Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2017 01:05 pm
@oralloy,
Quote oralloy:
Quote:
But having contacts with Russia is not a crime.

If Flynn lied to the White House about his Russian contacts, whether the White House wants to forgive him or not, it is. Besides which, as a general, he is privy to certain security information that he legally cannot freely pass to anyone he wants to. If he lies about his Russian contacts, the amount of information Flynn gave the Russians needs to be investigated. Quickly.

Quote oralloy:
Quote:
Even if Trump and Putin were directly collaborating over strategy every night during the election, that would not be a crime. (Not that this happened, but just as an extreme example to illustrate my point.)

I beg to differ. If Trump or his campaign openly colluded with Russia on the hacking of the DNC emails, then the law absolutely has been broken.

Quote oralloy:
Quote:
The Democrats are trying to get innocent people convicted of imaginary crimes.

Lying to the Senate about your Russian contacts during your confirmation hearings definitely is a crime, (Sessions). Lying to the White House about the extent of your Russian contacts, (Flynn), is a crime, whether the White House is angry at you or not for it. Giving away national security information that you were privy to and not legally allowed to pass along, (possibly Flynn), is a crime. Acting as an agent for the Russian government when you have not registered as an agent of the Russian government, (Manafort), is also a crime.

maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2017 01:08 pm
@Blickers,
Getting a blowjob....not a crime
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2017 04:28 pm
@layman,
She had just been asked by Trey Gowdy if she ever made an unmasking request. I mean, like, really now, does this look like the face of an honest person?

https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/samantha_power.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=1200
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2017 09:58 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:
Getting a blowjob....not a crime

Can we get the feminists to sign off on that? Shortly before Clinton we were pretty close to having it declared a capital offense for a man in power to have sex with a female subordinate.

Anyway, the Republicans only went after Clinton because the Democrats had been going after Republicans in the exact same way.

Now that the Democrats are back to witch hunting again, expect the Republicans to be returning fire again.

Personally I'm hoping for FBI investigations and IRS audits to start being launched against prominent left-wingers. Who knows what trivial things they could be prosecuted for.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2017 10:00 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
I beg to differ. If Trump or his campaign openly colluded with Russia on the hacking of the DNC emails, then the law absolutely has been broken.

Which law would have been broken here? Cite?

If you don't have a direct cite, I might be able to look the law up myself if you describe it well enough.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 3 Jun, 2017 07:43 pm
I mean, like, whooda thunk, I ax ya?

Quote:
ABC, CBS Ignore House Subpoenas to Obama Officials, NBC Touts Clinton

On Wednesday, the Big Three Networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) were all over the latest developments in the Russia investigation saga. They mainly focused on how former FBI Director James Comey received permission from Special Counsel Robert Mueller to speak to Congress.

Among the developments that didn’t make the cut for ABC's and CBS's evening programming, were a series of subpoenas issued by the House to former high-ranking members of the Obama administration for improper unmasking. Instead, they mentioned those issued to Trump associates.

Both Spanish-language networks Univision and Telemundo also failed to mention the subpoenas directed at the former Obama officials, but they were quick to report on those sent to Trump associates. Neither of them reported on Clinton’s comments, which also goes for ABC and CBS.

Without any rebuttal, Mitchell played a clip of Clinton pushing the tinfoil hat conspiracy that “They [the Russians] came to Jared Kushner and basically said, ‘We will marry our operation, we will marry that with the RNC on two conditions, you pick Steve Bannon and you pick Kellyanne Conway.’ Bannon had been running the Breitbart operation supplying a lot of the untrue, false stories.”


As I've said before, often you can tell as much about extremely biased reporting by what they DON'T report as you can what they do. I wonder who Blicky watches?

So, that settles it then! Putin, not Trump, chose Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway.

Like I done said, who knew?

oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 4 Jun, 2017 03:41 am
@layman,
Quote:
ABC, CBS Ignore House Subpoenas to Obama Officials, NBC Touts Clinton

They'll have to address it at some point if they want to whine about it. And I presume that when Susan Rice and Samantha Power get carted off to prison, the media will want to whine about it.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jun, 2017 05:13 am
@layman,
Do you recall any U.S. ambassadors asking that a name be unmasked?



camlok
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 4 Jun, 2017 10:23 am
@layman,
POSs are folks who commit war crimes and terrorism, layman and the people who support the people who who commit war crimes and terrorism. That's you.
0 Replies
 
MethSaferThanTHC
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 4 Jun, 2017 11:06 am
I need a prescription of heroin to win a political debate.

Username just sarcasm of how media and backyard philosophers reason with the public
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Mon 4 Sep, 2017 05:45 am
Quote:

The Department of Justice confirmed in a Friday court filing what we all knew to be true: that Trump’s slanderous assertion on Twitter in March that President Barack Obama had Trump’s “ ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower” just before the election was in fact a total fabrication.

According to the filing, both the F.B.I. and the Department of Justice’s National Security Division “confirm that they have no records related to wiretaps as described by the March 4, 2017 tweets.”
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Sat 16 Sep, 2017 06:31 am
Trump supporter with a crystal ball wrote:

I can't believe that these corrupt people thought they were going to get away with this kind of behaviors. Rice had better seek immunity now before something more damning pops up.


It's pretty obvious that it was for political reasons, it's just a matter of time until it all comes out.


Just wait, this may go all the way back to Obama.


There is just no way the story is going to have a happy ending for Rice or the Obama administration.


This will be the anchor that drags Obama to the mud filled bottom of corrupted lake woe-b-gone.


This thread is about that second part as that will be the explosive story that brings down the reputation and disgusting sheen of Obama and his administration.

This is so much fun!
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2022 02:14 pm
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2022 03:14 am
McGentrix wrote:
This will be the anchor that drags Obama to the mud filled bottom of corrupted lake woe-b-gone.


Oh really?

Quote:
It appears that John Durham’s investigation into why the FBI opened an investigation into the ties between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russian operatives is coming to an end.

Durham’s investigation was a prime example of Trump’s attempt to use the Department of Justice not to enforce the nation’s laws, but to hurt his enemies, a charge former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey Berman has made in his new book. Trump, Berman said, wanted his friends protected and his enemies—including former secretaries of state John Kerry and Hillary Clinton—prosecuted.

In April 2019, the month after Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election finally saw daylight, Attorney General William Barr tapped United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut John Durham to investigate the circumstances under which the FBI began to look into Russian interference in the election in the first place.

The appointment was clearly an attempt to continue to distract people from the results of the Mueller report, which Barr had had an instrumental role in diminishing. Barr took office on February 14, 2019, just as Mueller was finishing his report. As Mueller’s superior, Barr got a copy of the report before anyone else, and he spun it to the media, claiming it exonerated the president and his team. In fact, Mueller established that Russia had illegally intervened in the election to benefit Trump and that the campaign “expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.” Mueller complained to Barr about the spin, but it was too late: the public had bought it.

Trump and his allies jumped on Durham’s investigation, promising it would prove that FBI agents were part of a “Deep State” and that Durham would uncover “the crime of the century.” In December 2020, after Trump had lost the election, Barr revealed that he had made Durham a special counsel the previous October so that Durham could continue his work into the next administration.

But the investigation itself fizzled. Durham pressed charges against only three people. One pleaded guilty to altering an email and was sentenced to probation and community service. A grand jury alleged two others lied to the FBI. One was acquitted of the charges last May. The other is supposed to go on trial next month but has asked a judge to throw out the case for lack of evidence. But Durham’s three-year investigation did provide talking points for those attacking the FBI’s Russia investigation, keeping alive Trump’s false claims that it was just a “witch hunt.”

Trump’s politicization of the Department of Justice was a profound attack on the principles of democracy. Using the law to attack enemies is a hallmark of authoritarians—just ask opposition leader Alexsei Navalny in Russia, who has been sentenced to incarceration on trumped-up charges to get him out of Russian president Vladimir Putin’s way—while it also encourages lawbreaking from those who don’t fear legal consequences.

We have seen that sense of being above the law today in stories about the willingness of Mississippi officials, including former governor Phil Bryant, to work with former NFL player Brett Favre to divert about $5 million in federal welfare funds from helping people in poverty to building a volleyball facility at the University of Southern Mississippi, where his daughter was a volleyball player.

We have seen it in the anger that Trump allies show when law enforcement treats them as it would anyone suspected of lawbreaking. MyPillow chief executive officer Mike Lindell explained by video that yesterday FBI agents took his phone and that “what we’ve done is weaponize the FBI…it’s disgusting….” Agents executed the search warrant as part of a federal investigation into the alleged breach of Colorado voting machines.

We have seen it in Jeffrey Clark’s response today to ethics charges brought against him by the D.C. Bar. Clark was employed by the Department of Justice in late 2020, when he worked to swing the department behind Trump’s lie that he had won the election, a shift that would have utterly destroyed the rule of law in the U.S. Now he claims the D.C. Bar cannot punish him because normal rules of behavior don’t apply. In a filing today, he told the bar: “[T]the President has an absolute right to seek legal and other forms of advice…and officers of the United States have an absolute duty and corresponding privilege to provide their opinions on a confidential basis.”

The turning of the courts into a tool for partisan advantage has been part of the Republican project since 1986, when Reagan’s attorney general Edwin Meese vowed to “institutionalize the Reagan revolution so it can’t be set aside no matter what happens in future presidential elections.” That partisan use of the courts inspired then–Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to help Trump replace about 30% of the federal bench and to swing the Supreme Court to the far right with three new justices.

An examination by Politico’s Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney shows that Trump’s judges were less experienced on the bench and had spent more time in politics than the judges appointed by other presidents, and that Trump expected them to side with him, calling them “my judges.” “If it’s my judges, you know how they’re gonna decide,” he told evangelical leaders in 2016. And some of them have, indeed, sided with the former president in surprising ways, most recently when Judge Aileen Cannon, confirmed after Trump lost the 2020 election, agreed with his request for a special master to review the government documents recovered by the government from Mar-a-Lago.

Trump’s judges have revealed a willingness to break precedent to achieve political ends, and nowhere is that clearer than in the willingness of the Supreme Court to replace long-settled law with their own preferences, most notably in their Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision protecting the right to abortion, but also in West Virginia v. EPA, limiting Congress’s ability to delegate regulatory authority to agencies, and so on.

That replacement of settled law with what looks to be political preferences has tanked popular faith in the Supreme Court. On Monday, Justice Elena Kagan noted that, ​​“Judges create legitimacy problems for themselves…when they instead stray into places where it looks like they’re an extension of the political process or when they’re imposing their own personal preferences.” People should be able to expect that “changes in personnel don’t send the entire legal system up for grabs.”

President Joe Biden appears to be trying to restore the rule of law to the Department of Justice, going out of his way to note that he is not involved with Attorney General Merrick Garland’s decisions. Increasingly, it looks like Garland’s Justice Department is bearing down on those who considered themselves untouchable.

The trials and convictions of those who participated in the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol continue. Yesterday, three more rioters were found guilty of multiple charges. Twenty-five year old Patrick McCaughey III, of Ridgefield, Connecticut, who crushed Metropolitan Police Department officer Daniel Hodges in a doorway, faces decades in prison.

Also today, Pamela Brown, Evan Perez, Jeremy Herb, and Kristen Holmes reported at CNN that not all of Trump’s loyalists are still acting as if they are above the law. Trump’s White House chief of staff Mark Meadows has complied with a Department of Justice subpoena.

Perhaps most revealing of the restoration of the rule of law at the Justice Department is that former attorney general Barr has been on the television circuit defending the FBI and Biden’s Department of Justice from Trump’s fury over the FBI’s execution of a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago that yielded documents—or empty folders—bearing the highest classified markings.

That is, the same man who sponsored Durham’s political mission has recently begun to speak up for the rule of law.

hcr

Yeah...bigger than Watergate!!! Razz
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2022 12:42 pm
@hightor,
The Durham Investigation: A Primer

Quote:
The full story of Hillary for America’s 2016 disinformation campaign against Donald Trump may only come to light if and when federal prosecutor John Durham releases a final report at the conclusion of his investigation—and the full truth may never be known. While opposition research will continue to be a standard part of political campaigns, the actions taken by the Clinton campaign should be condemned in order never to be repeated. It is one thing to dredge up a political candidate’s youthful indiscretions or shady financial dealings, but it is quite another to invent and fabricate sensational allegations, present them to the FBI as fact, and serve them to a willing media in the weeks before Election Day.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

-The Durham investigation indicates a coordinated effort by the Clinton campaign to disseminate false allegations against Donald Trump to win the 2016 election.

-Indictments filed by Durham show that the “Steele Dossier” and “Alfa-Bank” allegations of a conspiracy between Trump and the Kremlin were entirely concocted.

-The actions alleged in these indictments should be condemned so that they are never repeated by any political campaign in the future.


Your opinion piece is just that, an opinion and really has no substance.

hightor
 
  3  
Reply Fri 23 Sep, 2022 04:45 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:
Your opinion piece is just that, an opinion and really has no substance.


Your source is the right-wing Heritage Foundation and is an opinion piece. The bi-partisan Senate investigation proved that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

"Bigger than Watergate"? "Crime of the century"? I don't think so.
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Fri 23 Sep, 2022 09:04 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Quote:
Your opinion piece is just that, an opinion and really has no substance.


Your source is the right-wing Heritage Foundation and is an opinion piece. The bi-partisan Senate investigation proved that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

"Bigger than Watergate"? "Crime of the century"? I don't think so.


What bi-partisan Senate investigation?

Mueller finds no collusion with Russia
Quote:
The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”


I honestly don't understand how seemingly intelligent people can see what happened and think that it was fine because it was against Trump.

That's mind boggleingly dumb.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2022 03:44 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:

What bi-partisan Senate investigation?


Did you really miss THIS?

Salon wrote:
The Senate Intelligence Committee's final report on its bipartisan Russia investigation revealed even more numerous contacts between President Donald Trump's advisers and Russian operatives than former special counsel Robert Mueller's report.

The committee, which is chaired by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., on Tuesday released its fifth and final report, totaling nearly 1,000 pages, following a three-year bipartsian investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election. The report documents the extent to which Russia sought to influence the election — and members of Trump's team welcoming their assistance.


Quote:
Mueller finds no collusion with Russia


Salon wrote:
"The Senate report — even more extensive than the Mueller investigation — paints a far more devastating picture of Russian intelligence operatives' access to the Trump campaign, describing far more insidious connections than even Mueller did in his report," Politico's Kyle Cheney wrote.

The report, like Mueller's, did not conclude that Trump's campaign coordinated with Russia, but it found that Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort worked with a "Russian intelligence officer" and handed him internal campaign data. The report also suggested that Manafort might also be linked to Russia's hack of the Clinton campaign.

"The committee obtained some information suggesting that the Russian intelligence officer, with whom Manafort had a longstanding relationship, may have been connected to the G.R.U.'s hack-and-leak operation targeting the 2016 U.S. election," the committee's Democrats wrote. "This is what collusion looks like."


Quote:
I honestly don't understand how seemingly intelligent people can see what happened and think that it was fine because it was against Trump.


It wasn't against Trump; it was against his campaign. The Russians took an active interest in aiding Trump's campaign and Trump's campaign manager had a history of receiving undisclosed payments from Russian/Ukrainian operatives.

Eric Trump wrote:
"I think my father didn’t want to be, you know, distracted by whatever things Paul was dealing with," Eric Trump, told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo in an interview airing on "Sunday Morning Futures."
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2022 06:58 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

The bi-partisan Senate investigation proved that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.


hightor wrote:

The report, like Mueller's, did not conclude that Trump's campaign coordinated with Russia, but it found that Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort worked with a "Russian intelligence officer" and handed him internal campaign data. The report also suggested that Manafort might also be linked to Russia's hack of the Clinton campaign.


I know you don't see the difference here, but an honest person would.
hightor
 
  0  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2022 07:18 pm
@McGentrix,
I think an honest person knows the difference between coordination and collusion. I'm not sure you do.

collusion

coordination
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/04/2022 at 08:38:43