, but Clifton seemed unconvinced by his arguments and lack of hard evidence, pointing to foreign policy that treats citizens from certain nations differently. 

Lawyer describes "irreparable harm" of travel ban: 6:35 p.m.

Purcell moved on to the merits of the underlying immigration order and said it has inflicted irreparable damage to the states through lost tax revenues, separates families and residents afraid of traveling overseas.

States" attorney begins argument: 6:32 p.m.
 
The attorney for Washington and Minnesota argued that the administration pursued the wrong procedural move in requesting an appeal of a temporary restraining order, which are generally non-appealable. Trump"s team says that it should be treated as a preliminary injunction. "Why should we care?" asked Clifton, who suggested that was the wrong argument to pursue.

Defense concludes argument: 6:30 p.m.

Flentje quickly ran up against his 30-minute window — he also reserved five minutes for rebuttal. As judges continued to pepper him with questions, Flentje made his final pitch to the panel: that the injunction against the travel ban is "over broad" and should be immediately stayed, even if the court takes issue with the executive action itself.

Judges press DOJ lawyer on reviewing Trump action: 6:25 p.m.

Canby repeatedly pressed Flentje on whether a state could challenge an order that banned Muslims outright. "That"s not what this order does," Flentje said.

"I know. Could he? Would anyone be able to challenge that?" Canby asked. "That’s not what the order does," the lawyer said again.

Clifton chimed in, saying it"s important because it speaks to whether states have standing to bring a lawsuit. "This is a far cry from that situation," Flentje said.

Earlier in the hearing, Friedland had asked if Trump"s authority made his decision in this situation "unreviewable," to which Flentje responded: "yes."

DOJ lawyer faces questions from judges: 6:18 p.m.

Judges on the panel questioned whether there was any real evidence that the countries outlined in the order posed a real risk for terrorism, and asked for examples of federal offenses from visa holders from the seven nations. Flentje pointed back to the previous actions by Congress and the Obama administration identifying those countries as nations of concern, but said there was no evidence in the record.

"It"s pretty abstract," one judge said. Flentje said of the legal proceedings: "These things are moving pretty fast."

A judge also shot back against Flentje"s assertion that states don"t have the legal standing to bring the lawsuit and challenge visa denials: "Sure they can," Judge Clifton said.

Department of Justice defends Trump"s authority: 6:05 p.m.

The Trump administration kicked off its oral argument by pointing out that the seven countries targeted in the immigration order were previously identified as terrorism risks by Congress and the executive branch, and that it is in the president’s broad legal authority to protect the national interest.