PDA

View Full Version : Ex-FBI Director Mueller appointed DOJ Special Counsel



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Ironduke
18 May 17,, 00:34
I was going to post this in the 'Director Comey' fired thread - but as this is a very important development, it's very much deserving of its own thread.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/deputy-attorney-general-appoints-special-counsel-to-oversee-probe-of-russian-interference-in-election/2017/05/17/302c1774-3b49-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_specialcounsel606%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.375cc88f5803

Deputy attorney general appoints special counsel to oversee probe of Russian interference in election

By Devlin Barrett, Sari Horwitz and Matt Zapotosky May 17 at 6:30 PM
The Justice Department has decided to appoint a special counsel to investigate possible coordination between Trump associates and Russian officials seeking to meddle in last year’s election, according to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

Robert Mueller, a former prosecutor who served as the FBI director from 2001 to 2013, has agreed to serve in the role, Rosenstein said. The move marks a concession by the Trump administration to Democratic demands for the investigation to be run independently of the Justice Department. Calls for a special counsel have increased since Trump fired FBI Director James Comey last week.

“In my capacity as acting attorney general I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority and appoint a special counsel to assume responsibility for this matter,’’ Rosenstein said in a statement. “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination. What I have determined is that based upon the unique circumstances the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command.’’

He said Mueller has agreed to resign from his private law firm to avoid any conflict of interest.

Rosenstein is overseeing the Russia probe after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself. Democrats have challenged Rosenstein’s impartiality in the Russia probe because he wrote a memorandum used as the rationale for Comey’s firing. In the memo, Rosenstein said Comey had violated longstanding Justice Department practices in his handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, but shortly after the announcement of the firing the president said he’d decided to fire Comey before he received the recommendation from Rosenstein.

Under the order signed Wednesday by Rosenstein, Mueller is tasked with investigating “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump’’ as well as “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation’’ and any other matters that fall under the scope of the Justice Department regulation covering special counsel appointments.

“If the special counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the special counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters,’’ the order states.

Officials said the appointment was being made under a Justice Department statute that has only been used once, in 1999, though the Justice Department has made other special counsel appointments more recently under different authority.

Peter Zeidenberg, who has worked for a past special counsel, called Mueller an “inspired choice’’ because he comes to the job with automatic credibility among both parties.

“He’s nominally a Republican, but he’s really not a political person at all,’’ said Zeidenberg, a lawyer now in private practice, who cautioned that such an investigation is likely to take a long time, and may not ultimately satisfy the public’s demand for a full accounting. “People are waiting for public answers to what happened, but that’s not his job. There won’t be a report or a press conference at the end of this from him, that’s not his role.’’

Ironduke
18 May 17,, 00:37
So, Comey's out, and Mueller is "back" in.

An interesting development.

PeeCoffee
18 May 17,, 01:45
Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein seems to understand how things should work from an independent investigative standpoint as his boss ÀG Sessions had reclused himself.

InfiniteDreams
18 May 17,, 02:48
Doesn't a crime have to be committed first? Where's the evidence a crime has been committed?

PeeCoffee
18 May 17,, 05:31
Possibly commence with spoliation of evidence and potentially move onward from there.

I'm not stating that I would start an enlarged investigation with the taxpayers buck at this juncture...but sureIy I would seek some plain answers to certain simple questions from the highest elected official of the American people.
(Obviously Trump's twitter account is giving f**k all.)

I believe that being disingenuous is not listed in any statute as a crime.

Ironduke
18 May 17,, 05:44
Doesn't a crime have to be committed first? Where's the evidence a crime has been committed?
It seems Deputy AG Rosenstein felt that there was enough evidence to warrant appointing Mueller as special counsel.

There are likely things, that have not yet been publicly revealed, as is the case with any ongoing investigation.

We can't assume that just because we haven't yet seen certain things on the cable/nightly news circuit, or in print media, that they don't exist. The facts regarding Watergate took months or a year or more to fully emerge. Just as was the case back then, there are likely bombshell revelations yet to be made.

For example, Flynn request immunity six weeks ago... immunity in exchange for what?

With that being said, I think the matter of Flynn is just a small portion of the entirety of what is yet to be revealed.

What better place though to discuss these revelations, as they emerge, than right here, on WAB?

I do have my own inferences and predictions on what is yet to come, but as an outside observer employed in a non-government capacity in a backwater flyover state, I personally don't have any evidence which I can produce to verify them.

InfiniteDreams
18 May 17,, 07:36
It seems Deputy AG Rosenstein felt that there was enough evidence to warrant appointing Mueller as special counsel.
Rosenstein says it's in the public interest. There’s a difference.

Why is it the public interest when there is no evidence!?

It's in the public interest because we have the MSM pouring the “Russia Connection“ down the American public’s throat night after night while providing ZERO evidence. Both the democrats & republicans are looking for anything they can do to get Trump out of power.

MSM which has now become a faction of the Democratic Party has taken a page right out Goebbels playbook.

This whole this is akin to someone yelling "fire fire", and everyone turns around to look and there is no smoke anywhere. But the same people keep yelling "fire fire". They can’t be lying right? No one would lie and yell fire when there is none? Finally someone calls the Fire Department just to shut those people up.

That's what we have here folks. The MSM has fed the American public a lie enough times that the Deputy AG feels it’s in the public interest.


There are likely things, that have not yet been publicly revealed, as is the case with any ongoing investigation.
Wishful thinking.

With all the leaks coming out of the White House and the Intelligence community, don't you think if there was anything out there damaging enough to lead to an impeachment it would have been leaked by now!?

Also, why would Moscow conspire with the Trump campaign when no one thought Trump had a snowballs chance in hell of winning? No one, nary a one except the ‘silent majority’ actually believed Trump would win the presidency.


"For example, Flynn request immunity six weeks ago... immunity in exchange for what?
Why wouldn't he ask for immunity? Afterall, the Clinton aides all received immunity.


I do have my own inferences and predictions on what is yet to come, but as an outside observer employed in a non-government capacity in a backwater flyover state, I personally don't have any evidence which I can produce to verify them.

Time will tell. I think it's a witch hunt, and a waste of tax payer money.

Anything Mueller finds that doesn't lead to an impeachment won't appease the democrats, and will need another Independent Investigation/special prosecutor for the next impeachment attempt.

Ironduke
18 May 17,, 08:54
there is no evidence!
I distilled your post down to just this, because this is what you're saying.

DOR
18 May 17,, 09:30
Doesn't a crime have to be committed first? Where's the evidence a crime has been committed?

Judges and juries determine if a crime has been committed.
Investigators -- with the title "special counsel" in this case -- investigate whether there is sufficient evidence to charge someone with a crime.

tbm3fan
18 May 17,, 16:06
Doesn't a crime have to be committed first? Where's the evidence a crime has been committed?

Getting past all the Kool-Aid the above is what Grand Juries are used for

tbm3fan
18 May 17,, 16:33
What I find interesting/amusing is that Wednesday night the WH released a statement (from Trump?) that there will be "thorough investigation will confirm what we already know -- there was no collusion between my campaign and any foreign entity."

Then during Twitter time, Thursday morning, Trump let's loose with what he really is thinking. So apparently what is released during media time is what the communication staff wants to say (not Trump) and during Twitter time the window in Trump's mind opens up. Got to say he is true to form, has always been true to form, and always will be true to form. He is a great case study.

zraver
19 May 17,, 02:38
Getting past all the Kool-Aid the above is what Grand Juries are used for

Who wants to bet Comey and Hillary/Obama staffers are sleeping nervous?

"any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump’’ as well as “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation"

Who unmasked Flynn, Why does Comey's under oath testimony before Congress and his personal journal conflict, who hacked/leaked the DNC and why did they refuse to let the FBI do a forensic compuer investigation, what exactly are Podesta's links to Russia, the whole Uranium 1 after massive payments to Bill Clinton in Moscow....

snapper
19 May 17,, 03:28
Wasn't Uranium I a Canadian company?

zraver
19 May 17,, 03:39
Wasn't Uranium I a Canadian company?

Yes but subject to US export control laws becuase of what it mined.

Ironduke
19 May 17,, 04:13
Who wants to bet Comey and Hillary/Obama staffers are sleeping nervous?
I'll bet Comey sleeps just fine.

That being said, just because one is bad, Trump vis-a-vis Clinton, doesn't make the other good. They are both spectacularly bad, but while Clinton is corruptly bad, Trump is dangerously bad.

snapper
19 May 17,, 04:58
Yes but subject to US export control laws becuase of what it mined.

So did Clinton sit on the export supervisory board? I recall reading the case long ago but alot has happened since then and I seem to think there was a political supervisory board and a regulatory export board and that the Muscovites bought U1? As I recall - albeit very dimly - the uranium could not be exported? However U1 did have assets and rights in one of the Stans; I seem to recall the impression that Muscovites got U1 for their rights in the stans? I am pretty sure you are barking at up the wrong tree or special counsels etc would have been appointed and even if there was some underhand dealing - and I am one who thinks Hilary was ineligible as President for her private email account - Trump in my view was far worse even as a candidate. As a President he has been a consistent liar and a joke.

DOR
19 May 17,, 08:32
So did Clinton sit on the export supervisory board? I recall reading the case long ago but alot has happened since then and I seem to think there was a political supervisory board and a regulatory export board and that the Muscovites bought U1? As I recall - albeit very dimly - the uranium could not be exported? However U1 did have assets and rights in one of the Stans; I seem to recall the impression that Muscovites got U1 for their rights in the stans? I am pretty sure you are barking at up the wrong tree or special counsels etc would have been appointed and even if there was some underhand dealing - and I am one who thinks Hilary was ineligible as President for her private email account - Trump in my view was far worse even as a candidate. As a President he has been a consistent liar and a joke.

Is this one still hanging around?
That part of the Grand Lie was outed so long ago I forgot about it.

Snopes: false.

Russian to Judgment
Allegations of a "quid pro quo" deal giving Russia ownership of one-fifth of U.S. uranium deposits in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation are unsubstantiated.
The Uranium One deal was not Clinton’s to veto or approve. Despite transfer of ownership, the uranium remained in the U.S. The timing of most of the donations does not match. Foundation admits disclosure mistakes
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/

PolitiFact: mostly false

Donald Trump repeats his Mostly False claim about Hillary Clinton, Russia and uranium
Our rating of that claim was Mostly False.
Trump’s reference was to Russia’s nuclear power agency buying a controlling interest in a Toronto-based company. That company has mines, mills and tracts of land in Wyoming, Utah and other U.S. states equal to about 20 percent of U.S. uranium production capacity (not produced uranium).

Clinton was secretary of state at the time, but she didn’t have the power to approve or reject the deal. The State Department was only one of nine federal agencies that signed off on the deal, and only President Barack Obama had the power to veto it.

And as FactCheck.org noted in a related fact check, while any of the nine agencies could have objected to the deal, only President Barack Obama had the power to veto it.
Even then, the president can only prohibit such transactions only with "credible evidence" that the "foreign interest exercising control might take action that threatens to impair the national security.’
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2017/feb/16/donald-trump-repeats-his-mostly-false-claim-about-/
..


Never mind; I found your source:

Breitbart News: fake news (sorry: FAKE NEWS!!)
FAKE NEWS: CNBC Cites Left-Wing Politifact in Clinton Russian Uranium Story
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/02/17/fake-news-cnbc-cites-left-wing-politifact-clinton-russian-uranium-story/

astralis
19 May 17,, 13:38
Mueller and Comey are pretty much best buddies, so yeah, pretty sure Comey is going to sleep with a smile on his face.

Ironduke
20 May 17,, 00:15
Just making a general statement here.

Regarding Clinton - she's not the president. And with the results in November, she never will be.

I personally don't care for the present-day Clintons and how they grifted their way to multi-millionaire status through barely legal means, their influence peddling, staying just a hair within the extremely flawed corruption laws on the books in the US, via this revolving door between public service and millionaire riches that most American politicians end up pursuing.

That being said, let's not get lost in the weeds on this Clinton stuff. At this point, it's just a distraction being thrown out (I'm not talking about just here - though I see many falling victim to it on this very board). Bringing up the sins of Clinton is just a ploy to distract from the sins of Trump.

These are very real and pressing concerns regarding Trump. People who've thrown good money after bad becoming emotionally and psychologically invested in Trump, and conversely hating Clinton, will use Clinton's sins to distract us from Trump's. She's not the president, Trump is.

Since she is not the president, I'm personally just going to ignore anything said about Clinton, and focus on Trump.

zraver
20 May 17,, 01:36
Mueller and Comey are pretty much best buddies, so yeah, pretty sure Comey is going to sleep with a smile on his face.

Which means Trump is sleeping easy too. The only way to square Comey's testimony before Congress and his memo without a perjury charge against Comey is rule that memos record mere idle speculation, not obstruction of justice.

snapper
20 May 17,, 07:34
I would not sleep well if I were Trump as he has now admitted firing Comey because of the "great pressure' he was under due to Comey's investigation of his links to Moscow. So what he told the American people - that Comey was fired for matters related to the Clinton inquiry was rubbish yet to his Muscovite pals he admits interfering in the course of an FBI investigation for his own benefit...

gf0012-aust
22 May 17,, 09:37
in another life I've been involved in investigations. We would start from the bottom and work our way up - the junior staff know far more about how things have been compromised than the higher ups - and despite executive privilege - its the junior staff who bind things together

I'd be starting lower down and making senior staff sweat. junior staff are also far more willing and transparent at interviews

the institution as it stands is a daily circus

Albany Rifles
30 Oct 17,, 15:39
Well, first shots fired.

Lot of nervous people in DC this morning.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/manafort-and-former-business-partner-asked-to-surrender-in-connection-with-special-counsel-probe/2017/10/30/6fe051f0-bd67-11e7-959c-fe2b598d8c00_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_specialcounsel-817am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.34c5668aee32

snapper
30 Oct 17,, 17:02
Full indictment text: https://www.justice.gov/file/1007271/download

I see one factual mistake in this. On page 16 it says that Yulia Tymoshenko "(who had served as Ukraine President prior to Yanukovych)" and this factually incorrect. She was Prime Minister but never President.

GVChamp
30 Oct 17,, 20:45
I always knew Manafort was a spy for Rus- errr, Ukraine!

snapper
30 Oct 17,, 21:03
Yanukovych is not Ukraine and from 2014 has been living in Muscovy.

GVChamp
30 Oct 17,, 22:26
Yeah, and before that he was President of Ukraine.

snapper
31 Oct 17,, 08:00
Now you know why we want him for trial. Sadly the 'fraternal neighbour' will not extradite him. By the indictment we are owed some $78m.

snapper
31 Oct 17,, 09:37
Full Papadapolous statement: https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download

astralis
01 Nov 17,, 00:10
this nothingburger is getting pretty tasty.

GVChamp
01 Nov 17,, 14:19
Yup, will have to wait in the coming months to see what more comes out. The file says there is more information known to the parties. That he pled guilty means cooperation and possibly more charges forthcoming. The timeline cuts off abruptly in August 2016, by which time this guy had been trying to set up a meeting between Russia and Trump for 5 months to no avail.

The charges are very "meh." Based on my limited reading, this is a case where I wouldn't be upset by a jury nullification.

Albany Rifles
01 Nov 17,, 14:46
this nothingburger is getting pretty tasty.

Me likee

astralis
01 Dec 17,, 17:03
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/362773-flynn-to-testify-trump-directed-him-to-make-contact-with-the

Flynn to testify Trump 'directed him to make contact with the Russians': report

Former national security adviser Michael Flynn is expected to testify that President Trump instructed him to contact Russian officials during the 2016 campaign, ABC News reports.

Trump "directed him to make contact with the Russians," ABC's Brian Ross said Friday, just moments after Flynn entered a guilty plea for lying about his contact with Russians during the presidential transition period.

Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI on Friday, after being charged with one felony count in special counsel Robert Mueller's probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

According to ABC News, Flynn is also prepared to testify against Trump, members of Trump's family and White House officials.

The former adviser has reportedly also "promised full cooperation to the Mueller team" within the last 24 hours.

Flynn is the first official to hold a formal office in the Trump administration to be brought down by the Mueller probe, which is examining potential ties between the campaign and Moscow during the 2016 election.

Flynn's misrepresentation of his conversations with Kislyak — which took place in December, before Trump took office — were the justification for his ouster from the White House after just 24 days.

snapper
01 Dec 17,, 19:44
Trump must be paniking... probably see Mueller fired next.

astralis
01 Dec 17,, 20:59
well, hasn't touched Mueller yet but he's pressuring Congress to end their investigations (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/us/politics/trump-russia-senate-intel.html).

as a reminder, regarding the Flynn situation (h/t Matthew Miller):

January 24: Flynn makes false statements to FBI

January 26: Yates warns White House that Flynn's call had been monitored

January 27: Trump asks Comey for loyalty pledge

January 30: Yates is fired

Ironduke
07 Dec 17,, 12:30
Yup, will have to wait in the coming months to see what more comes out. The file says there is more information known to the parties. That he pled guilty means cooperation and possibly more charges forthcoming. The timeline cuts off abruptly in August 2016, by which time this guy had been trying to set up a meeting between Russia and Trump for 5 months to no avail.

The charges are very "meh." Based on my limited reading, this is a case where I wouldn't be upset by a jury nullification.
The abrupt cutoff of the timeline was due to keeping information regarding other defendants and aspects of the investigation under seal.

Likewise, the Flynn indictment only covers events for the period from Dec 22 - Dec 31, 2016.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download
https://www.justice.gov/file/1015121/download

Kind of like a jigsaw puzzle falling into place.

I don't think Papadapoulos is eligible for jury nullification, he waived his right to a jury trial and pled guilty.

It seems obvious to me, at minimum, Trump committed obstruction of justice (asking Comey to drop the Flynn matter and firing him when he didn't) and witness intimidation ("better hope there are no tapes").

While I do think enough Republican senators alongside Democrats would vote to convict if impeachment were to occur in the next year, it seems doubtful that the current Republican House would bring forth articles of impeachment unless something even more extremely egregious were to come to light as a result of the Mueller investigation. Now if the Democrats win the House elections in 2018, impeachment obviously becomes much more likely.

zraver
11 Dec 17,, 00:07
The abrupt cutoff of the timeline was due to keeping information regarding other defendants and aspects of the investigation under seal.

Likewise, the Flynn indictment only covers events for the period from Dec 22 - Dec 31, 2016.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download
https://www.justice.gov/file/1015121/download

Kind of like a jigsaw puzzle falling into place.

I don't think Papadapoulos is eligible for jury nullification, he waived his right to a jury trial and pled guilty.

It seems obvious to me, at minimum, Trump committed obstruction of justice (asking Comey to drop the Flynn matter and firing him when he didn't) and witness intimidation ("better hope there are no tapes").

While I do think enough Republican senators alongside Democrats would vote to convict if impeachment were to occur in the next year, it seems doubtful that the current Republican House would bring forth articles of impeachment unless something even more extremely egregious were to come to light as a result of the Mueller investigation. Now if the Democrats win the House elections in 2018, impeachment obviously becomes much more likely.

Sorry, but there is no obstruction. 1. Trump has prosecutorial discretion as the ultimate law enforcement officer of the country. ex Obama ordered ICE to not deport dreamers and to release minors caught crossing the border to family members already in the country. 2. You can't indict a sitting president.

Further, all the evidence publicly available so far says Flynn was convicted as part of a witch hunt that had nothing to do with collusion. The FBI agent who ran the Flynn interrogations was also the one who ran the Hillary and company discussions and was sending anti-Trump texts and has since been demoted. In Flynn's case he gets prosecuted for lying, a mere process crime, while in the later lying, physical destruction of evidence, mishandling classified information as part of a scheme/conspiracy et al were all white washed. In fact the FBI originally cleared Flynn of lying saying the lapses in memory were not intentional. They only got a plea because they spent the general into bankruptcy and put pressure on his family. Traits Weissman is famous for, he will do anything to get a conviction, even inventing new crimes and novel readings of law that courts will later reverse.

The whole story of collusion is unraveling. The FBI investigation seems to be based on the Steele Dossier paid for by the Clinton Campaign and advanced through the FBI and DoJ by Clinton loyalists. If Trump was working with the Russians during the campaign, why did he order Flynn to reach out to them after he was President-Elect?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-reviewed-flynns-calls-with-russian-ambassador-but-found-nothing-illicit/2017/01/23/aa83879a-e1ae-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/356253-judging-by-muellers-staffing-choices-he-may-not-be-very-interested-in

Ironduke
11 Dec 17,, 08:02
1. Trump has prosecutorial discretion as the ultimate law enforcement officer of the country.
If what would otherwise be a legal power is exercised with corrupt intent, it is a crime.

DOR
11 Dec 17,, 10:37
Sorry, but there is no obstruction. 1. Trump has prosecutorial discretion as the ultimate law enforcement officer of the country. ex Obama ordered ICE to not deport dreamers and to release minors caught crossing the border to family members already in the country. 2. You can't indict a sitting president.

Further, all the evidence publicly available so far says Flynn was convicted as part of a witch hunt that had nothing to do with collusion. The FBI agent who ran the Flynn interrogations was also the one who ran the Hillary and company discussions and was sending anti-Trump texts and has since been demoted. In Flynn's case he gets prosecuted for lying, a mere process crime, while in the later lying, physical destruction of evidence, mishandling classified information as part of a scheme/conspiracy et al were all white washed. In fact the FBI originally cleared Flynn of lying saying the lapses in memory were not intentional. They only got a plea because they spent the general into bankruptcy and put pressure on his family. Traits Weissman is famous for, he will do anything to get a conviction, even inventing new crimes and novel readings of law that courts will later reverse.

The whole story of collusion is unraveling. The FBI investigation seems to be based on the Steele Dossier paid for by the Clinton Campaign and advanced through the FBI and DoJ by Clinton loyalists. If Trump was working with the Russians during the campaign, why did he order Flynn to reach out to them after he was President-Elect?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-reviewed-flynns-calls-with-russian-ambassador-but-found-nothing-illicit/2017/01/23/aa83879a-e1ae-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/356253-judging-by-muellers-staffing-choices-he-may-not-be-very-interested-in

No one is above the law.
That's basic America 101.

zraver
11 Dec 17,, 12:54
No one is above the law.
That's basic America 101.

Except the President using his constitutional powers to control the executive is not above the law. Co-Equal Branches of Government. Its why for example no president has ever acknowledged the War Powers Act. Congress does not have the authority to statutorily confine the President's actions. We have had 2 presidents nailed for obstruction. Nixon for Bribery and Clinton for perjury. Neither of those involved using constitutional powers. The heads of executive agencies serve at the pleasure of the president and wield authority devolved from the office of the president and the president retains those powers anytime he wishes to exercise them.

However, since no one is above the law; Mueller should be investigated for leaks from the special counsel, Comey should be prosecuted for mishandling government documents and leaks... Your words and all that.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-a-president-obstruct-justice-1512938781?shareToken=st43b2cfc7e8824c63924afbbf9b e20a7e&reflink=article_email_share

astralis
11 Dec 17,, 15:42
z,



Further, all the evidence publicly available so far says Flynn was convicted as part of a witch hunt that had nothing to do with collusion. The FBI agent who ran the Flynn interrogations was also the one who ran the Hillary and company discussions and was sending anti-Trump texts and has since been demoted. In Flynn's case he gets prosecuted for lying, a mere process crime, while in the later lying, physical destruction of evidence, mishandling classified information as part of a scheme/conspiracy et al were all white washed. In fact the FBI originally cleared Flynn of lying saying the lapses in memory were not intentional. They only got a plea because they spent the general into bankruptcy and put pressure on his family. Traits Weissman is famous for, he will do anything to get a conviction, even inventing new crimes and novel readings of law that courts will later reverse.

if the Flynn investigation was run on a single thread by a biased investigator (which shouldn't matter outside purposes of professional perception; after all, the charges/evidence needs to hold up in court), then there's no way Flynn pleads guilty to anything.

the idea that Flynn gave up because he feared bankruptcy is risible-- not only does the LTG (ret) have plenty of resources by himself, Trump certainly wouldn't leave a guiltless subordinate in the lurch, plus every conservative law group in DC would be jumping to fight this out pro-bono.

i agree that ultimately the President himself will be judged not in a court of law but as part of a straight political calculation in the Senate. does Trump being there help or hurt the Republican cause, or more specifically, the re-election cause of a bunch of GOP senators.

the way this investigation is going leads me to believe there will probably be more indictments and convictions of other members in the Trump candidacy, but probably not of Trump himself-- as far as i can tell he neither has the cunning nor the secretiveness needed to keep up a campaign of deliberate collusion.

given that Trump's campaign DID feature more-than-the-usual collection of stupid naive fools (see: Papadopoulos (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/for-trump-adviser-at-center-of-russia-probe-a-rapid-rise-and-dramatic-fall-in-his-ancestral-land/2017/12/10/91bb696a-d390-11e7-9ad9-ca0619edfa05_story.html), Kushner, Trump Jr), it's likely there was a bunch of situational activities, a la Trump Jr accepting "help" from Wikileaks.

DOR
11 Dec 17,, 17:54
Wasn't Uranium I a Canadian company?


“Hillary Clinton Gave 20 Percent of United States' Uranium to Russia in Exchange for Clinton Foundation Donations?”
Can I get a big “nope” ?
Yup.
https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/


"Did Hillary Clinton Tell FBI's Mueller to Deliver Uranium to Russians in 2009 'Secret Tarmac Meeting'?"
Did someone say, “nope” ?
Yup.
https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-robert-mueller-uranium/


"Two Clinton Employees Arrested For Destroying Evidence As Uranium Probe Begins?"
Does Snopes.com have a “liar, liar, pants on fire” rating?
Nope, but it should.
https://www.snopes.com/two-clinton-employees-arrested-destroying-evidence-uranium-probe-begins/

DOR
11 Dec 17,, 17:57
Except the President using his constitutional powers to control the executive is not above the law. Co-Equal Branches of Government. Its why for example no president has ever acknowledged the War Powers Act. Congress does not have the authority to statutorily confine the President's actions. We have had 2 presidents nailed for obstruction. Nixon for Bribery and Clinton for perjury. Neither of those involved using constitutional powers. The heads of executive agencies serve at the pleasure of the president and wield authority devolved from the office of the president and the president retains those powers anytime he wishes to exercise them.

However, since no one is above the law; Mueller should be investigated for leaks from the special counsel, Comey should be prosecuted for mishandling government documents and leaks... Your words and all that.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-a-president-obstruct-justice-1512938781?shareToken=st43b2cfc7e8824c63924afbbf9b e20a7e&reflink=article_email_share

Wow.
Just, wow.

You're actually responding to "no one is above the law" with "the President using his constitutional powers to control the executive."

What part of your response was supposed to be related in some way to my statement?

snapper
11 Dec 17,, 18:48
Reminiscent of Charles l. But in truth it is more Roman Law vs Common Law dating back from Justinian's codification of Roman Law and declaring the 'legal code' by virtue of him being him - Emperor and God's Regent and whatever else. Napoleon did another codification in much the same way. But Common Law does not work from the top down but from the bottom up being originally built on custom. I believe if you can prove that some practice has been carried on in such a place/fashion or whatever since the time of Richard ll or some other ways that I forget but which prove it has always been that way for known memory in England that becomes enshrined in Common Law and only an Act of Parliament may change it.

The English Civil War actually started on a point of law regarding who should pay for Navy. By custom certain ports (called the "Cinque Ports", there being 5 of them) were free from excise duty payments when importing French wine etc... In return they had to supply ships for the Navy or pay a 'ship tax' so others could build and maintain the Navy. Well Charlie l was after money so he proposed that all towns should contribute to the 'ship tax' but the law, being based on custom, said no; this is not normal practice. Charles was very reluctant to call Parliament to propose this change and tried to impose it himself because of his theory of the Divine Right of Kings - being appointed by God etc - and therefore all law must be derived from God's Appointed - just like Justinian. Of course the English at the time were not so easily fooled - if one person is the font of law and therefore above it then absolute rule - a la Loius XlV - follows. When Charles eventually had to call Parliament they kicked up a fuss and he insisted on his presumed 'rights' which were contrary to the Common Law. Thus war.

I don't know much about the US version of Common Law but if you let this claptrap pass liberty is over. It disgusts me to see so called 'conservatives', the very idea of which is enshrined in the custom based Common Law, try to say that the Head of State is above all law. So should he turn the troops on the people that would be legal, should he imprison all opposition - abolish the Congress - nothing illegal would have passed? Perhaps this is what he admires in Putin? A 'show democracy' might suit him or just rule by decree. No no this a very dark path.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk

GVChamp
11 Dec 17,, 21:04
The President has absolute and total authority over all federal criminal prosecution.

The last administration to lay out the policy that DOJ could not indict the President was Clinton.

Liberty is not dead. There is the opportunity to hold the President accountable: it's impeachment.

zraver
12 Dec 17,, 00:59
z,



if the Flynn investigation was run on a single thread by a biased investigator (which shouldn't matter outside purposes of professional perception; after all, the charges/evidence needs to hold up in court), then there's no way Flynn pleads guilty to anything.

the idea that Flynn gave up because he feared bankruptcy is risible-- not only does the LTG (ret) have plenty of resources by himself, Trump certainly wouldn't leave a guiltless subordinate in the lurch, plus every conservative law group in DC would be jumping to fight this out pro-bono.

Flynn was fired for lying. Being guiltless and subject to a malicious persecution are not mutually exclusive.


i agree that ultimately the President himself will be judged not in a court of law but as part of a straight political calculation in the Senate. does Trump being there help or hurt the Republican cause, or more specifically, the re-election cause of a bunch of GOP senators.

Never getting to the senate. Trump is too popular with the base, the GOP's hold on the House is a lot stronger than media likes to portray and its the Dems in trouble in the Senate as far as seats to defend goes.


the way this investigation is going leads me to believe there will probably be more indictments and convictions of other members in the Trump candidacy, but probably not of Trump himself-- as far as i can tell he neither has the cunning nor the secretiveness needed to keep up a campaign of deliberate collusion.

given that Trump's campaign DID feature more-than-the-usual collection of stupid naive fools (see: Papadopoulos (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/for-trump-adviser-at-center-of-russia-probe-a-rapid-rise-and-dramatic-fall-in-his-ancestral-land/2017/12/10/91bb696a-d390-11e7-9ad9-ca0619edfa05_story.html), Kushner, Trump Jr), it's likely there was a bunch of situational activities, a la Trump Jr accepting "help" from Wikileaks.

Trump Jr was turned on to Wikileaks after they released the Podesta Emails. Working with them is no different than the HRC working with other favorable media outlets to run stories for her and against Trump. Its not illegal. End of the day, no one has been able to cite a statute that the Trump campaign broke.

zraver
12 Dec 17,, 01:05
I don't know much about the US version of Common Law but if you let this claptrap pass liberty is over. It disgusts me to see so called 'conservatives', the very idea of which is enshrined in the custom based Common Law, try to say that the Head of State is above all law. So should he turn the troops on the people that would be legal, should he imprison all opposition - abolish the Congress - nothing illegal would have passed? Perhaps this is what he admires in Putin? A 'show democracy' might suit him or just rule by decree. No no this a very dark path.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk

No president has ever been subject to criminal law while in office. The Constitution leaves no provision for a judicial branch judge to sit in judgement of the president personally. Instead the Constitution relies on impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors. To subject the President to both prosecution and impeachment would violate the double jeopardy provision. His control of the executive, all of it is baked into the Constitution.

snapper
12 Dec 17,, 05:16
Common Law is dependent on precedent - custom - it has been proved by the English Civil War that not even a King is above the law. There is no "Divine Right" or above the law in Common Law. You want a despot King? You are arguing the case for amending your Constitution in my view.

WABs_OOE
12 Dec 17,, 06:41
Common Law is dependent on precedent - custom - it has been proved by the English Civil War that not even a King is above the law. There is no "Divine Right" or above the law in Common Law. You want a despot King? You are arguing the case for amending your Constitution in my view.What don't you get? The President is NOT above the Law. Congress and Only Congress can impeach him and punish him accordingly. What's getting your goat is that no one in Congress is listening to you to arrest Trump.

DOR
12 Dec 17,, 09:41
Trump Jr was turned on to Wikileaks after they released the Podesta Emails. Working with them is no different than the HRC working with other favorable media outlets to run stories for her and against Trump. Its not illegal. End of the day, no one has been able to cite a statute that the Trump campaign broke.

So, your contention is that an outfit that deals in stolen information is no different from one that gets its info legitimately?

Nice to know where your particular moral compass points.

surfgun
12 Dec 17,, 14:48
Sort of like the National Enquirer?

WABs_OOE
12 Dec 17,, 15:23
So, your contention is that an outfit that deals in stolen information is no different from one that gets its info legitimately?

Nice to know where your particular moral compass points.Politicians have a moral compass?

zraver
13 Dec 17,, 02:42
So, your contention is that an outfit that deals in stolen information is no different from one that gets its info legitimately?

Nice to know where your particular moral compass points.

Are you really condemning the NYT and WaPo? They set the standard with the Pentagon Papers.

DOR
13 Dec 17,, 09:07
Politicians have a moral compass?

zraver's a politician?

snapper
13 Dec 17,, 18:36
What don't you get? The President is NOT above the Law. Congress and Only Congress can impeach him and punish him accordingly. What's getting your goat is that no one in Congress is listening to you to arrest Trump.

I do not believe I mentioned arresting anyone but I am pleased you agree with me.

WABs_OOE
13 Dec 17,, 20:13
I do not believe I mentioned arresting anyone but I am pleased you agree with me.Your lack of comprehension is astounding. No where did I agree with you. My comment was to point out that you are wrong, plain and simple. Trump is not king and he is not above the law. However, Congress and only Congress can punish him while he's in Office. The fact that they have not done so means that Trump has broken no laws in the eyes of Congress.

You, however, are the not the authority to decide Trump's guilt under American Law.

snapper
13 Dec 17,, 20:59
Your lack of comprehension is astounding. No where did I agree with you. My comment was to point out that you are wrong, plain and simple. Trump is not king and he is not above the law. However, Congress and only Congress can punish him while he's in Office. The fact that they have not done so means that Trump has broken no laws in the eyes of Congress.

You, however, are the not the authority to decide Trump's guilt under American Law.

I am not sure it is I that misunderstand Sir - I argued precisely that nobody is above the law in a Common Law system. I mentioned Charles l and the English Civil War - what does that history teach you? So you agreed with me in supporting the principles of Common Law within a Common Law jurisdiction - which the US is. I apologise if my view was not clear to you.

I also said I am no expert on the US version of Common Law - they also have a Constitution as well as the law unlike England or the UK. My view would be that any leader - be he/she a President or a Monarch - should be subject to the laws that any normal citizen or subject normally has no problem complying with. If the Queen murdered someone she should be tried for murder just like Joe Smith who murders his enemy. For the law to be respected it must apply equally to all. Perhaps that is not the case in the US Constitution and it requires - as you say - impeachment. You probably know more about the US Constitution than I. But my point was that if any Head of State get's different treatment than the lowest person in the country - or can openly break the law with immunity - freedom in that country is at serious risk.

GVChamp
13 Dec 17,, 21:15
How does Her Majesty command Her Majesty's Navy when she is sitting in a prison?

There are established lines of succession in the event of illness or nuclear attack, but they are not there for sitting in prison. A part of the government trying to remove or incapacitate a chief executive is a coup.

snapper
13 Dec 17,, 23:38
As you are probably aware the Monarch in the UK has little executive power but to answer your question the heir takes over; this has happened before with George lll when his son, the heir, became Regent for his Father who suffered a temporary mental incapacity.

DOR
14 Dec 17,, 09:04
How does Her Majesty command Her Majesty's Navy when she is sitting in a prison?

There are established lines of succession in the event of illness or nuclear attack, but they are not there for sitting in prison. A part of the government trying to remove or incapacitate a chief executive is a coup.

The inability to carry out the duties of the Office of the President is pretty well covered by the 25th Amendment.
"A part of the government trying to remove or incapacitate a chief executive" is called the House of Representatives (impeachment) and the Senate (trial).

GVChamp
14 Dec 17,, 14:31
The inability to carry out the duties of the Office of the President is pretty well covered by the 25th Amendment.
"A part of the government trying to remove or incapacitate a chief executive" is called the House of Representatives (impeachment) and the Senate (trial).

I agree with the 2nd. There's a Constitutional method for removing a criminal President, which is impeachment.

I agree with the 1st, but if the original intent was to have the executive immune from prosecution, then the presence of the 25th doesn't matter.

WABs_OOE
14 Dec 17,, 14:40
I am not sure it is I that misunderstand Sir - I argued precisely that nobody is above the law in a Common Law system. I mentioned Charles l and the English Civil War - what does that history teach you? So you agreed with me in supporting the principles of Common Law within a Common Law jurisdiction - which the US is. I apologise if my view was not clear to you.That is the most stupid thing you ever said, especially coming from you who claimed to be part of the diplomatic service. How often do diplomats abused diplomatic immunity?


I also said I am no expert on the US version of Common Law - they also have a Constitution as well as the law unlike England or the UK. My view would be that any leader - be he/she a President or a Monarch - should be subject to the laws that any normal citizen or subject normally has no problem complying with. If the Queen murdered someone she should be tried for murder just like Joe Smith who murders his enemy. For the law to be respected it must apply equally to all. Perhaps that is not the case in the US Constitution and it requires - as you say - impeachment. You probably know more about the US Constitution than I. But my point was that if any Head of State get's different treatment than the lowest person in the country - or can openly break the law with immunity - freedom in that country is at serious risk.Edward VIII. Criminal Negligence if not outright Treason.

astralis
14 Dec 17,, 15:27
z,

as i agree with the overall sentiment that ultimately, rule of law regarding the President is ultimately shaped by a political judgment rather than a strictly legal one, i'll cover this part, which is not quite as germane to the rest of the conversation.


Trump is too popular with the base, the GOP's hold on the House is a lot stronger than media likes to portray and its the Dems in trouble in the Senate as far as seats to defend goes.

I think Jones (D-AL) just demonstrated the limits of the first, and there's enough evidence with the recent special elections/VA/etc to prove the second is not quite right, and now it's a toss-up on the third, even with the terrible map for Dems in '18.

i'll be happy to do another butter cookie bet, regarding Dem control of the House. for that matter, i'll bet on the Dem control of the Senate, as I figure it'll be a wash if I lose this bet and win the House one.

snapper
14 Dec 17,, 17:56
That is the most stupid thing you ever said, especially coming from you who claimed to be part of the diplomatic service. How often do diplomats abused diplomatic immunity?

Rarely in my experience. Most are not spies and the protocols on the privacy of diplomatic baggage are agreed. Diplomats work on in an Embassy which is sovereign territory of the country they come from and so there they are not subject to the laws of the country in which the Embassy is based. Nor are they citizens of that country and have no right to vote or anything in it. They are therefore - and for many other reasons - given special status. I agree though it gets a bit much when they refuse to pay parking tickets etc...


Edward VIII. Criminal Negligence if not outright Treason.

Actually about the Head of the English Church marry a divorced woman does not amount to treason.

WABs_OOE
14 Dec 17,, 18:34
Rarely in my experience. Most are not spies and the protocols on the privacy of diplomatic baggage are agreed. Diplomats work on in an Embassy which is sovereign territory of the country they come from and so there they are not subject to the laws of the country in which the Embassy is based. Nor are they citizens of that country and have no right to vote or anything in it. They are therefore - and for many other reasons - given special status. I agree though it gets a bit much when they refuse to pay parking tickets etc...So the King is not above the law but diplomats are since their own governments won't prosecute them for harming our citizens. Got it.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/24534/9-shameless-abuses-diplomatic-immunity


Actually about the Head of the English Church marry a divorced woman does not amount to treason.Don't feint ignorance. Simpson gave British battleplans to the Nazis. Edward was at least criminally negligent in allowing Simpson to see those plans if not outright treasonous allowing them to goto the enemy.

However, Edward also secretly asked the Nazis to post guards on his villas in France. Anyone else would have ended up in jail. The Duke got to sit in the sun in the Bahamas.

Yeah, so the British punish their royals just as they do the commoners. Right. Horse Puckey!

Ironduke
14 Dec 17,, 18:50
2. You can't indict a sitting president.

No president has ever been subject to criminal law while in office. The Constitution leaves no provision for a judicial branch judge to sit in judgement of the president personally. Instead the Constitution relies on impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors. To subject the President to both prosecution and impeachment would violate the double jeopardy provision. His control of the executive, all of it is baked into the Constitution.
Spiro Agnew was indicted while he occupied the office of the Vice President, and thereafter resigned after negotiating a plea deal.

Aaron Burr was also indicted while he was Vice President.

Impeachment of a President or Vice President are covered by the same provisions in the Constitution (Article II, Section 4 and Article I, Section 3). There is no difference in the Constitution regarding the two in this regard.

I'm not going to argue Trump is going to be indicted, but it stands to reason that if a Vice President can be indicted, so can a President.

snapper
14 Dec 17,, 19:13
Simpson gave British battleplans to the Nazis. Edward was at least criminally negligent in allowing Simpson to see those plans if not outright treasonous allowing them to goto the enemy.

Really? Didn't know that but if true certainly she should have stood trial and if he knew her intentions when showing the plans to her him too.

WABs_OOE
14 Dec 17,, 19:19
Really? Didn't know that but if true certainly she should have stood trial and if he knew her intentions when showing the plans to her him too.He should not have shown her the plans. That is treason in itself. She was not even a British Subject with no privy to private British Government matters.

You actually bought that Horse Puckey that Edward was forced to abadicate by the Dominions over a woman? Canada and Australia refused to allow Edward to be king precisely because of Edward's sympathies towards Hitler. It had nothing to do with Edward banging Simpson but everything to do with Simpson banging Ribbentrop, the German ambassador in London before the war.

Your point, however, that British Common Law punishes Royals just as the same as Commoners since Charles I, is false.

Ironduke
14 Dec 17,, 19:37
To subject the President to both prosecution and impeachment would violate the double jeopardy provision.
The relevant excerpt from Article V:

nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;

The relevant portion of Article I, Section 3, which defines what impeachment is and isn't, states:

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

surfgun
14 Dec 17,, 22:34
Got to love Trey Gowdy! He has the best BS meter on the Hill.
http://www.theblaze.com/video/trey-gowdys-scorched-earth-judiciary-committee-hearing-what-in-the-hell-is-going-on-at-the-fbi

zraver
16 Dec 17,, 22:57
Spiro Agnew was indicted while he occupied the office of the Vice President, and thereafter resigned after negotiating a plea deal.

Aaron Burr was also indicted while he was Vice President.

Impeachment of a President or Vice President are covered by the same provisions in the Constitution (Article II, Section 4 and Article I, Section 3). There is no difference in the Constitution regarding the two in this regard.

I'm not going to argue Trump is going to be indicted, but it stands to reason that if a Vice President can be indicted, so can a President.

VP does not control the executive, foreign policy or the power of pardon. They are different offices.

Ironduke
17 Dec 17,, 00:16
VP does not control the executive, foreign policy or the power of pardon. They are different offices.
Sure. The Constitution, however, has the same provisions regarding impeachment for both offices, and Vice-Presidents have been indicted.

zraver
17 Dec 17,, 15:25
Sure. The Constitution, however, has the same provisions regarding impeachment for both offices, and Vice-Presidents have been indicted.

VP's are not presidents... You gonna have Trump sitting in the pokey with the nuclear football? The magnitude of his duties likely preclude indictment if the issue ever came before the courts. Additionally, under a strict reading of the Constitution he can pardon himself.

DOR
18 Dec 17,, 10:50
VP's are not presidents... You gonna have Trump sitting in the pokey with the nuclear football? The magnitude of his duties likely preclude indictment if the issue ever came before the courts. Additionally, under a strict reading of the Constitution he can pardon himself.

Congressional impeachment.
Removal from office via Senate conviction.
Then, and only then, indictment.

Note that someone else is holding the Office of the President at the very moment the indictment is issued.
Hence, the responsibilities of that office would never have been any consideration in the drafting of the indictment.

Ironduke
19 Dec 17,, 00:27
VP's are not presidents... You gonna have Trump sitting in the pokey with the nuclear football? The magnitude of his duties likely preclude indictment if the issue ever came before the courts. Additionally, under a strict reading of the Constitution he can pardon himself.
The Constitution still makes no distinction between a President or Vice President in the matter of impeachment. It stands to reason that if the Constitution precluded the indictment of a President, Vice President, or Civil Officer while they occupied their offices, previous indictments that have transpired would not have occurred.

zraver
19 Dec 17,, 05:13
The Constitution still makes no distinction between a President or Vice President in the matter of impeachment. It stands to reason that if the Constitution precluded the indictment of a President, Vice President, or Civil Officer while they occupied their offices, previous indictments that have transpired would not have occurred.

The VP is not the head of state. To allow removal of office by indictment means any congress could pass a law and remove a president without needing a 2/3 super majority twice as spelled out in the Constitution. Thats a coup.

snapper
19 Dec 17,, 08:11
The Jesuits had a handy interpretation for INRI; "Justum Necare Regis Impius".

Albany Rifles
19 Dec 17,, 16:19
Regarding the ability to indict a sitting president.

AAG for Legal Counsel was asked and answered in 1973

https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/sitting_president.htm

Here is the money shot.

In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.


Randolph D. Moss
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel

zraver
19 Dec 17,, 16:22
The Jesuits had a handy interpretation for INRI; "Justum Necare Regis Impius".

They also burned people at the stake and forced mass conversions of Native Americans. Never mind that Trump is not heretical, we should not be taking advice from anyone whose purpose on creation was to enforce the will of an autocrat.

astralis
19 Dec 17,, 18:58
Regarding the ability to indict a sitting president.

AAG for Legal Counsel was asked and answered in 1973

https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc..._president.htm

Here is the money shot.

In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.


Randolph D. Moss
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel

my guess is that if the situation ever happened, this would shoot up to the Supreme Court so fast it'd make our heads spin. there's enough legal arguments either way to keep the lawyers well paid for some time.

snapper
19 Dec 17,, 19:01
They also burned people at the stake and forced mass conversions of Native Americans. Never mind that Trump is not heretical, we should not be taking advice from anyone whose purpose on creation was to enforce the will of an autocrat.

If you think Trump gives a hoot about religion or the Church you are a fool.

WABs_OOE
19 Dec 17,, 19:25
If you think Trump gives a hoot about religion or the Church you are a fool.You are the fool to cite a saying that has no bearing on this conversation and no legal nor moral authority to dictate on how the Americans should act. You are an observer, not an American citizen. You have no right to tell the Americans how to treat their own President whom they voted for.

Their House. Their Rules. Live with it.

snapper
19 Dec 17,, 19:34
The Jesuit Mission was universal - hence Guy Fawkes but I am not a Jesuit, more Dominican if anything. I merely cite one version of old traditions that is right to get rid of the wrong. Another would be "Sic semper tyrannis"... for Caesars murder was murder but unjustified is questionable.

WABs_OOE
19 Dec 17,, 19:37
The Jesuit Mission was universal - hence Guy Fawkes but I am not a Jesuit.No bearing on this conversation and you are treading dangerous waters here. It is illegal for an American to threaten a Sitting President with physical harm. You are implying just that the Americans should do that.

Again, not your problem and not your place to tell how the Americans should act.

snapper
19 Dec 17,, 19:40
Colonel I have neither the power nor the will to interfere in the US democratic process - unlike some.

WABs_OOE
19 Dec 17,, 19:47
The Jesuit Mission was universal - hence Guy Fawkes but I am not a Jesuit, more Dominican if anything. I merely cite one version of old traditions that is right to get rid of the wrong.Trump has done nothing wrong in the legal eyes of the United States.
Another would be "Sic semper tyrannis"... Trump is not a tyrant in the eyes of the Americans. Deal with it.


for Caesars murder was murder but unjustified is questionable.That question was answered with a Roman Civil War.

snapper
20 Dec 17,, 00:57
Trump has done nothing wrong in the legal eyes of the United States. Trump is not a tyrant in the eyes of the Americans. Deal with it.

Conspiracy for a start...


That question was answered with a Roman Civil War.

It was never settled while freedom lives in the heart of mankind; might does not equal right. I could give you a small speech on the Gracchi as an introduction to the wider Roman democracy they envisioned but was adopted by Octavian (Augustus) but it does not seem relevant here.

WABs_OOE
20 Dec 17,, 04:04
Conspiracy for a start...That is your opinion which is completely and utterly 100% legally worthless.


It was never settled while freedom lives in the heart of mankind; might does not equal right. I could give you a small speech on the Gracchi as an introduction to the wider Roman democracy they envisioned but was adopted by Octavian (Augustus) but it does not seem relevant here.You asked if Caeser's murder was unjustified. Mark Anthony and Octavian answered that question with the sword.

snapper
20 Dec 17,, 12:20
So they proved that Caesar was unrightfully killed by killing thousands of others who were not involved? Clearly in some ways the killing of Caesar was an 'assassination'; a murder and murder, being illegal killing, must be contrary to the law. This is so by analytic definition in the same way as triangle having three sides. But in some cases it can be morally right to break the law and the law often recognises this itself; going through a red light to get a dying person to hospital is the right thing to do though it is contrary to the rules. Ambulances are allowed to in most places. Likewise there was good reason for some to believe that Caesar aspired to the Kingship - Mark Anthony had offered him a diadem in the "Lupercalia Incident" and he treated Tribunes with disdain. If he was planning such a move - and they believed it was his goal - then the whole legal and moral basis of the Republic run by the Senate would have been over turned. The liberties of the people that the Senate theoretically guaranteed - the two Consuls, the Tribunes, all was at risk. It certainly was not what the Gracchi had fought (and died) for though in many way Caesar was a reforming populist in their tradition. Those Senators who killed Caesar clearly felt they were doing so to protect the law and their legal jurisdiction. In my view they were almost certainly right but we cannot know what Caesar may have done. In their place I would have acted as they did - I would have killed Sulla too but we can debate the decline of the Roman Republic elsewhere if you wish.

Was the execution of Charles l legal? Was it justified is another question and that is my point. We can debate whether it was legal till the cows come home and make cases for and against. Same with the justification. I believe that Bashir Assad is guilty of the same crime as Charles Stuart; making war on his own people against the law. You do not unleash chemical weapons on those civilians who's rights under the law a President (or a Monarch) is supposed to protect. Caesar did the same when he crossed the Rubicon under arms against the Republic contrary to law. Their lives were forfeit and I hope Assad, Putin and all their ilk will see justice soon.

When Trump is proven to have conspired with a foreign power to interfere with the lawful democratic process - and I have no doubt the case will be proved if the investigation is allowed to proceed - then he is similarly guilty and cannot claim to be above the law or pardon himself. Should he revoke some rule - which I am told he can do - and find a legal way to fire Mueller himself without going through the Deputy AG in order to stop them proving his guilt he would be proven by his own actions - along with his conversations with and firing of Comey and all the lies that he has told that now apparent to all - it is literally impossible to find a single statement he has made about Muscovy that is true.

Traitors and wannabe despots I have no time for. Give me a pop at Putin and I'd take it even if were certain to perish in the process - sadly there would be a long queue as there was with Caesar. You say it "none of my business" but right and wrong, good and evil are transnational concepts - one only has to be a human to understand them. Trump is not in my jurisdiction - neither is Putin but their effects bear on me and billions of others. Hell I have a different passport, job, a husband and a daughter coming thanks to Putin's illegality and murder. Yes I do claim the right to speak against a traitor in the US and a murderous Chekist kleptocrat in Moscow and to reaffirm the laws and rights of those who suffer and have died from the illegalities of these monstrous gangsters. Nor can I morally blame any who uses any opportunity they may have to snuff out such a monster when given the opportunity I would do the same. It may be contrary to law and certainly I prefer such people are tried - as in Saddam but these people live by the sword and the daggers of the Roman Senate were entirely justified in their own defence.

astralis
20 Dec 17,, 14:15
snapper,

i see where you're coming from, and to some extent I have confidence in the process. -some-.

bottom-line, it's true that there are actions that Trump can take to try to shield himself from investigation or the punishments arising from investigation.

but it is also true that there are counter-moves to these actions...to an extent.

part of the reason why we're hitting a wall (https://www.vox.com/2017/11/30/16517022/impeachment-donald-trump) now is because we're in an environment the Founding Fathers never envisioned. and i don't mean Trump; he IS essentially the little d democratic nightmare they envisioned, but the defenses against it are all predicated on assumptions that do not hold true today.

WABs_OOE
20 Dec 17,, 15:08
So they proved that Caesar was unrightfully killed by killing thousands of others who were not involved? Clearly in some ways the killing of Caesar was an 'assassination'; a murder and murder, being illegal killing, must be contrary to the law. This is so by analytic definition in the same way as triangle having three sides. But in some cases it can be morally right to break the law and the law often recognises this itself; going through a red light to get a dying person to hospital is the right thing to do though it is contrary to the rules. Ambulances are allowed to in most places. Likewise there was good reason for some to believe that Caesar aspired to the Kingship - Mark Anthony had offered him a diadem in the "Lupercalia Incident" and he treated Tribunes with disdain. If he was planning such a move - and they believed it was his goal - then the whole legal and moral basis of the Republic run by the Senate would have been over turned. The liberties of the people that the Senate theoretically guaranteed - the two Consuls, the Tribunes, all was at risk. It certainly was not what the Gracchi had fought (and died) for though in many way Caesar was a reforming populist in their tradition. Those Senators who killed Caesar clearly felt they were doing so to protect the law and their legal jurisdiction. In my view they were almost certainly right but we cannot know what Caesar may have done. In their place I would have acted as they did - I would have killed Sulla too but we can debate the decline of the Roman Republic elsewhere if you wish.

Was the execution of Charles l legal? Was it justified is another question and that is my point. We can debate whether it was legal till the cows come home and make cases for and against. Same with the justification. I believe that Bashir Assad is guilty of the same crime as Charles Stuart; making war on his own people against the law. You do not unleash chemical weapons on those civilians who's rights under the law a President (or a Monarch) is supposed to protect. Caesar did the same when he crossed the Rubicon under arms against the Republic contrary to law. Their lives were forfeit and I hope Assad, Putin and all their ilk will see justice soon.

When Trump is proven to have conspired with a foreign power to interfere with the lawful democratic process - and I have no doubt the case will be proved if the investigation is allowed to proceed - then he is similarly guilty and cannot claim to be above the law or pardon himself. Should he revoke some rule - which I am told he can do - and find a legal way to fire Mueller himself without going through the Deputy AG in order to stop them proving his guilt he would be proven by his own actions - along with his conversations with and firing of Comey and all the lies that he has told that now apparent to all - it is literally impossible to find a single statement he has made about Muscovy that is true.

Traitors and wannabe despots I have no time for. Give me a pop at Putin and I'd take it even if were certain to perish in the process - sadly there would be a long queue as there was with Caesar. You say it "none of my business" but right and wrong, good and evil are transnational concepts - one only has to be a human to understand them. Trump is not in my jurisdiction - neither is Putin but their effects bear on me and billions of others. Hell I have a different passport, job, a husband and a daughter coming thanks to Putin's illegality and murder. Yes I do claim the right to speak against a traitor in the US and a murderous Chekist kleptocrat in Moscow and to reaffirm the laws and rights of those who suffer and have died from the illegalities of these monstrous gangsters. Nor can I morally blame any who uses any opportunity they may have to snuff out such a monster when given the opportunity I would do the same. It may be contrary to law and certainly I prefer such people are tried - as in Saddam but these people live by the sword and the daggers of the Roman Senate were entirely justified in their own defence.A whole bunch of mumble jumble about nothing.

Again, you are NOT THE AUTHORITY to declare Trump a crminal and whether you like it or not, your question about Caeser was answered. Just because you don't like the answer DOES NOT MEAN you can interject whatever myth you want.

And one last thing. THE ONLY ONE STOPPING YOU FROM TAKING A SHOT A PUTIN IS YOU! So get off your high horse. We both know you lacked the one thing to go after Putin - conviction.

JAD_333
21 Dec 17,, 04:33
snapper,

part of the reason why we're hitting a wall (https://www.vox.com/2017/11/30/16517022/impeachment-donald-trump) now is because we're in an environment the Founding Fathers never envisioned. and i don't mean Trump; he IS essentially the little d democratic nightmare they envisioned, but the defenses against it are all predicated on assumptions that do not hold true today.

The VOX article (https://www.vox.com/2017/11/30/16517022/impeachment-donald-trump) is well written and contains many interesting tidbits of constitutional history. Other than that the author is in a daze. His case is largely based on what Trump as president might do, not on what he has done. Fear is not grounds for impeachment. Impeachment exists to remove traitors and oath breakers from office, not to settle political arguments or to save voters from their choices. And the fact that Trump's staff and cabinet have difficulty reining him isn't unique for a president, and it certainly isn't grounds for impeachment. If the author had just said he wants Trump gone and can't wait for his term to end, I might agree with him.

astralis
21 Dec 17,, 14:09
JAD,


His case is largely based on what Trump as president might do, not on what he has done. Fear is not grounds for impeachment. Impeachment exists to remove traitors and oath breakers from office, not to settle political arguments or to save voters from their choices.

i think to be more accurate, Ezra Klein is using both what Trump might do and what he has done. Klein went into pretty broad length to explain why he thinks "high crimes and misdemeanors" can be defined more broadly than that of being "traitors and oathbreakers". it goes beyond just being a partisan disagreement (although that surely exists) because Klein uses Obama and Bush as the comparisons to demonstrate how Trump's breaking of norms has reached what he considers impeachment territory.

in any case, the primary reason why i used that article is not to dice up the legal definition of impeachment, but to look at the process. Klein does a pretty good job in describing how the process is breaking down under high partisan pressure-- a pressure which the Founding Fathers were only vaguely aware of and certainly did not think would break the firewall of being part of the elite, for one.

WABs_OOE
21 Dec 17,, 16:13
in any case, the primary reason why i used that article is not to dice up the legal definition of impeachment, but to look at the process. Klein does a pretty good job in describing how the process is breaking down under high partisan pressure-- a pressure which the Founding Fathers were only vaguely aware of and certainly did not think would break the firewall of being part of the elite, for one.No matter how you want to dress it up, if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and looks like a duck.

Klein is describing a coup no matter how you want to look at it. Trump may be a bad POTUS but he has yet to threaten the survival of the United States nor is he failing to carry out the duties of his Office. You may think he's doing a bad job but there many who thinks not. You need more than a political elite to carry this out. You need the Army and no way in hell are you going to get that.

astralis
21 Dec 17,, 18:27
Trump may be a bad POTUS but he has yet to threaten the survival of the United States nor is he failing to carry out the duties of his Office.

this statement could fit Nixon in 1975 as well. hell, Watergate break-in was in Jun 1972; Nixon was Prez until Aug 1974.

high crimes and misdemeanors is not well defined. i acknowledge that ultimately this judgement of what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" will be political in nature. in that sense, ANY impeachment would constitute a coup.

Klein is arguing that the procedure of impeachment in today's society is something that will almost certainly never be used, regardless of the circumstances, because there are significant political blocks to it that the Founders did not envision.

bfng3569
21 Dec 17,, 18:51
JAD,



i think to be more accurate, Ezra Klein is using both what Trump might do and what he has done. Klein went into pretty broad length to explain why he thinks "high crimes and misdemeanors" can be defined more broadly than that of being "traitors and oathbreakers". it goes beyond just being a partisan disagreement (although that surely exists) because Klein uses Obama and Bush as the comparisons to demonstrate how Trump's breaking of norms has reached what he considers impeachment territory.

in any case, the primary reason why i used that article is not to dice up the legal definition of impeachment, but to look at the process. Klein does a pretty good job in describing how the process is breaking down under high partisan pressure-- a pressure which the Founding Fathers were only vaguely aware of and certainly did not think would break the firewall of being part of the elite, for one.

Does the American political system have a remedy if we elect the wrong person to be president? There are clear answers if we elect a criminal, or if the president falls into a coma. But what if we just make a hiring mistake, as companies do all the time?

the opening of the article is a tell all for the authors agenda.

I didn't vote for him, I don't like him, and I can tell everyone that did vote for him that they were wrong.

You want 'mechanism's' for removing a president you just don't like, who's policy you just don't like, who conducts himself in a way you just don't like.

you really need to think the entire premise of that article, and that attitude, through, because at that point, why bother having elections if the opposing party can just remove the elected president because he isn't 'their guy' (or girl).

the fact that the author goes on to say 'When does a tweetstorm rise to the level of “egregious violation of the public trust”?'....... what's the difference whether its a tweet, a memo, a speech etc etc etc, and define the public. the democratic public, or the republican public?

because like everything else in this country, that's all it boils down to.

as an example, Obama's clear disregard of immigration law and his blatant encouragement of illegals to enter this country (while possibly an actual legal violation) was certainly a clear violation of the public trust..... just depends which half of the public you are a part of.

astralis
21 Dec 17,, 20:36
bfng,


the opening of the article is a tell all for the authors agenda.

it's no surprise that klein and vox tilts left, lol.


you really need to think the entire premise of that article, and that attitude, through, because at that point, why bother having elections if the opposing party can just remove the elected president because he isn't 'their guy' (or girl).

the fact that the author goes on to say 'When does a tweetstorm rise to the level of “egregious violation of the public trust”?'....... what's the difference whether its a tweet, a memo, a speech etc etc etc, and define the public. the democratic public, or the republican public?

because like everything else in this country, that's all it boils down to.

as an example, Obama's clear disregard of immigration law and his blatant encouragement of illegals to enter this country (while possibly an actual legal violation) was certainly a clear violation of the public trust..... just depends which half of the public you are a part of.

as impeachment is a political act, why is this surprising to you?

let's say we use OoE's definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors"-- "XXX may be a bad POTUS but he has yet to threaten the survival of the United States nor is he failing to carry out the duties of his Office", or JAD's definition, "Impeachment exists to remove traitors and oath breakers from office,"...allow me to ask you, did Bill Clinton's actions fit either definition?

yet guess what, the House voted to impeach Bill Clinton. say the Senate had a supermajority of Republicans back then, what do you think the result would have been?

Klein's essential argument is that with partisanship the way it is, impeachment is only a tool that can be used IF Congress is dominated by another party. any reform that would change this would by definition go both ways.

WABs_OOE
21 Dec 17,, 21:48
But Klein's premis is that Trump should be removed from office without a chargable crime for nothing else than what he might do. Both Nixon and Clinton had chargeable crimes for the Houses to stick the letter of the law to. Presently, there is no such crime attached to Trump.

What happens if the POTUS disagrees with this premis, that he should be removed without a chargeable crime? He should be removed simply because people don't like his style of governing?

JAD_333
21 Dec 17,, 22:23
bfng,



it's no surprise that klein and vox tilts left, lol.



as impeachment is a political act, why is this surprising to you?

let's say we use OoE's definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors"-- "XXX may be a bad POTUS but he has yet to threaten the survival of the United States nor is he failing to carry out the duties of his Office", or JAD's definition, "Impeachment exists to remove traitors and oath breakers from office,"...allow me to ask you, did Bill Clinton's actions fit either definition?

yet guess what, the House voted to impeach Bill Clinton. say the Senate had a supermajority of Republicans back then, what do you think the result would have been?

Klein's essential argument is that with partisanship the way it is, impeachment is only a tool that can be used IF Congress is dominated by another party. any reform that would change this would by definition go both ways.


Clinton, by lying under oath to the grand jury re the Lewinsky scandal, back in the 1990s, did violate his oath of office. Though the subject was hardly a matter of national security, lying under oath is a relatively serious offense. There was never much chance that he would be convicted by the Senate. Five GOP senators voted to acquit. And BTW several dems in the House voted to impeach.

Going back to your earlier post, you said:


Klein does a pretty good job in describing how the process is breaking down under high partisan pressure-- a pressure which the Founding Fathers were only vaguely aware of and certainly did not think would break the firewall of being part of the elite, for one.

Klein is wrong. He suggests that because the founding fathers lived in a different era, they could not have anticipated today's tumultuous political atmosphere. On the contrary, they fully understood how politics could distort the impeachment process. Yet they know there had to be a way whereby a corrupt, tyrannical, law breaking person could be removed from office. After all, they had just freed themselves from one.

But at the same time, they were wise enough to realize that the nation needed a process well insulated from politics, lynch mob rule, and vindictiveness, which is why they built hurdles into the impeachment clause: They gave one house of Congress the power to impeach and the other to sit in judgement. They required a 2/3 majority to convict. They excluded the judiciary from any involvement in the process. The threat of impeachment hangs over every president's head. They knew what they were doing.

bfng3569
22 Dec 17,, 05:09
bfng,



it's no surprise that klein and vox tilts left, lol.



as impeachment is a political act, why is this surprising to you?

let's say we use OoE's definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors"-- "XXX may be a bad POTUS but he has yet to threaten the survival of the United States nor is he failing to carry out the duties of his Office", or JAD's definition, "Impeachment exists to remove traitors and oath breakers from office,"...allow me to ask you, did Bill Clinton's actions fit either definition?

yet guess what, the House voted to impeach Bill Clinton. say the Senate had a supermajority of Republicans back then, what do you think the result would have been?

Klein's essential argument is that with partisanship the way it is, impeachment is only a tool that can be used IF Congress is dominated by another party. any reform that would change this would by definition go both ways.


You have no point here.

If Trump lies under oath to congress, the resulting crap storm would result in impeachment, and probably removal from office. (Ask your self why, and try to be honest)

Clinton got impeached for lying under oath to congress, but not removed.

Why? Because it was about a BJ.

Do you really think if trump lied under oath to congress about the color of his boxers and got impeach4d that the left would stop at nothing but his removal from office?

Clinton lied under oath to congress.

The left today is trying to claim trump has dementia and is mentally unstable and have tried to impeach him how many times now?

Go back to obama circumventing federal immigration law and explain how thats just fine in comparison the move to impeach Trump nas3d on the lefts claim that he's 'unfit' to be president.

Triple C
22 Dec 17,, 06:00
Mechanically, if you'd allow the use of the word, does not the congress have the final say on what constitutes an impeachable offense?

JAD_333
22 Dec 17,, 08:24
You have no point here.

If Trump lies under oath to congress, the resulting crap storm would result in impeachment, and probably removal from office. (Ask your self why, and try to be honest)

Clinton got impeached for lying under oath to congress, but not removed.

Why? Because it was about a BJ.

Do you really think if trump lied under oath to congress about the color of his boxers and got impeach4d that the left would stop at nothing but his removal from office?

Clinton lied under oath to congress.

The left today is trying to claim trump has dementia and is mentally unstable and have tried to impeach him how many times now?

Go back to obama circumventing federal immigration law and explain how thats just fine in comparison the move to impeach Trump nas3d on the lefts claim that he's 'unfit' to be president.

Obama's creativity with immigration laws seems to have run counter to his oath to uphold and protect the Constitution, but he had plenty of lawyers covering him. Besides, Congress could have at any time undercut him, but chose not to. So, it would have been virtually impossible to craft a legitimate charge on that account to mount an impeachment effort.

Impeachment for "treason and high crimes...etc" does not refer to actions that can be undone or changed by Congress or the courts.

Just for the record, Clinton did lie under oath, but to Fed Grand Jury, not Congress.

JAD_333
22 Dec 17,, 08:37
Mechanically, if you'd allow the use of the word, does not the congress have the final say on what constitutes an impeachable offense?

Assuming you're asking a rhetorical question, I would say you're right. However, having the last word means ruling on whether an offense meets the parameters laid out in the Constitution.

snapper
22 Dec 17,, 09:03
A whole bunch of mumble jumble about nothing.

If you believe unleashing chemical weapons on the people who's rights under the law is legal or justifiable fine; I beg to differ.


Again, you are NOT THE AUTHORITY to declare Trump a crminal and whether you like it or not, your question about Caeser was answered. Just because you don't like the answer DOES NOT MEAN you can interject whatever myth you want.

I never claimed to have any legal authority over Trump - I said it was outside my jurisdiction and power to act against that traitor. I do have the right of free speech though or perhaps you are with Trumpets and Brexiteers who seem to think anyone who voices a view they do not share is some sort of criminal - a 'fascist' or whatever.
No my question regarding Caesar was not answered; who can kill more people does not make any side right, Caesar attacked the Republic when he unlawfully crossed the Rubicon. Might does not equal right. Read some Plato.


And one last thing. THE ONLY ONE STOPPING YOU FROM TAKING A SHOT A PUTIN IS YOU! So get off your high horse. We both know you lacked the one thing to go after Putin - conviction.

If I took a plane to Moscow tomorrow I would be arrested getting off it. I have and do fight as best I can in the ways open to me. There is no lack of conviction on my part to win this war - I have seen and collected the bodies and their pieces. Unlike you I have not sat an ocean and half a continent claiming I know everything and have tried to avoid criticising you but sticking to the point under discussion. You know absolutely nothing about me so it is laughable for you to misjudge my conviction.

Ironduke
22 Dec 17,, 12:14
high crimes and misdemeanors is not well defined. i acknowledge that ultimately this judgement of what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" will be political in nature.
My interpretation of high crimes and misdemeanors is any crime committed by a person in high (public) office, abusing the power of that office with corrupt intent. I personally think a credible case can be made for obstruction of justice with regards to the Trump-Comey-Russia investigation matter.

Let's say, hypothetically, Mueller finds evidence of tax evasion or financial crimes committed by Trump before he became President. Those wouldn't constitute, in my opinion, high crimes or misdemeanors. They would simply be ordinary crimes, committed by a private citizen prior to his taking high office. I believe they would be indictable, but not impeachable offenses.

WABs_OOE
22 Dec 17,, 12:27
If you believe unleashing chemical weapons on the people who's rights under the law is legal or justifiable fine; I beg to differ.Strawman. This has nothing to do with Trump.


I never claimed to have any legal authority over Trump - I said it was outside my jurisdiction and power to act against that traitor. I do have the right of free speech though or perhaps you are with Trumpets and Brexiteers who seem to think anyone who voices a view they do not share is some sort of criminal - a 'fascist' or whatever.And yet you called Trump a traitor WITH NO EVIDENCE. Not a single one of your claims about the evidence you've seen has any truth to them. Frankly, I find it unbelievable that anyone with inside knowledge would let you know anything, especially after you gave up your clearance, if you ever had any.


No my question regarding Caesar was not answered; who can kill more people does not make any side right, Caesar attacked the Republic when he unlawfully crossed the Rubicon. Might does not equal right. Read some Plato.Who cares? Plato is nothing more than fiction. The REALITY was Caeser's death resulted in a Roman Civil War. Plato had nothing to do with it.


If I took a plane to Moscow tomorrow I would be arrested getting off it.Those willing to do something find ways. Those who don't find excuses. Chechens with far more disadvantages than you managed to deliver bombs into Moscow herself. Getting on a plane. Talking about laughable. How about walking across the border?


I have and do fight as best I can in the ways open to me. There is no lack of conviction on my part to win this war - I have seen and collected the bodies and their pieces. Unlike you I have not sat an ocean and half a continent claiming I know everything and have tried to avoid criticising you but sticking to the point under discussion. You know absolutely nothing about me so it is laughable for you to misjudge my conviction.I know you alright. You pretend to drop names and spout red herrings to cover up that you know aboslutely nothing about this subject. You have ZERO PROOF and then PRETEND to quote some inside information that you never had about Trump in a consipracy. After a year of investigations, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT TRUMP has proven true. You know nothing.

You sticking to a single point? This thread shows when you're in trouble, you go all around to do anything but stick to the point. I'm not the one bringing up Assad, Caeser, whatever. You did. Pot, meet kettle.

We have one thing in common. We're both in front of a keyboard. Unlike you, I don't claim to be willing to do something that I have absolutely zero interest in doing. If you really want to go after Putin, you would be seeking ways out to do so, instead of grandstanding on the internet.

If you want to stick to the point. The POINT is that after a year of investigation, NOTHING has been found that Trump broke any laws. Don't go off tangents with Assad, Caeser, or Putin WHICH YOU ARE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP THESE SUBJECTS, not anyone else on this thread.

The POINT is that Trump is Innocent Until Proven Guilty AND THUS FAR, nothing has even been found that can even accuse Trump of a crime. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE to accuse Trump of ANYTHING. You have NOTHING!

astralis
22 Dec 17,, 15:17
interesting what a firestorm of a topic this is!

OoE, JAD, bfng:

again, impeachment is a political act, not a legal one. Bill Clinton ultimately wasn't removed from office simply because Republicans didn't hold a supermajority in the Senate.

similarly, were there enough Republicans from 2009-2016 I have no doubt that Obama would have been impeached.

legal rationale? if there's the political will and the numbers, legal rationale can be -made-. the only question is if whether or not that rationale will prove popular with the voters.

in Clinton's case, it was not, and the GOP paid a price for it; in Obama's case, while you had individual Congressmen from hard-right districts talking about it, GOP leadership explicitly made clear that they did not want to do so because they knew 1.) it would not go through Congress and 2.) the voters would punish them for it, like the Clinton case.

similarly, the Dems talking about impeachment now are from safe-Dem districts, while the leadership is leery-- although not as leery as the GOP was for Obama, because Obama's popularity vastly exceeded Trump's.

===

so, Klein's article is not JUST about "Trump should be impeached", although that is his hook to get all you guys to read it. :-)

this is the main point of the article, as far as i can tell:


But perhaps more importantly, the Founding Fathers envisioned a political system without parties, where the salient political competitions would be between states and between branches rather than between Democrats and Republicans. “There was an assumption that the different branches check each other because they all have different politics,” says Julia Azari, a political scientist at Marquette University.

Instead, parties share the same politics across branches; congressional Republicans today see their fates as intertwined with Trump’s, and so they protect him, because to protect him is to protect themselves. Believing that the American political system would resist parties and then designing our mechanisms of accountability around that assumption was, Azari continues, “the most important constitutional failure.”

To date, serious impeachment proceedings have only been carried out when Congress is controlled by the opposing party to the White House. “Impeachment is dysfunctional,” Azari says. “It’s proven to be a partisan tool and nothing more.”

in short, if you're President and there's a supermajority of the opposing party, watch out...and if you're President and there's NOT a supermajority of the opposing party, in the words of our current President, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters."

Trump is currently testing out the latter prospect.

snapper
22 Dec 17,, 15:57
Strawman. This has nothing to do with Trump.

Sir this started with me quoting a Jesuit interpretation of INRI "Justum Necare Regis Impius". I never mentioned Trump. See post #77.


And yet you called Trump a traitor WITH NO EVIDENCE. Not a single one of your claims about the evidence you've seen has any truth to them. Frankly, I find it unbelievable that anyone with inside knowledge would let you know anything, especially after you gave up your clearance, if you ever had any.

Well first I think there is already pretty good evidence of conspiracy made public and secondly you do not know what clearance I have had and do have now.


Who cares? Plato is nothing more than fiction. The REALITY was Caeser's death resulted in a Roman Civil War. Plato had nothing to do with it.

Plato matters because killing people does not make your view right. Suppose the flat earthers decided to start a war and kill all round earthers? Would the earth be flat?


Chechens managed to deliver bombs into Moscow herself.

What the appartment bombing? You are joking right?


I know you alright. You pretend to drop names and spout red herrings to cover up that you know aboslutely nothing about this subject. You have ZERO PROOF and then PRETEND to quote some inside information that you never had about Trump in a consipracy. After a year of investigations, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT TRUMP has proven true. You know nothing.

Trump has been in bed with the Muscovites for years. Quite alot of the Steele dossier is proven correct.


You sticking to a single point? This thread shows when you're in trouble, you go all around to do anything but stick to the point. I'm not the one bringing up Assad, Caeser, whatever. You did. Pot, meet kettle.

Considering that it started it about a Jesuit view of justification and now you are telling me how well you know and trying to justify Trump I am not sure how it is I am guilty here.


Chechens found ways to deliver bombs with even more disadvantages than you. Getting on a plane. That's laughable. How about walking across the border?

And then what? I had a friend who tried to get into the Ozero 'Collective' Estate... You know what is right? 12 yrs he got, dead now. You know where Putin is going to be? You know how to find out. We actually have had these debates and the view of the West in general has been "Better the Devil you know". I beg to differ - if the next is as bad or worse whack him too. The absurdity of suggesting I "lack conviction" because I have not myself disobeyed my own instructions and gone after Putin personally is a bit like calling a British Civil Servant in WW2 who advocated the assassination of Hitler of being hypocrital because he was doing so personally. I came to Ukraine in December 2014 and by and large have been here since and given up my British and Polish passports. My colleagues do not question my conviction and I am not sure those who do not know me or what I have done or where I come from have the ground to questions it.


We have one thing in common. We're both in front of a keyboard. Unlike you, I don't claim to be willing to do something that I have absolutely zero interest in doing. If you really want to go after Putin, you would be seeking ways out to do so, instead of grandstanding on the internet.

You know nothing of what I have done. We differ also in that I do not claim to know everything about countries I have not visited and their wars. Also I find insulting people to be missing the point. I do not know your record and do not critisise you on it. You do not know mine but critisise me nonetheless constantly - entirely missing the point of the discussion. Then you accuse me of changing the subject! If you wish trade insults I am afraid I cannot oblige you. I have more constructive things to do.


If you want to stick to the point. The POINT is that after a year of investigation, NOTHING has been found that Trump broke any laws. Don't go off tangents with Assad, Caeser, or Putin WHICH YOU ARE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP THESE SUBJECTS, not anyone else on this thread.

I think that is for Mueller to discover - unless as I expect, he is fired - then obstruction of justice. Comey and Mueller and no obstruction is a hard case to make.


The POINT is that Trump is Innocent Until Proven Guilty AND THUS FAR, nothing has even been found that can even accuse Trump of a crime. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE to accuse Trump of ANYTHING. You have NOTHING!

Ukraine has passed evidence to the FBI as has the UK and others. Mueller will get him.

JAD_333
22 Dec 17,, 17:43
My interpretation of high crimes and misdemeanors is any crime committed by a person in high (public) office, abusing the power of that office with corrupt intent.


Your interpretation of HIGH is correct. Some people think it means big crimes when, in fact, it means crimes, abuses, and dereliction of duty committed by high level officials and judges in violation of their oaths of office. The founding fathers were familiar with the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" from English usage. Failure to obey Parliament was one among several other acts considered high crimes.

When the US Constitution was created there was little debate over the wording of the impeachment clause, but all the leading men of that time agreed there had to be a method for removing a president and other high officials. I think they fell back on the English interpretation of an impeachable offense precisely because there was precedent to guide its meaning.


I personally think a credible case can be made for obstruction of justice with regards to the Trump-Comey-Russia investigation matter.

I doubt you could make a credible case in a court of law, which in any event is not where the case would ever be brought, but Congress is not bound by the same rules of evidence as the courts, except to the extent it chooses to be. Thus, barring a smoking gun, Congress would be interpreting events as it saw them. In short, it would be making a political decision, not a judicial one.

WABs_OOE
22 Dec 17,, 18:00
Sir this started with me quoting a Jesuit interpretation of INRI "Justum Necare Regis Impius". I never mentioned Trump. See post #77.And Trump is no tyrant. Deal with it.


Well first I think there is already pretty good evidence of conspiracy made publicAll you think you have is evidence that Trump, the business man have dealings, shady or not, in Russia. You have NOTHING that even suggests that Trump, the Candidate, and certainly not Trump, the President-Elect, consipired with Moscow.


and secondly you do not know what clearance I have had and do have now.Those who have it don't talk. Those who don't brag. You've been bragging mighty big. At best, you had Class-B access which allows you access to personal information such as HQ addresses and phone numbers but certainly nothing sensitive nor actionable intel. And you lost that once you become an Ukrainian citizen.

Of all the people who had or held Class Protected access on this forum, not one spoke of anything that is not open sourced. We even gone so far as not to quote Wilkileaks. The tust that our governments and the people who shared info with us is paramount and we don't drop names and info that cannot be verified through open source. You, however, drop names and info like a waterfall.


Plato matters because killing people does not make your view right. Plato did not and could not have stopped Octavian and Mark Anthony. Philosophical debate vs staying alive. Guess which mattered more.


Suppose the flat earthers decided to start a war and kill all round earthers? Would the earth be flat?The earth is flat because the universe is flat.


What the appartment bombing? You are joking right? What? You only know that one? The Metro bombings.


Trump has been in bed with the Muscovites for years. Quite alot of the Steele dossier is proven correct.Oh wow, an American businessman doing business in Russia.


Considering that it started it about a Jesuit view of justification and now you are telling me how well you know and trying to justify Trump I am not sure how it is I am guilty here. I have been on point since post 1 on this thread. You have ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE to prove to the American people that Trump is guilty of a crime.


And then what? I had a friend who tried to get into the Ozero 'Collective' Estate... You know what is right? 12 yrs he got, dead now. You know where Putin is going to be? You know how to find out.Strawman. I never said it was easy nor would you be successful. Only that those with conviction will find ways. Those without find excuses.



We actually have had these debates and the view of the West in general has been "Better the Devil you know". I beg to differ - if the next is as bad or worse whack him too. The absurdity of suggesting I "lack conviction" because I have not myself disobeyed my own instructions and gone after Putin personally is a bit like calling a British Civil Servant in WW2 who advocated the assassination of Hitler of being hypocrital because he was doing so personally. I came to Ukraine in December 2014 and by and large have been here since and given up my British and Polish passports. My colleagues do not question my conviction and I am not sure those who do not know me or what I have done or where I come from have the ground to questions it.You've provided plenty here on this forum to question you. 2014? THAT MEANS YOU HAD NO CLASS PROTECTED ACCESS SINCE 2014 AND ALL YOUR NAME DROPPING SINCE THEN IS PURE HORSE PUCKEY!

And YOU'RE THE ONE BRINGING HITLER ONTO THIS NOW!


You know nothing of what I have done. We differ also in that I do not claim to know everything about countries I have not visited and their wars. Also I find insulting people to be missing the point. I do not know your record and do not critisise you on it. You do not know mine but critisise me nonetheless constantly - entirely missing the point of the discussion. Then you accuse me of changing the subject! If you wish trade insults I am afraid I cannot oblige you. I have more constructive things to do.Oh horse puckey. You've been on this thread telling the Americans to lynch Trump.


I think that is for Mueller to discover - unless as I expect, he is fired - then obstruction of justice. Comey and Mueller and no obstruction is a hard case to make.

Ukraine has passed evidence to the FBI as has the UK and others. Mueller will get him.You know something? A simple google revealled NOTHING Ukraine has passed to the FBI with evidence of Trump's wrong doing. Since Mueller has yet to bring charges after a year with this "evidence" in his procession. I call bullshit.

JAD_333
22 Dec 17,, 19:03
interesting what a firestorm of a topic this is!

OoE, JAD, bfng:

again, impeachment is a political act, not a legal one. Bill Clinton ultimately wasn't removed from office simply because Republicans didn't hold a supermajority in the Senate.

I agree, and never said it was wholly a legal act. See my response to Ironduke. WRT to Clinton, true the GOP didn't have the votes to impeach, even with what little dem help they had, but the real reason he didn't get convicted was because Clinton's offense was relatively minor. There wasn't a large hue and cry across the nation for his hide .



similarly, were there enough Republicans from 2009-2016 I have no doubt that Obama would have been impeached.

legal rationale? if there's the political will and the numbers, legal rationale can be -made-. the only question is if whether or not that rationale will prove popular with the voters.

Well, I can't argue with your doubts or lack of of them. I can only offer you my view as a Republican that Obama would not have been impeached even had the GOP held a super majority in Congress. Why? Because there wouldn't have been any offenses on which to impeach him. Think about it: With such a majority, Congress could have blocked all his legislation and passed resolutions thwarting his Executive Orders. Besides that, the optics of impeaching the first black president for purely political reasons would pretty much do in the GOP once and for all.




so, Klein's article is not JUST about "Trump should be impeached", although that is his hook to get all you guys to read it. :-)

this is the main point of the article, as far as i can tell:


But perhaps more importantly, the Founding Fathers envisioned a political system without parties, where the salient political competitions would be between states and between branches rather than between Democrats and Republicans. “There was an assumption that the different branches check each other because they all have different politics,” says Julia Azari, a political scientist at Marquette University.

Instead, parties share the same politics across branches; congressional Republicans today see their fates as intertwined with Trump’s, and so they protect him, because to protect him is to protect themselves. Believing that the American political system would resist parties and then designing our mechanisms of accountability around that assumption was, Azari continues, “the most important constitutional failure.”

To date, serious impeachment proceedings have only been carried out when Congress is controlled by the opposing party to the White House. “Impeachment is dysfunctional,” Azari says. “It’s proven to be a partisan tool and nothing more.”

in short, if you're President and there's a supermajority of the opposing party, watch out...and if you're President and there's NOT a supermajority of the opposing party, in the words of our current President, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters."

Trump is currently testing out the latter prospect.

Klein is welcome to make up history. While it's true that G.Washington disliked "factions" (parties) and did his best to steer his administration away from them, the founding fathers had no such compunctions. Jefferson, his own Secretary of State, worked at cross purposes with him, eventually creating through Madison the Democratic party (no relation to today's party), while John Adams and his supporters formed the Federalist party. All were founding fathers.

And by way of footnote, the election of 1800 (held a year after Washington died) is on record as one of the nastiest in US history. The lies hurled at each other by the competing campaigns would make Trump's pale by comparison, not to mention fake news, which was rampant, as each side financed leading newspapers of the day.

No. It's clear what Klein is up to. He's a modern day intellectual attempting to extend the original concept of impeachment to a president he doesn't agree with.

The few dem Congressmen openly calling for impeachment are grandstanding for their constituents. Politically, it makes no sense as things stand now. They stand a better chance of defeating Trump in the next election so long as his behavior and policies continue to generate low approval ratings.

JAD_333
22 Dec 17,, 19:59
... view of the West in general has been "Better the Devil you know". I beg to differ - if the next is as bad or worse whack him too. The absurdity of suggesting I "lack conviction" because I have not myself disobeyed my own instructions and gone after Putin personally is a bit like calling a British Civil Servant in WW2 who advocated the assassination of Hitler of being hypocrital because he was doing so personally.

All this talk of whacking Putin and Trump has got to stop. Now.

Ironduke
23 Dec 17,, 10:47
Jefferson, his own Secretary of State, worked at cross purposes with him, eventually creating through Madison the Democratic party (no relation to today's party), while John Adams and his supporters formed the Federalist party. All were founding fathers.
A tangential nitpick, but they called themselves Republicans.

JAD_333
23 Dec 17,, 18:44
A tangential nitpick, but they called themselves Republicans.

I stand half-corrected. They labelled it the Democratic-Republican party.

zraver
23 Dec 17,, 22:08
let's say we use OoE's definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors"-- "XXX may be a bad POTUS but he has yet to threaten the survival of the United States nor is he failing to carry out the duties of his Office", or JAD's definition, "Impeachment exists to remove traitors and oath breakers from office,"...allow me to ask you, did Bill Clinton's actions fit either definition?

Clinton was an oath breaker. He lied under oath in an attempt to deny an American Citizen their day in court. He was impeached for breaking an oath, and disbarred for it as well.

zraver
23 Dec 17,, 22:16
My interpretation of high crimes and misdemeanors is any crime committed by a person in high (public) office, abusing the power of that office with corrupt intent. I personally think a credible case can be made for obstruction of justice with regards to the Trump-Comey-Russia investigation matter.

Let's say, hypothetically, Mueller finds evidence of tax evasion or financial crimes committed by Trump before he became President. Those wouldn't constitute, in my opinion, high crimes or misdemeanors. They would simply be ordinary crimes, committed by a private citizen prior to his taking high office. I believe they would be indictable, but not impeachable offenses.

There is zero evidence of obstruction. Comey was doomed regardless of who won the election. The President has all executive power, he delegates to the executive agencies and political appointees serve at his pleasure.

Ironduke
24 Dec 17,, 00:39
I stand half-corrected. They labelled it the Democratic-Republican party.
A retronym, kind of like the Byzantine Empire. They just called themselves Republicans.

Ironduke
24 Dec 17,, 01:01
There is zero evidence of obstruction. Comey was doomed regardless of who won the election. The President has all executive power, he delegates to the executive agencies and political appointees serve at his pleasure.
18 U.S.C. Section 1505:

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

In my book, leaning on Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn in the matter of the Russian probe, in which Trump already knew Flynn committed a federal crime by lying to the FBI, is classic obstruction.

The key word in the statute being corruptly. A President may otherwise legally exercise any executive power, but when he does so corruptly, it becomes a criminal act.

Ironduke
24 Dec 17,, 01:06
Regarding the ability to indict a sitting president.

AAG for Legal Counsel was asked and answered in 1973

https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/sitting_president.htm

Here is the money shot.

In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.


Randolph D. Moss
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel
At the end of the day, that's just an individual's opinion, it's not law and not a part of the Constitution, and not the final authority on the matter.

WABs_OOE
24 Dec 17,, 15:05
At the end of the day, that's just an individual's opinion, it's not law and not a part of the Constitution, and not the final authority on the matter.Not law but policy, at least at the time. It meant in 1973, the DOJ determined that it did not have the authority to prosecute a sitting President.

astralis
24 Dec 17,, 16:36
likely would need a formal ruling from the SC, but the likely process would be impeachment-->conviction/removal from office--> THEN criminal prosecution.

zraver
24 Dec 17,, 22:32
18 U.S.C. Section 1505:

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

In my book, leaning on Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn in the matter of the Russian probe, in which Trump already knew Flynn committed a federal crime by lying to the FBI, is classic obstruction.

The key word in the statute being corruptly. A President may otherwise legally exercise any executive power, but when he does so corruptly, it becomes a criminal act.

Uhm no, things do not happen in vacuum. So far even Comey has not said he was pressured to drop the Flynn investigation, only asked too. Given that he had recently approved immunity deals and failed to prosecute lying to the FBI for top level Clinton aides it wasn't out of character for the then current political climate. Further, Comey himself cleared Flynn and decided not to prosecute, instead chalking it up to bad memory since there was no underlying crime. Flynn's conversations were legal and proper after all. Flynn's indictment is a result of Mueller re-opening an investigation closed by the Comey FBI.

Ironduke
24 Dec 17,, 22:50
Uhm no, things do not happen in vacuum. So far even Comey has not said he was pressured to drop the Flynn investigation, only asked too. Given that he had recently approved immunity deals and failed to prosecute lying to the FBI for top level Clinton aides it wasn't out of character for the then current political climate. Further, Comey himself cleared Flynn and decided not to prosecute, instead chalking it up to bad memory since there was no underlying crime. Flynn's conversations were legal and proper after all. Flynn's indictment is a result of Mueller re-opening an investigation closed by the Comey FBI.
I've got to run here, but as far as "clearing Flynn", and "deciding not to prosecute", Comey in his own words when testifying in the Senate:

"General Flynn, at that point in time, was in legal jeopardy. There was an open FBI criminal investigation of his statements in connection with the Russian contacts and the contacts themselves."

It's an extraordinary claim to state that "Comey himself cleared Flynn and decided not to prosecute", that Comey closed the investigation and Mueller re-opened it, and Comey chalked up Flynn's statements to bad memory.

Do you have any evidence for that claim?

zraver
27 Dec 17,, 01:54
I've got to run here, but as far as "clearing Flynn", and "deciding not to prosecute", Comey in his own words when testifying in the Senate:

"General Flynn, at that point in time, was in legal jeopardy. There was an open FBI criminal investigation of his statements in connection with the Russian contacts and the contacts themselves."

It's an extraordinary claim to state that "Comey himself cleared Flynn and decided not to prosecute", that Comey closed the investigation and Mueller re-opened it, and Comey chalked up Flynn's statements to bad memory.

Do you have any evidence for that claim?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/politics/fbi-not-expected-to-pursue-charges-against-flynn/index.html

Ironduke
28 Dec 17,, 12:49
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/politics/fbi-not-expected-to-pursue-charges-against-flynn/index.html
An article dated three days after the meeting in which Trump summoned Comey to the White House to get him to drop the Flynn investigation, at a time when the Flynn matter was at the forefront of Trump's mind...

The article does not state Comey cleared Flynn and closed the investigation. It attributes unnamed "law enforcement officials", and the article states nothing regarding their affiliation. It seems likely to me CNN's anonymous source was likely a Trump appointee out of the DoJ.

WABs_OOE
28 Dec 17,, 18:19
The narrative does fit the known facts. Flynn was found out relatively early on that he did have contact with the Russians and the FBI did not bring up charges. There's no reason to doubt this narrative unless there is counter evidence/intel to dispute it.

astralis
28 Dec 17,, 23:05
Flynn was found out relatively early on that he did have contact with the Russians and the FBI did not bring up charges.

Flynn was first interviewed by the FBI 4 days after the Trump inauguration regarding his contacts with the Russians. he lied to the FBI then.

if he had told the truth the first go around, he -might- have left himself open to a charge under the Logan Act, but that's not been successfully prosecuted in a long time. so Flynn essentially screwed himself over. (and that's not counting when he lied to other members of the Executive Branch.)

Ironduke
29 Dec 17,, 00:40
Flynn was first interviewed by the FBI 4 days after the Trump inauguration regarding his contacts with the Russians. he lied to the FBI then.

if he had told the truth the first go around, he -might- have left himself open to a charge under the Logan Act, but that's not been successfully prosecuted in a long time. so Flynn essentially screwed himself over. (and that's not counting when he lied to other members of the Executive Branch.)
I think it's likely there are/were additional charges against Flynn that are under seal. Manafort and Gates got the book thrown at them, and among other charges, were indicted for violation of the FARA Act.

At minimum, Flynn, by failing to register as a foreign agent for work done by the Flynn Intel Group, was in violation of the FARA Act as well.

Ironduke
29 Dec 17,, 13:40
The narrative does fit the known facts. Flynn was found out relatively early on that he did have contact with the Russians and the FBI did not bring up charges. There's no reason to doubt this narrative unless there is counter evidence/intel to dispute it.
There is no evidence to suggest that Comey cleared Flynn and closed the Flynn investigation.

Flynn was also charged and pled guilty to making materially false statements and omissions in his March 7 FARA filing.

astralis
29 Dec 17,, 16:05
from his recent NYT interview...lol, i think there might be a pattern here.

“Frankly there is absolutely no collusion…Virtually every Democrat has said there is no collusion. There is no collusion…I think it’s been proven that there is no collusion…I can only tell you that there is absolutely no collusion…There’s been no collusion…There was no collusion. None whatsoever…everybody knows that there was no collusion. I saw Dianne Feinstein the other day on television saying there is no collusion [note: not true]…The Republicans, in terms of the House committees, they come out, they’re so angry because there is no collusion…there was collusion on behalf of the Democrats. There was collusion with the Russians and the Democrats. A lot of collusion…There was tremendous collusion on behalf of the Russians and the Democrats. There was no collusion with respect to my campaign…But there is tremendous collusion with the Russians and with the Democratic Party…I watched Alan Dershowitz the other day, he said, No. 1, there is no collusion, No. 2, collusion is not a crime, but even if it was a crime, there was no collusion. And he said that very strongly. He said there was no collusion…There is no collusion, and even if there was, it’s not a crime. But there’s no collusion…when you look at all of the tremendous, ah, real problems [Democrats] had, not made-up problems like Russian collusion."

astralis
30 Dec 17,, 22:23
z,

apologies, deleted your last post by accident. meant to delete a new post i made, but accidentally hit yours...promise there's no collusion on my end...:-)

snapper
02 Jan 18,, 09:40
Please forgive my delayed reply... new husband etc...


And Trump is no tyrant. Deal with it.

Never said he was. Stop putting words in my mouth (again).


All you think you have is evidence that Trump, the business man have dealings, shady or not, in Russia. You have NOTHING that even suggests that Trump, the Candidate, and certainly not Trump, the President-Elect, consipired with Moscow.

I think conspiracy and obstruction of justice are two pretty good offences he could be charged with. He admitted he fired Comey because of "the Russia thing". Comey's FBI was going after Flynn - who has now admitted minor offences and is cooperating with the FBI replacement in the enquiry; Mueller.


Those who have it don't talk. Those who don't brag. You've been bragging mighty big. At best, you had Class-B access which allows you access to personal information such as HQ addresses and phone numbers but certainly nothing sensitive nor actionable intel. And you lost that once you become an Ukrainian citizen.

Yea sure you know more about my life than I as usual. Just like you know more about Ukraine than I - probably Poland too.


Of all the people who had or held Class Protected access on this forum, not one spoke of anything that is not open sourced. We even gone so far as not to quote Wilkileaks. The tust that our governments and the people who shared info with us is paramount and we don't drop names and info that cannot be verified through open source. You, however, drop names and info like a waterfall.

Name me some of this "waterfall". When have I ever quoted Wikileaks either? Never. Wikileaks and Assange are pretty clearly in hoc with Moscow. Where is Snowdon? In the land of the free? When has he condemned Moscovite censorship or snooping?


Plato did not and could not have stopped Octavian and Mark Anthony. Philosophical debate vs staying alive. Guess which mattered more.

So if your neighbour is stronger than you it is better to let him rob your house at will.


The earth is flat because the universe is flat.

What? I cannot make sense of this, sorry.


What? You only know that one? The Metro bombings.

So you are saying the metro bombing were legit terrorists? Those women were supposedly from Dagestan by the way; not Chechnya.


Oh wow, an American businessman doing business in Russia.

An American President who denied ever having had ANY business dealing in Muscovy is slightly different.


I have been on point since post 1 on this thread. You have ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE to prove to the American people that Trump is guilty of a crime.

I am not sure it is for you to acquit. I am confident Mueller will get the traitor. But I have not heard you mention the Jesuit saying which seems to have spurred you into all these claims and accusations. So on point...not really.


Strawman. I never said it was easy nor would you be successful. Only that those with conviction will find ways. Those without find excuses.

More "I know more about you than you"... *yawn*.


You've provided plenty here on this forum to question you. 2014? THAT MEANS YOU HAD NO CLASS PROTECTED ACCESS SINCE 2014 AND ALL YOUR NAME DROPPING SINCE THEN IS PURE HORSE PUCKEY!
YOU'RE THE ONE BRINGING HITLER ONTO THIS NOW!

I came to Ukraine first in 2007. Does that mean I gave my other passports then? No. But again you entirely overlook the point I was making.


Oh horse puckey. You've been on this thread telling the Americans to lynch Trump.

No I have not. I merely quoted an old Jesuit interpretation of INRI. Do I think Trump has charges to face? Damn right and I pray Mueller gets him and gang.


You know something? A simple google revealled NOTHING Ukraine has passed to the FBI with evidence of Trump's wrong doing. Since Mueller has yet to bring charges after a year with this "evidence" in his procession. I call bullshit.

Ever heard of Paul Manafort? He was Trumps campaign manager... now facing charges of money laundering. Where do you think some of that money came from? Hell last year the GOP were virtually accusing Ukraine of collaborating with the Clinton campaign in a kind 'whataboutism' attempt at distraction.

Look I know you love to make anything I say into something so much more - putting words in my mouth that I have not said is normal. I quoted an old Jesuit interpretation for INRI and from this you have contrived to claim that you know more about me than I do and that I have advocated lynching Trump. Forgive me but I must decline to answer more of insults and contrived suppositions of what I have said. I wish you all the best for 2018.

zraver
02 Jan 18,, 13:56
Ever heard of Paul Manafort? He was Trumps campaign manager...

Business partner with the brother of HRC's campaign manager Tony Podesta


now facing charges of money laundering. Where do you think some of that money came from? Hell last year the GOP were virtually accusing Ukraine of collaborating with the Clinton campaign in a kind 'whataboutism' attempt at distraction.

Pointing out double standards is not whataboutism. I know liberals believe they should be able to define the standards of every situation to their political advantage but thats not how it works. If campaigns taking money and services from foreign governments, and paying other foreign governments money for oppo research is wrong then the villains here are the Left. From using cut outs to pay FSB agents to create the dossier, to John Podesta's illegally hiding his involvement with major Russian banks to Bill Clinton getting paid double for a speech just before his wife handed down favorable results from the State Department for Russian's connected to the bank that paid him... Not to mention all the money pouring into the CGI in the run up to HRC's spectacular implosion.

snapper
02 Jan 18,, 15:44
Business partner with the brother of HRC's campaign manager Tony Podesta

Is that where the money laundering charges derive from?

[/QUOTE]Pointing out double standards is not whataboutism. I know liberals believe they should be able to define the standards of every situation to their political advantage but thats not how it works. If campaigns taking money and services from foreign governments, and paying other foreign governments money for oppo research is wrong then the villains here are the Left. From using cut outs to pay FSB agents to create the dossier, to John Podesta's illegally hiding his involvement with major Russian banks to Bill Clinton getting paid double for a speech just before his wife handed down favorable results from the State Department for Russian's connected to the bank that paid him... Not to mention all the money pouring into the CGI in the run up to HRC's spectacular implosion.[/QUOTE]

The investigation was originally sparked by the Aussies raising concerns after Georgy boy got drunk chatting to Aussie High Commissioner in London and 'prophecying' that the Muscovites would release info. When they did the Aussies did the right thing and told your people - not the Clinton campaign or the Obama Administration but your security services. Regarding the Steele dossier it was started by the Republicans so accusing only the Democrats of this seems a little hypocrital. It was given freely to the FBI as I understand it having first been seen by some Republican Senators. But what you are saying is ridiculous anyway; if a wannabe President of any country has committed war crimes in another country then his/her opponent cannot investigate that using a third party and reveal it? Can you prove that Muscovites were payed by Steele? No evidence of that so stop claiming it. Trump owes them money - he was bankrupt in 2008 and they bought him. Just the other week he condemns China for supplying oil to NRK but not Muscovy who have done exactly the same; why? Why all the lies? Why fire Comey? What was his old tweet? "Do you think Putin will be going to The Miss Universe Pageant in November in Moscow - if so, will he become my new best friend?" Contrast with ""I got to know (Putin) very well because we were both on ‘60 Minutes,’ we were stablemates, and we did very well that night. But, you know that" and “And I can tell you, speaking for myself, I own nothing in Russia. I have no loans in Russia. I don't have any deals in Russia. President Putin called me up very nicely to congratulate me on the win of the election,” and all the "no contacts whatsoever" lies. He was a Muscovite money laundering operation - simple.

zraver
03 Jan 18,, 03:31
Is that where the money laundering charges derive from?

Yes, look into the Podesta Group and Tony Podesta's sudden retirement when the Manafort indictment was handed down.


The investigation was originally sparked by the Aussies raising concerns after Georgy boy got drunk chatting to Aussie High Commissioner in London and 'prophecying' that the Muscovites would release info. When they did the Aussies did the right thing and told your people - not the Clinton campaign or the Obama Administration but your security services.

This is the third version of what sparked the investigation tendered by the NYT without a single named or verifiable source.


Regarding the Steele dossier it was started by the Republicans

That is a lie. Fusion GPS was hired by a right leaning newspaper to do oppo research. There was never GOP involvement and the papers involvement never included Steele. That is pure 100% HRC/DNC.


so accusing only the Democrats of this seems a little hypocrital. It was given freely to the FBI as I understand it having first been seen by some Republican Senators. But what you are saying is ridiculous anyway; if a wannabe President of any country has committed war crimes in another country then his/her opponent cannot investigate that using a third party and reveal it? Can you prove that Muscovites were payed by Steele? No evidence of that so stop claiming it. Trump owes them money - he was bankrupt in 2008 and they bought him. Just the other week he condemns China for supplying oil to NRK but not Muscovy who have done exactly the same; why? Why all the lies? Why fire Comey? What was his old tweet? "Do you think Putin will be going to The Miss Universe Pageant in November in Moscow - if so, will he become my new best friend?" Contrast with ""I got to know (Putin) very well because we were both on ‘60 Minutes,’ we were stablemates, and we did very well that night. But, you know that" and “And I can tell you, speaking for myself, I own nothing in Russia. I have no loans in Russia. I don't have any deals in Russia. President Putin called me up very nicely to congratulate me on the win of the election,” and all the "no contacts whatsoever" lies. He was a Muscovite money laundering operation - simple.

Left me know when you want to come in out of Left field. Literally no part of what you just wrote is supported by a single verifiable source. It was what 2 weeks ago when DAG Rosenstein told Congress he knew how the FBI got the dossier but was not going to say. As far as anyone knows, that is the only person who knows the truth about the usage and sourcing of the Dossier to the FBI and if it was freely given or paid for.

Trump has never personally filed bankruptcy. Companies have done so 4 times, all four as chapter 11 re-organisations not chapter 13 liquidations.

astralis
03 Jan 18,, 15:05
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/367182-bannon-called-trump-jr-russia-meeting-treasonous-report

ROFLMAO, the hilarity. what happened to deep state, lolol.


Former White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon reportedly called the 2016 meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a group of Russians "treasonous."

According to a new book seen by the Guardian, Bannon said the meeting that occurred during the 2016 presidential race was "treasonous" and "unpatriotic."

“They’re going to crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV," Bannon reportedly told author Michael Wolff, referring to the investigation into the Russian election interference.

bfng3569
03 Jan 18,, 15:16
Can you prove that Muscovites were payed by Steele? No evidence of that so stop claiming it. Trump owes them money - he was bankrupt in 2008 and they bought him.

He was a Muscovite money laundering operation - simple.


I don't know if you are familiar with the definition of the word 'hypocrite'?

because you, asking for facts and proof while having none to back up any of your outlandish claims is pretty amusing.

facts, if you want them, please provide them.

Ironduke
03 Jan 18,, 21:19
I've yet to see any evidence of money laundering with regards to Trump, but that being said, I think what snapper is referring primarily to is regarding Trump's dealings with the Bayrock Group, formerly based out of the 24th floor of Trump Tower, as well as the Sapir Organization, and other US-based Russian entities.

Whether or not Trump has done anything illicit with regards to his financial dealings with these people has yet to be established, that being said, the Bayrock Group and other entities are a bunch of super-shady Russians piping in tons of money from the motherland to invest in real estate projects here in the US. For US authorities to prove their money is from illicit/corrupt origins, they would likely need the full and honest cooperation of the Russian government and its law enforcement. Which is doubtful, given that Russia is a corrupt, oligarchical mafia state.

From a strictly Russian perspective, these people operating US-based Russian companies are engaged in corruption, evading taxes, laundering money, etc., and turning it into nice, clean, legal skyscrapers and resorts in Western countries... if the Russian government chose to consider it that way. Which it doesn't. Because they're in on it. Unless you're one of those oligarchs who ends up pissing off Putin.

I don't think anybody can earnestly argue that the billions of dollars pouring into New York, London, and other cities across the globe from Russia is of clean, licit origin, but as long as everything is done legally as to the how and from the time the money enters the US, there isn't much US authorities who actually cared could do, except be suspicious. At the end of the day, for all anybody cares, it's just foreign direct investment.

Donald Trump Jr. did say on Sept 15 2008: "In terms of high-end product influx into the United States, Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets; say in Dubai, and certainly with our project in SoHo and anywhere in New York. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

snapper
03 Jan 18,, 21:26
Bannon seems to agree with the money laundering side: "You realise where this is going,” he is quoted as saying. “This is all about money laundering. Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr and Jared Kushner … It’s as plain as a hair on your face."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/03/donald-trump-russia-steve-bannon-michael-wolff

snapper
03 Jan 18,, 21:31
Trump has never personally filed bankruptcy. Companies have done so 4 times, all four as chapter 11 re-organisations not chapter 13 liquidations.

Just alot of his businesses - even a casino rofl! Why do you think Mueller sub poena'd Deutsche Bank, who have already been fined for Muscovite money laundering?

Ironduke
03 Jan 18,, 21:49
Trump Breaks With Bannon, Saying He Has ‘Lost His Mind’

WASHINGTON — President Trump essentially excommunicated his onetime chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, from his political circle on Wednesday, excoriating him as a self-promoting exaggerator who had “very little to do with our historic victory” and has now “lost his mind.”

In a written statement brimming with anger and resentment, Mr. Trump fired back at Mr. Bannon, who had made caustic comments about the president and his family to the author of a new book about the Trump White House. While Mr. Bannon had remained in touch with Mr. Trump even after being pushed out of the White House last summer, the two now appear to have reached a breaking point.

“Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my presidency,” Mr. Trump said in the statement. “When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind.”

Mr. Trump berated Mr. Bannon for the loss of a Senate seat in Alabama and said the former adviser did not represent his base but was “only in it for himself.” Rather than supporting the president’s agenda to “make America great again,” Mr. Bannon was “simply seeking to burn it all down,” Mr. Trump said.

“Steve pretends to be at war with the media, which he calls the opposition party, yet he spent his time at the White House leaking false information to the media to make himself seem far more important than he was,” he added. “It is the only thing he does well. Steve was rarely in a one-on-one meeting with me and only pretends to have had influence to fool a few people with no access and no clue, whom he helped write phony books.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/us/politics/trump-bannon.html?action=click&contentCollection=DealBook&module=Trending&version=Full&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article&mtrref=www.nytimes.com

From the Guardian:

Bannon also speculated that Trump Jr had involved his father in the meeting. “The chance that Don Jr did not walk these jumos up to his father’s office on the twenty-sixth floor is zero.”
First we had "no fuzz" from Comey, but what the hell is a jumo?

Ironduke
04 Jan 18,, 00:13
Manafort sues DOJ, Mueller over Russia probe authority

(CNN) Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman indicted on money laundering and other charges, filed a lawsuit challenging the broad authority of special counsel Robert Mueller and alleging the Justice Department violated the law in appointing Mueller.

The suit brought Wednesday in US District Court in Washington, where Manafort and another former Trump campaign aide are charged, challenges Mueller's decision to charge Manafort with alleged crimes that they say have nothing to do with the 2016 campaign, but rather relate to lucrative lobbying work Manafort and his deputy did for a former Russia-friendly government in Ukraine. That work ended in 2014, the suit says. Manafort and his deputy Rick Gates deny the allegations in the charges.

The legal action represents a new tack in a broader effort by supporters of the President to push back on the special counsel. Some Republicans have begun publicly calling for Mueller's probe to be shut down. Manafort's attorneys have echoed the President's criticism that Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election is pursuing crimes that never happened.

The Manafort lawsuit alleges Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Mueller have unlawfully exceeded the authorities allowed under the law governing special counsel appointments. The lawsuit contends that the order Rosenstein signed to appoint Mueller "exceeds the scope of Mr. Rosenstein's authority to appoint special counsel as well as specific restrictions on the scope of such appointments."

A DOJ spokesperson responded with a statement, saying: "The lawsuit is frivolous but the defendant is entitled to file whatever he wants."

The lawsuit also includes new information on the scope of Mueller's probe: In August, the Mueller prosecutors issued more than 100 subpoenas related to Manafort, the lawsuit alleges.

Some of those subpoenas seek records from as early as 2005. In August, a prosecutor from Mueller's office told Manafort that he'd be prosecuted for alleged crimes dating back to 2010, the complaint says. When Manafort's lawyers asked Rosenstein in fall 2017 for clarification on whether Mueller's team had the go-ahead to broaden the investigation into earlier years, they heard nothing back, the complaint says. Manafort's indictment includes actions he took from 2006 to 2014[...]
More: https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/03/politics/manafort-lawsuit-robert-mueller-authority/index.html


Paul Manafort files lawsuit against Justice Department, Mueller

[...] If the court won't strike down his appointment, Manafort's lawsuit suggests several other options, including setting aside Mueller’s indictments, declaring that he doesn’t have the authority to investigate business dealings that aren’t part of his original mandate, stopping him from investigating matters beyond the scope of the original appointment, or “any other relief as may be just and proper.”

“The principle that government must be both limited in power and accountable to the people lies at the core of our constitutional traditions. That principle must be zealously guarded against creeping incursions,” Manafort attorneys Kevin Downing and Thomas Zehnle wrote in the lawsuit, which was filed in the same venue — the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia — overseeing Mueller’s criminal case against both Manafort and former Trump 2016 campaign aide Rick Gates[...]
More: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/03/paul-manafort-files-lawsuit-against-justice-department-mueller-322285

Ironduke
04 Jan 18,, 03:53
Bannon seems to agree with the money laundering side: "You realise where this is going,” he is quoted as saying. “This is all about money laundering. Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr and Jared Kushner … It’s as plain as a hair on your face."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/03/donald-trump-russia-steve-bannon-michael-wolff
He hasn't said anything (yet) that hasn't been previously speculated or reported on. It's definitely been a sit back with a box of popcorn and watch kind of day though, like some kind of cross between House of Cards and Trailer Park Boys.

snapper
04 Jan 18,, 12:28
I don't know if you are familiar with the definition of the word 'hypocrite'?

because you, asking for facts and proof while having none to back up any of your outlandish claims is pretty amusing.

facts, if you want them, please provide them.

Please explain how I am a hypocrite. Did you hear about Flynn - who took Muscovite money, and Manafort (who also took Muscovite money) being charged? Trump was laundering dirty Muscovite money for years; the house in Florida, Bayrock and many other scams. Take his testimony from 2007: "It's ridiculous that I wouldn't be investing in Russia," Trump said in that deposition. "Russia is one of the hottest places in the world for investment" and compare it with "I have no business in Russia" lies and then tell me who is the hypocrite and the liar.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-21/trump-russia-and-those-shadowy-sater-deals-at-bayrock

DOR
04 Jan 18,, 12:44
By GLENN R. SIMPSON and PETER FRITSCHJAN. 2, 2018

A generation ago, Republicans sought to protect President Richard Nixon by urging the Senate Watergate committee to look at supposed wrongdoing by Democrats in previous elections. The committee chairman, Sam Ervin, a Democrat, said that would be “as foolish as the man who went bear hunting and stopped to chase rabbits.”

Today, amid a growing criminal inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, congressional Republicans are again chasing rabbits. We know because we’re their favorite quarry.

In the year since the publication of the so-called Steele dossier — the collection of intelligence reports we commissioned about Donald Trump’s ties to Russia — the president has repeatedly attacked us on Twitter. His allies in Congress have dug through our bank records and sought to tarnish our firm to punish us for highlighting his links to Russia. Conservative news outlets and even our former employer, The Wall Street Journal, have spun a succession of mendacious conspiracy theories about our motives and backers.

We are happy to correct the record. In fact, we already have.

Three congressional committees have heard over 21 hours of testimony from our firm, Fusion GPS. In those sessions, we toppled the far right’s conspiracy theories and explained how The Washington Free Beacon and the Clinton campaign — the Republican and Democratic funders of our Trump research — separately came to hire us in the first place.

We walked investigators through our yearlong effort to decipher Mr. Trump’s complex business past, of which the Steele dossier is but one chapter. And we handed over our relevant bank records — while drawing the line at a fishing expedition for the records of companies we work for that have nothing to do with the Trump case.

Republicans have refused to release full transcripts of our firm’s testimony, even as they selectively leak details to media outlets on the far right. It’s time to share what our company told investigators.

We don’t believe the Steele dossier was the trigger for the F.B.I.’s investigation into Russian meddling. As we told the Senate Judiciary Committee in August, our sources said the dossier was taken so seriously because it corroborated reports the bureau had received from other sources, including one inside the Trump camp.

The intelligence committees have known for months that credible allegations of collusion between the Trump camp and Russia were pouring in from independent sources during the campaign. Yet lawmakers in the thrall of the president continue to wage a cynical campaign to portray us as the unwitting victims of Kremlin disinformation.

We suggested investigators look into the bank records of Deutsche Bank and others that were funding Mr. Trump’s businesses. Congress appears uninterested in that tip: Reportedly, ours are the only bank records the House Intelligence Committee has subpoenaed.

We told Congress that from Manhattan to Sunny Isles Beach, Fla., and from Toronto to Panama, we found widespread evidence that Mr. Trump and his organization had worked with a wide array of dubious Russians in arrangements that often raised questions about money laundering. Likewise, those deals don’t seem to interest Congress.

We explained how, from our past journalistic work in Europe, we were deeply familiar with the political operative Paul Manafort’s coziness with Moscow and his financial ties to Russian oligarchs close to Vladimir Putin.

Finally, we debunked the biggest canard being pushed by the president’s men — the notion that we somehow knew of the June 9, 2016, meeting in Trump Tower between some Russians and the Trump brain trust. We first learned of that meeting from news reports last year — and the committees know it. They also know that these Russians were unaware of the former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele’s work for us and were not sources for his reports.

Yes, we hired Mr. Steele, a highly respected Russia expert. But we did so without informing him whom we were working for and gave him no specific marching orders beyond this basic question: Why did Mr. Trump repeatedly seek to do deals in a notoriously corrupt police state that most serious investors shun?

What came back shocked us. Mr. Steele’s sources in Russia (who were not paid) reported on an extensive — and now confirmed — effort by the Kremlin to help elect Mr. Trump president. Mr. Steele saw this as a crime in progress and decided he needed to report it to the F.B.I.

We did not discuss that decision with our clients, or anyone else. Instead, we deferred to Mr. Steele, a trusted friend and intelligence professional with a long history of working with law enforcement. We did not speak to the F.B.I. and haven’t since.

After the election, Mr. Steele decided to share his intelligence with Senator John McCain via an emissary. We helped him do that. The goal was to alert the United States national security community to an attack on our country by a hostile foreign power. We did not, however, share the dossier with BuzzFeed, which to our dismay published it last January.

We’re extremely proud of our work to highlight Mr. Trump’s Russia ties. To have done so is our right under the First Amendment.

It is time to stop chasing rabbits. The public still has much to learn about a man with the most troubling business past of any United States president. Congress should release transcripts of our firm’s testimony, so that the American people can learn the truth about our work and most important, what happened to our democracy.

Glenn R. Simpson and Peter Fritsch, both former journalists, are the founders of the research firm Fusion GPS. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/02/opinion/republicans-investigation-fusion-gps.html

bfng3569
04 Jan 18,, 23:58
Please explain how I am a hypocrite. Did you hear about Flynn - who took Muscovite money, and Manafort (who also took Muscovite money) being charged? Trump was laundering dirty Muscovite money for years; the house in Florida, Bayrock and many other scams. Take his testimony from 2007: "It's ridiculous that I wouldn't be investing in Russia," Trump said in that deposition. "Russia is one of the hottest places in the world for investment" and compare it with "I have no business in Russia" lies and then tell me who is the hypocrite and the liar.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-21/trump-russia-and-those-shadowy-sater-deals-at-bayrock

Ya, still looking for actual facts to support all you claims, not inuendo, what ifs or conspiracy theories.

zraver
05 Jan 18,, 11:03
Why so many of those on the right are upset with the attack on Trump.

1. A) a highly visible one time presumptive future president and her inner circle and leading figures of a previous administration are treated with kid gloves in a way that completely deviates from past FBI and DOJ protocols. This despite massive evidence of crimes, corruption and national security risks. Lies to the FBI are routine and not prosecuted, immunity handed out like candy.

2. B) Almost the exact same team of FBI agents goes after a newly elected president and his inner circle in a way more befitting a mafioso crime boss.

Its a two tiered justice system. Either judge Trump by the Hillary standard, or reopen the Hillary case and use the Trump standard.

astralis
05 Jan 18,, 14:10
or, rather, the right is upset that this investigation is finding a significant level of wrongdoing by Trump associates and that ultimately the investigation may directly target the President himself.

if you recall when Mueller was first appointed, the GOP was falling over itself to say what a wonderful choice he was. I wonder what changed.

GVChamp
05 Jan 18,, 15:58
Exceeding implied mandate.

astralis
05 Jan 18,, 16:33
^ not really, that is more of what TRUMP'S been banging on about.

the rest of the right is talking about Mueller's supposed bias and disputing Mueller's evidence (ie the Steele dossier). as a line of attack this makes more sense because the actual indictments are very much focused on the campaign/Russia, not, say, on Trump Hotel financial shenanigans.

bfng3569
05 Jan 18,, 20:50
^ not really, that is more of what TRUMP'S been banging on about.

the rest of the right is talking about Mueller's supposed bias and disputing Mueller's evidence (ie the Steele dossier). as a line of attack this makes more sense because the actual indictments are very much focused on the campaign/Russia, not, say, on Trump Hotel financial shenanigans.

Not according to Manforts suit:

(CNN) — Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman indicted on money laundering and other charges, filed a lawsuit challenging the broad authority of special counsel Robert Mueller and alleging the Justice Department violated the law in appointing Mueller.

The suit brought Wednesday in US District Court in Washington, where Manafort and another former Trump campaign aide are charged, challenges Mueller's decision to charge Manafort with alleged crimes that they say have nothing to do with the 2016 campaign, but rather relate to lucrative lobbying work Manafort and his deputy did for a former Russia-friendly government in Ukraine. That work ended in 2014, the suit says. Manafort and his deputy Rick Gates deny the allegations in the charges.

The legal action represents a new tack in a broader effort by supporters of the President to push back on the special counsel. Some Republicans have begun publicly calling for Mueller's probe to be shut down. Manafort's attorneys have echoed the President's criticism that Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election is pursuing crimes that never happened.

The Manafort lawsuit alleges Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Mueller have unlawfully exceeded the authorities allowed under the law governing special counsel appointments. The lawsuit contends that the order Rosenstein signed to appoint Mueller "exceeds the scope of Mr. Rosenstein's authority to appoint special counsel as well as specific restrictions on the scope of such appointments."

A DOJ spokesperson responded with a statement, saying: "The lawsuit is frivolous but the defendant is entitled to file whatever he wants."

The lawsuit also includes new information on the scope of Mueller's probe: In August, the Mueller prosecutors issued more than 100 subpoenas related to Manafort, the lawsuit alleges.

Some of those subpoenas seek records from as early as 2005. In August, a prosecutor from Mueller's office told Manafort that he'd be prosecuted for alleged crimes dating back to 2010, the complaint says. When Manafort's lawyers asked Rosenstein in fall 2017 for clarification on whether Mueller's team had the go-ahead to broaden the investigation into earlier years, they heard nothing back, the complaint says. Manafort's indictment includes actions he took from 2006 to 2014.

In previous court filings, prosecutors said they've collected 400,000 documents related to Manafort and Gates' case, and identified 2,000 of those documents as especially relevant.

The lawsuit's focus is on a part of the Rosenstein order that says that Mueller may investigate "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." The Manafort lawyers say that goes beyond what the law allows Rosenstein to empower Mueller to do.

The Rosenstein order gives Mueller "carte blanche to investigate and pursue criminal charges in connection with anything he stumbles across while investigating, no matter how remote from the specific matter identified as the subject of the appointment order," the lawsuit says.

The Manafort lawsuit alleges that even if Rosenstein's order is lawful, Mueller has exceeded his authority.

It also says that Manafort met in 2014 with the Justice Department and the FBI in the government's investigation of his client, former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, ousted amid street protests that year. The Manafort suit claims the government told Manafort he was a witness in the investigation. The special counsel has now charged Manafort with conduct he had already voluntarily disclosed, the lawsuit says.

Manafort "voluntarily met with DOJ prosecutors and FBI agents to discuss his offshore political consulting activities" in July 2014, the complaint says. At that time, the Justice Department told him they were working with Ukraine to locate stolen assets and focused on a former Ukrainian president, according to the complaint.

"The office of the special counsel charged Mr. Manafort with the very conduct he voluntarily disclosed to DOJ almost three years prior to the appointment of Mr. Mueller as special counsel," the complaint says.

Manafort's lawsuit notes that during his time working for the Ukrainian government he met regularly with the US ambassador in Kiev, suggesting that the US government knew what he was doing at the time.

The suit also cites the July FBI raid on Manafort's home, in which the special counsel team said it was seeking records of possible financial crimes dating to January 2006 -- a decade before the presidential campaign Mueller is investigating.

Manafort and Gates face a total of 12 criminal charges related to money laundering and failure to file federal disclosures. Both Manafort and Gates have pleaded not guilty and are scheduled to appear again before the judge in the criminal case on January 16.

bfng3569
05 Jan 18,, 20:53
By GLENN R. SIMPSON and PETER FRITSCHJAN. 2, 2018

A generation ago, Republicans sought to protect President Richard Nixon by urging the Senate Watergate committee to look at supposed wrongdoing by Democrats in previous elections. The committee chairman, Sam Ervin, a Democrat, said that would be “as foolish as the man who went bear hunting and stopped to chase rabbits.”

Today, amid a growing criminal inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, congressional Republicans are again chasing rabbits. We know because we’re their favorite quarry.

In the year since the publication of the so-called Steele dossier — the collection of intelligence reports we commissioned about Donald Trump’s ties to Russia — the president has repeatedly attacked us on Twitter. His allies in Congress have dug through our bank records and sought to tarnish our firm to punish us for highlighting his links to Russia. Conservative news outlets and even our former employer, The Wall Street Journal, have spun a succession of mendacious conspiracy theories about our motives and backers.

We are happy to correct the record. In fact, we already have.

Three congressional committees have heard over 21 hours of testimony from our firm, Fusion GPS. In those sessions, we toppled the far right’s conspiracy theories and explained how The Washington Free Beacon and the Clinton campaign — the Republican and Democratic funders of our Trump research — separately came to hire us in the first place.

We walked investigators through our yearlong effort to decipher Mr. Trump’s complex business past, of which the Steele dossier is but one chapter. And we handed over our relevant bank records — while drawing the line at a fishing expedition for the records of companies we work for that have nothing to do with the Trump case.

Republicans have refused to release full transcripts of our firm’s testimony, even as they selectively leak details to media outlets on the far right. It’s time to share what our company told investigators.

We don’t believe the Steele dossier was the trigger for the F.B.I.’s investigation into Russian meddling. As we told the Senate Judiciary Committee in August, our sources said the dossier was taken so seriously because it corroborated reports the bureau had received from other sources, including one inside the Trump camp.

The intelligence committees have known for months that credible allegations of collusion between the Trump camp and Russia were pouring in from independent sources during the campaign. Yet lawmakers in the thrall of the president continue to wage a cynical campaign to portray us as the unwitting victims of Kremlin disinformation.

We suggested investigators look into the bank records of Deutsche Bank and others that were funding Mr. Trump’s businesses. Congress appears uninterested in that tip: Reportedly, ours are the only bank records the House Intelligence Committee has subpoenaed.

We told Congress that from Manhattan to Sunny Isles Beach, Fla., and from Toronto to Panama, we found widespread evidence that Mr. Trump and his organization had worked with a wide array of dubious Russians in arrangements that often raised questions about money laundering. Likewise, those deals don’t seem to interest Congress.

We explained how, from our past journalistic work in Europe, we were deeply familiar with the political operative Paul Manafort’s coziness with Moscow and his financial ties to Russian oligarchs close to Vladimir Putin.

Finally, we debunked the biggest canard being pushed by the president’s men — the notion that we somehow knew of the June 9, 2016, meeting in Trump Tower between some Russians and the Trump brain trust. We first learned of that meeting from news reports last year — and the committees know it. They also know that these Russians were unaware of the former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele’s work for us and were not sources for his reports.

Yes, we hired Mr. Steele, a highly respected Russia expert. But we did so without informing him whom we were working for and gave him no specific marching orders beyond this basic question: Why did Mr. Trump repeatedly seek to do deals in a notoriously corrupt police state that most serious investors shun?

What came back shocked us. Mr. Steele’s sources in Russia (who were not paid) reported on an extensive — and now confirmed — effort by the Kremlin to help elect Mr. Trump president. Mr. Steele saw this as a crime in progress and decided he needed to report it to the F.B.I.

We did not discuss that decision with our clients, or anyone else. Instead, we deferred to Mr. Steele, a trusted friend and intelligence professional with a long history of working with law enforcement. We did not speak to the F.B.I. and haven’t since.

After the election, Mr. Steele decided to share his intelligence with Senator John McCain via an emissary. We helped him do that. The goal was to alert the United States national security community to an attack on our country by a hostile foreign power. We did not, however, share the dossier with BuzzFeed, which to our dismay published it last January.

We’re extremely proud of our work to highlight Mr. Trump’s Russia ties. To have done so is our right under the First Amendment.

It is time to stop chasing rabbits. The public still has much to learn about a man with the most troubling business past of any United States president. Congress should release transcripts of our firm’s testimony, so that the American people can learn the truth about our work and most important, what happened to our democracy.

Glenn R. Simpson and Peter Fritsch, both former journalists, are the founders of the research firm Fusion GPS. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/02/opinion/republicans-investigation-fusion-gps.html


On Tuesday, Fusion GPS founders Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch wrote an op-ed for The New York Times. In it, they claimed they and their opposition research firm were nothing but an open book and were seeking greater transparency from three congressional committees who have been digging into the probe of Russian election meddling.

All three committees have sought information from Fusion GPS and its principals, who were hired by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee to do opposition research. That funding paid for the salacious and still-unsubstantiated dossier alleging treasonous collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. In Fusion GPS’ vague telling, they’ve been nothing but forthright with the committees, which came as news to those committees.

A spokesman for Sen. Chuck Grassley of the Senate Judiciary Committee reminded Fusion GPS that the firm and its principals routinely fought the committee. Spokesman Taylor Foy said, “Senator Grassley provided Fusion GPS an opportunity for transparency six months ago when he invited the firm to publicly testify at an open committee hearing. Mr. Simpson declined. When faced with a subpoena from the Chairman and Ranking Member, Mr. Simpson refused to provide public testimony, using his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to negotiate for a closed-door interview. Despite his public statements, Mr. Simpson and his attorney demanded during the interview that the transcript be kept confidential. Mr. Simpson has refused to answer dozens of questions voluntarily, and has failed to provide the Committee with documents and responses to follow-up questions after the interview.”

On the other side of the Hill, it’s also been far from the picture of compliance and transparency that Fusion GPS claimed in its op-ed. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has spent much of the previous year fighting Fusion for access to basic records tied to the investigation.

On Thursday, a U.S. District Judge denied Fusion GPS’s effort to keep the House committee from bank records it sought. Judge Richard Leon, who took over the case after the previous judge Tanya Chutkan recused herself midway over unspecified conflicts, smacked down all four grounds by which Fusion GPS tried to block the congressional subpoena. That subpoena included requests for records of payments from Fusion GPS to journalists who have covered the Russian dossier story.

Fusion said the request for records lacked a valid legislative purpose, were overbroad and irrelevant, violated First Amendment rights to speech and association, and violated financial privacy laws. The judge disagreed on each count.

Lacked A Valid Legislative Purpose

Fusion tried to argue that House Intel Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) lacked the authority to issue the subpoena, in part because they erroneously believed he had recused himself from the Russia probe. Judge Leon cited the U.S. Constitution, rules of the House of Representatives, and the public record to throw water on the argument. He said that at no time did Nunes “recuse” himself from the Russia investigation, though he did allow other committee members to take charge of it while he resolved his ethics investigation.

“[H]e retained the power to issue the Subpoena at issues in this case… Indeed the Subpoena would be invalid without Chairman Nunes’s signature unless the full Committee authorized another member to sign it, which it did not,” Leon wrote.

Incidentally, Nunes was cleared of ethics violations in early December. He had been accused of sharing classified information when he revealed that Obama administration officials had collected and unmasked much information about Trump campaign officials and spread it around. The committee found that he had not violated House rules or any other standard of conduct.

Overbroad and Irrelevant

Fusion then claimed that none of the law firms about which the committee sought information contracted to work on Russia or Donald Trump. It also said that records of transactions between Fusion and certain media companies and journalists were “not pertinent.”

Judge Leon noted, given the balance of powers in the U.S. Constitution, courts are not to determine that legislative records requests aren’t proper unless they’re obviously irrelevant. Since the committee “has intelligence suggesting that Fusion directed [researcher Christopher] Steele to meet with at least five major media outlets to discuss his work on the Trump Dossier,” it’s reasonable to pursue records related to “various media companies and journalists to determine whether they, too, had involvement with the Trump Dossier or with Russian active measures directed at the 2016 Presidential election,” he wrote.

Leon noted that Fusion had multiple ties to Russia and the Russia investigation. Mark Elias, an attorney with Perkins Coie who represented both the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, retained Fusion for Russian opposition research. But Baker Hostetler had hired Fusion for work on behalf of Prevezon Holdings, a Russian state-owned company. In fact, this second law firm relationship led to accusations that Fusion GPS was acting as an unregistered foreign agent on behalf of Russia.

Leon also noted that it was unwise to allow the subject of an investigation to determine what may be investigated, particularly since part of the committee’s work is classified and Fusion would not know the complete justification for document requests.

First Amendment

Fusion GPS also tried to argue that turning over the records would hamper their First Amendment rights to engage in free political speech, free political activity, and for good measure they added free association. Judge Leon noted they simply failed to even try to make their case. Even if they had tried, while the work they perform may be highly political, the business relationships they form are not. He said, “[T]he First Amendment is not a secrecy pact!”

Judge Leon also dismissed Fusion’s concerns that the committee would not keep the information private. Fusion claimed that the committee had leaked the identity of their bank to the media, but provided no evidence to support those allegations. The judge said he needed evidence of wrongdoing by the committee, adding, “[t]his is especially true in light of the fact that Fusion itself has played a role in publicizing aspects of this litigation and the Committee’s investigation.”

astralis
05 Jan 18,, 21:17
bfng,

focusing on Manafort's financial shenanigans is the means of forcing Manafort to talk on Trump campaign issues. it's not the main focus.

if Trump feels like Mueller is trying a see-what-sticks strategy, well, he drew a red line (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/politics/trump-interview-transcript.html) on it, and it is now up to Trump to enforce...or not...this red line.


SCHMIDT: Last thing, if Mueller was looking at your finances and your family finances, unrelated to Russia — is that a red line?

HABERMAN: Would that be a breach of what his actual charge is?

TRUMP: I would say yeah. I would say yes.

Trump hasn't. and seeing as how he hasn't, most of the right is following him and instead attacking other areas of the investigation.

bfng3569
05 Jan 18,, 22:20
bfng,

focusing on Manafort's financial shenanigans is the means of forcing Manafort to talk on Trump campaign issues. it's not the main focus.

if Trump feels like Mueller is trying a see-what-sticks strategy, well, he drew a red line (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/politics/trump-interview-transcript.html) on it, and it is now up to Trump to enforce...or not...this red line.



Trump hasn't. and seeing as how he hasn't, most of the right is following him and instead attacking other areas of the investigation.

your comment stated that the indictments are focused on the campaign and Russia, which is clearly not the case.

most of the right may not give a dam about Manfort and aren't focused on him at all.

as has been proven though, Mueller clearly does not care about focusing on the campaign and Russia (probably because there is nothing there to focus on).

So which is it? Is Mueller focusing on the campaign and Russia, or just what ever he get his hand on from the last 20 years?

astralis
05 Jan 18,, 22:36
bfng,


your comment stated that the indictments are focused on the campaign and Russia, which is clearly not the case.

your counter-argument to this was to point at Manafort's suit...which has not been adjudicated. that hardly indicates that it's "clearly not the case" that the Mueller investigation is focused on the campaign/Russia. Trump thinks this whole thing is a hoax, does that mean we take this at face value too?

basically, all we know about what's going on is from Mueller's public actions and the counter-actions. if Mueller's investigation is not focused on the campaign/Russia, then you tell me why Trump of all people hasn't fired Mueller/Rubenstein. after all...he fired Comey. under false pretenses, at that.

zraver
05 Jan 18,, 23:40
bfng,



your counter-argument to this was to point at Manafort's suit...which has not been adjudicated. that hardly indicates that it's "clearly not the case" that the Mueller investigation is focused on the campaign/Russia. Trump thinks this whole thing is a hoax, does that mean we take this at face value too?

basically, all we know about what's going on is from Mueller's public actions and the counter-actions. if Mueller's investigation is not focused on the campaign/Russia, then you tell me why Trump of all people hasn't fired Mueller/Rubenstein. after all...he fired Comey. under false pretenses, at that.

The only evidence of Russian collusion so far is between the Clintons not Trump. I wish you would step away from the DC Beltway laced koolaid and actually hear what is being said about the double standards. Trump's base isn't upset he is being investigated, but that a different standard is being applied. Either judge him by the Hillary standard, or judge her by his. The two tiered legal system you seem to be in favor of is by far the biggest long term threat to our system of government. It says corruption by the in group is permitted and even inuendo by the out group must be crushed.

Ironduke
06 Jan 18,, 00:04
your comment stated that the indictments are focused on the campaign and Russia, which is clearly not the case.

most of the right may not give a dam about Manfort and aren't focused on him at all.

as has been proven though, Mueller clearly does not care about focusing on the campaign and Russia (probably because there is nothing there to focus on).

So which is it? Is Mueller focusing on the campaign and Russia, or just what ever he get his hand on from the last 20 years?
Well, let's look at Rosenstein's special counsel order:


(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
Manafort was in the meeting on the 25th floor of the Trump Tower with Trump, Jr. and Kushner. That meeting falls under:


(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump
That makes Manafort a target of the investigation. In the course of the investigation, Mueller finds evidence of crimes that falls under:


(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation
The money laundering and tax evasion charges aren't some wild tangent out of left field. Manafort traveled to Russia some 18 times, had millions stashed in dozens of Cypriot bank accounts (one of the premier places for Russian oligarchs and mafia to offshore their cash) which he's accused of laundering back to the US, he performed extensive lobbying work for a Russian-backed government, and so on.

Mueller would be derelict in his duty as special counsel in not investigating these matters. It's not like they're indicting him with a single charge of pot plant in the basement, they've indicted him on charges that were part of a germane line on inquiry in their investigations into links/coordination.

astralis
06 Jan 18,, 01:24
z,


The only evidence of Russian collusion so far is between the Clintons not Trump. I wish you would step away from the DC Beltway laced koolaid and actually hear what is being said about the double standards. Trump's base isn't upset he is being investigated, but that a different standard is being applied. Either judge him by the Hillary standard, or judge her by his. The two tiered legal system you seem to be in favor of is by far the biggest long term threat to our system of government. It says corruption by the in group is permitted and even inuendo by the out group must be crushed.

yes, yes, you've said this already. it's a pretty remarkable claim to make especially as we simply do not have full insight into what Mueller is actually -doing-.

moreover, if there was indeed a two-tiered system, then Trump would be fully within his rights, and ability, to fire Rosenstein and find someone to replace Mueller or stop the investigation altogether. and if i'm just drinking "dc beltway koolaid", then such a move would in fact be popular.

that he does not indicates that there is a high political price to be paid, which in turn means that apparently such a move would not be so popular after all.

in fact, Trump's last public comments of a week ago indicated that he thought Mueller is "going to be fair". so...is Trump wrong? you tell me.

zraver
06 Jan 18,, 01:31
The money laundering and tax evasion charges aren't some wild tangent out of left field. Manafort traveled to Russia some 18 times, had millions stashed in dozens of Cypriot bank accounts (one of the premier places for Russian oligarchs and mafia to offshore their cash) which he's accused of laundering back to the US, he performed extensive lobbying work for a Russian-backed government, and so on.

Work done in part for the Podesta Group headed by Tony Podesta, brother of John Podesta. John Podesta as we know from Wikileaks had extensive and illegal dealings with the same Russian banks that have gotten Manafort in so much trouble. Yet we don't see Meuller moving to actually follow the money... hrmmmm???


Mueller would be derelict in his duty as special counsel in not investigating these matters.

So extensive evidence of Russian ties to a campaign director not being investigated would be dereliction of duty? From your finger tips to Mueller's ears...

zraver
06 Jan 18,, 01:37
z,



yes, yes, you've said this already. it's a pretty remarkable claim to make especially as we simply do not have full insight into what Mueller is actually -doing-.

moreover, if there was indeed a two-tiered system, then Trump would be fully within his rights, and ability, to fire Rosenstein and find someone to replace Mueller or stop the investigation altogether. and if i'm just drinking "dc beltway koolaid", then such a move would in fact be popular.

that he does not indicates that there is a high political price to be paid, which in turn means that apparently such a move would not be so popular after all.

in fact, Trump's last public comments of a week ago indicated that he thought Mueller is "going to be fair". so...is Trump wrong? you tell me.

I'm not arguing Mueller should or shouldn't, Trump should or shouldn't. I'm saying the same legal standard should apply.

So lets stop beating around the Bush. Should A- Trump and his circle be gifted the same relaxed approach to Justice that Hillary got. B- Should the Hillary's case be -reopened and subjected to the same sort of fine toothed comb investigation be applied as is being used against Trump. C- Go on as we are, GOP gets judged by Y and Dems by X.

Pick one or outline your thoughts on the application of the law and the remarkable differences in effort in two otherwise seemingly similar situations involving so many of the same investigative and law enforcement players.

astralis
06 Jan 18,, 02:04
simply, I pick D. there was a perfectly fine application of justice for Clinton and there is a perfectly fine application of justice for Trump.

zraver
06 Jan 18,, 02:22
simply, I pick D. there was a perfectly fine application of justice for Clinton and there is a perfectly fine application of justice for Trump.

Hence my comment about the DC Beltway Kool-aid. I'd love to see you square the circle irt Huma Abedin lying to the FBI about classified info and mishandlingn national secrets on Hillary's server and the way the FBI went after Flynn for lying about a legal conversation.

Ironduke
06 Jan 18,, 05:48
Work done in part for the Podesta Group headed by Tony Podesta, brother of John Podesta. John Podesta as we know from Wikileaks had extensive and illegal dealings with the same Russian banks that have gotten Manafort in so much trouble. Yet we don't see Meuller moving to actually follow the money... hrmmmm???

So extensive evidence of Russian ties to a campaign director not being investigated would be dereliction of duty? From your finger tips to Mueller's ears...
Mueller investigating and indicting Manafort resulted from a line of inquiry entirely germane to the scope of his special counsel appointment.

Manafort was part of the 25th floor meeting.

Mueller, who is naturally going to start looking into Manafort's body of Russia-related work, uncovers evidence of money laundering and tax evasion that is directly connected to Manafort's body of Russia-related work.

While the present allegations against Manafort may not include collusion, any prosecutor tasked with investigating coordination and links between Trump campaign officials (of which Manafort was) and Russia would be derelict not to look into Manafort's body of Russia-related work.

It just so happens, it is alleged, they uncovered crimes that at this point do not yet include collusion. That being said, it's still was an entirely natural, germane line of inquiry.

If Podesta was also a Trump campaign official and part of the 25th floor meeting, I'm sure Mueller would be investigating him as well.

zraver
06 Jan 18,, 05:52
Mueller investigating and indicting Manafort resulted from an entirely line of inquiry entirely germane to the scope of his special counsel appointment.

Manafort was part of the 25th floor meeting.

Mueller, who is naturally going to start looking into Manafort's body of Russia-related work, uncovers evidence of money laundering and tax evasion that is directly connected to Manafort's body of Russia-related work.

While the present allegations against Manafort may not be collusion, any prosecutor tasked with investigating coordination and links between Trump campaign officials and Russia would be derelict not to look into Manafort's body of Russia-related work.

It just so happens, it is alleged, they uncovered crimes. That being said, it's still was an entirely natural, germane line of inquiry.

If Podesta was also a Trump campaign official and part of the 25th floor meeting, I'm sure Mueller would be investigating him as well.


So its not any crimes that arise, but only crimes connected to those close to Trump.... OK Gotcha. Manafort has a long business relationship with the Podesta's, who do you think he was in Russia with?

Ironduke
06 Jan 18,, 06:00
So its not any crimes that arise, but only crimes connected to those close to Trump.... OK Gotcha. Manafort has a long business relationship with the Podesta's, who do you think he was in Russia with?
Podesta was not a Trump campaign official. But if the line of inquiry from Manafort crimes leads to evidence of Podesta crimes, then he's fair game.

zraver
06 Jan 18,, 06:12
Podesta was not a Trump campaign official. But if the line of inquiry from Manafort crimes leads to evidence of Podesta crimes, then he's fair game.

Its not if. Hillary's campaign chair was hiding serious and provable Russian connections.

https://nypost.com/2017/07/05/uncovering-the-russia-ties-of-hillarys-campaign-chief/

Ironduke
06 Jan 18,, 06:42
Its not if. Hillary's campaign chair was hiding serious and provable Russian connections.

https://nypost.com/2017/07/05/uncovering-the-russia-ties-of-hillarys-campaign-chief/
I'm no fan of these people either, but I'll stick with 'if'. At this point it's largely a matter of speculation.

zraver
06 Jan 18,, 07:03
I'm no fan of these people either, but I'll stick with 'if'. At this point it's largely a matter of speculation.

its not speculation, cyber security companies examined the wikileaks emails, they had not been altered. The ties to Russia revealed in the Podesta emails are forensically sound.

Ironduke
06 Jan 18,, 07:41
its not speculation, cyber security companies examined the wikileaks emails, they had not been altered. The ties to Russia revealed in the Podesta emails are forensically sound.
It said 'if' the line of inquiry leads to Podesta crimes. At this point, he hasn't been charged with any, and whether he committed any or not is a matter of speculation. So I'll stick with 'if'.

zraver
06 Jan 18,, 07:52
It said 'if' the line of inquiry leads to Podesta crimes. At this point, he hasn't been charged with any, and whether he committed any or not is a matter of speculation. So I'll stick with 'if'.

So you'll speculate on Trump who hasn't been charged with any crimes and for whom no evidence of criminal wrong doing exists, but Clinton's right hand with incontrovertible evidence is off limits until he is charged... got it.

Ironduke
06 Jan 18,, 08:22
So you'll speculate on Trump who hasn't been charged with any crimes and for whom no evidence of criminal wrong doing exists, but Clinton's right hand with incontrovertible evidence is off limits until he is charged... got it.
Sure, by my observation of Trump's public actions and the things he's said I've speculated he attempted to obstruct justice.

You've spoken of "ties" and "connections" thus far, feel free to share this incontrovertible evidence.

I'm aware Tony Podesta is under investigation by Mueller and has closed his lobbying firm, but I haven't seen anything yet about John Podesta having anything to do with it.

zraver
06 Jan 18,, 14:19
Sure, by my observation of Trump's public actions and the things he's said I've speculated he attempted to obstruct justice.

You've spoken of "ties" and "connections" thus far, feel free to share this incontrovertible evidence.

I'm aware Tony Podesta is under investigation by Mueller and has closed his lobbying firm, but I haven't seen anything yet about John Podesta having anything to do with it.

Google the podesta emails, I literally cannot post the link here its against forum rules.

snapper
06 Jan 18,, 16:37
Ya, still looking for actual facts to support all you claims, not inuendo, what ifs or conspiracy theories.

'Hypocritical' is what the Trump lot do when they accuse the Clinton campaign of paying Muscovites for info on Trump for the 'Steele dossier' when the dossier itself started off being payed for by Republicans. Hope you get a dictionary next year for Christmas but even then I doubt you would use it.

Ironduke
06 Jan 18,, 22:03
Google the podesta emails, I literally cannot post the link here its against forum rules.
Which one? They're in the public domain and their content has been published in a variety of media outlets.

This is only the guidance that was posted regarding Wikileaks-sourced material, and it only applied to sensitive/classified information:

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=58663&highlight=wikileaks

zraver
07 Jan 18,, 02:00
Which one? They're in the public domain and their content has been published in a variety of media outlets.

This is only the guidance that was posted regarding Wikileaks-sourced material, and it only applied to sensitive/classified information:

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=58663&highlight=wikileaks

DO NOT POST WIKILEAKS, I can only post links that talk about them, not the cables themselves. I've already posted discussions about them, you blew them off.

Ironduke
07 Jan 18,, 02:30
DO NOT POST WIKILEAKS, I can only post links that talk about them, not the cables themselves. I've already posted discussions about them, you blew them off.
The opinion piece in the New York Post by the Clinton Cash author, Peter Schweizer.

I've already expressed my views about Russian money and investments, and even expressed my caution about coming to conclusions about it with regards to Trump. I don't see any smoking guns.


I don't think anybody can earnestly argue that the billions of dollars pouring into New York, London, and other cities across the globe from Russia is of clean, licit origin, but as long as everything is done legally as to the how and from the time the money enters the US, there isn't much US authorities who actually cared could do, except be suspicious. At the end of the day, for all anybody cares, it's just foreign direct investment.

zraver
07 Jan 18,, 03:05
On a related note, Fox is reporting that Cody Hiland the new US Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas is looking into the Clinton Foundation. The FBI wanted to issue subpeonas in 2016 but was quashed by the Obama DoJ. If the DoJ is now on board, Hiland looking into the CF is bad news for the Clintons. This is blood fued stuff. Hiland was the DA here where I live for years. The political opportunity of begin the man who sank the jailed the Clintons is going to make sure he never lets this go. I wont say I know him, I've met him and know people who have argued against him in court. One thing he is never wrong about is political opportunity.

DOR
07 Jan 18,, 10:20
Peter Schweizer, who worked for George W Bush, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal and Breitbart
Wrote Clinton Cash, which was
Published by HarperCollins which is
Owned by NewsCorp which is
Headed by Rupert Murdoch
Who owns Fox News.

Probably just a coincidence, but

Peter Schweizer, who heads up Government Accountability Institute, which is
Funded by Ted Cruz pal Robert Mercer and had daughter Rebekah Mercer on the board is
Backed by Koch brothers dark money allies such as Donors Trust, and
Repeats the debunked uranium claims fake press release, which is
Nothing new, since Schweizer has a long history of poor accuracy, misrepresentation and otherwise making stuff up.

Such as claiming Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse used information from a Senate committee to sell stocks that were about to tank due to government action, but … Whitehouse wasn’t on the committee. And, his financial adviser made an independent decision to sell. Because Whitehouse didn’t want accusations of impropriety. Oh, and Lehman Brothers was collapsing and everyone was selling everything. Oops.

Or, that Obama skipped more than half of his daily briefings. Except, by that measure, Reagan skipped 99%, because he – like Obama – preferred a different style of information management. Oops.

Or, that 80% of DoE backed loans went to Obama’s financial backers. Except, most of them also donated to GOPers. And, one-third didn’t get the loan guarantees. Oops.

I wonder why FactCheck.org keeps giving Schweizer Pinocchios ?

snapper
08 Jan 18,, 10:55
most of the right may not give a dam about Manfort and aren't focused on him at all.

This is where I where I fall out with today's GOP. I don't know what "the right" means here; to some it seems to mean the President is above the law - in which case Nixon and Hitler were within their rights to commit the crimes they participated in. To some it just seems that Trump is always right. I fundamentally disagree with both: Nobody, not even a King, can be above the law or freedom of property and every other liberty ends. Nor is any single person always right. We have all made mistakes and failed before - I mean Trump has seven corporate bankruptcies to his name so he is hardly some business genius. I am not "the right" but a Conservative. I get things wrong - hell I voted for PiS in Poland but regret it now. But failure and understanding our mistakes is a strength; we learn and grow. Today these Trump apologists - and Trump himself "I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius....and a very stable genius at that!" try to say he is beyond the law and a genius. He is not. How a genius goes broke with a casino I have no idea. How a 'stable genius' manages to misunderstand so much and lie about so much - give so many versions of a story (for example the Comey firing) is not making sense to me. How other idiots still apologise for this Idiot in Chief, entrapped by the Muscovites years ago, is making you look either stupid or worse. This guy has to go. He is mentally and emotionally incapable of performing the duties of a head of State as well as being in debt to Muscovy.

Is it "right" to leak to the press? It may be illegal; Mark Felt ("Deepthroat" from the Watergate business) was deputy FBI boss so certainly his leaking was illegal but there was more criminality within the Nixon Administration: Those who first break the law cannot complain when when they are answered in their on their own terms. Certainly Felt's actions were not done to bring down the rule of law but to expose that others were seeking to do so. If sometimes you must break rules to uphold the greater system of law is it wrong? Not in my view. Mark Felt broke the law to uphold the US Constitution, he deserves respect not condemnation.

Now you have a similar situation. It is clear that Comey was "pressured" by Trump (having asked everyone else to leave the room) to drop the Flynn investigation (that Sally Yates had warned him about - getting her fired) and when Comey refused to swear loyalty to Trump he followed Yates. It is clear your President and his advisors have lied repeatedly about their contacts with Moscow during the election. It is clear that your President has lied repeatedly about his business dealings with Moscow. It is clear he and his associates want the Muscovite investigation closed and have accomplices in Congress - who have sent the Department of Justice a request to investigate of all people Christoper Steele - who did hand over his findings to the FBI without having been asked because he thought they should know.

You have been attacked. You are at war whether you like it or not. We have the same here and understand - and I do not trust Poroshenko farther than could I throw him, which is not a foot as he is too fat and I am too small. The world cannot afford to lose the rule of law in the US. All during the dark days of the Soviet oppression people here used to listen to BBC and Voice of America and dream one day they could enjoy the same liberty as the "West", now in large part we do - except in the revanchest Muscovite state that attacked your democracy; there are Muscovites even today who pray for a strong American President to denounce Putin and his Mafia kleptocracy. Every person today is today a front line in this information and disinformation war. We all know that truth is single and pure and in our heart of hearts know what is right. Yesterday I lit a candle in the Orthodox Greek church in the mountains of Ukraine for America. God go with you because it is him as well as your children you will answer for actions or inaction's in the days that come this year.

DOR
08 Jan 18,, 13:24
This is where I where I fall out with today's GOP. I don't know what "the right" means here; to some such as zraver it seems to mean the President is above the law - in which case Nixon and Hitler were within their rights to commit the crimes they participated in. To bfng it just seems that Trump is always right. I fundamentally disagree with both: Nobody, not even a King, can be above the law or freedom of property and every other liberty ends. Nor is any single person always right. We have all made mistakes and failed before - I mean Trump has seven corporate bankruptcies to his name so he is hardly some business genius. I am not "the right" but a Conservative. I get things wrong - hell I voted for PiS in Poland but regret it now. But failure and understanding our mistakes is a strength; we learn and grow. Today these Trump apologists - and Trump himself "I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius....and a very stable genius at that!" try to say he is beyond the law and a genius. He is not. How a genius goes broke with a casino I have no idea. How a 'stable genius' manages to misunderstand so much and lie about so much - give so many versions of a story (for example the Comey firing) is not making sense to me. How other idiots still apologise for this Idiot in Chief, entrapped by the Muscovites years ago, is making you look either stupid or worse. This guy has to go. He is mentally and emotionally incapable of performing the duties of a head of State as well as being in debt to Muscovy.

Is it "right" to leak to the press? It may be illegal; Mark Felt ("Deepthroat" from the Watergate business) was deputy FBI boss so certainly his leaking was illegal but there was more criminality within the Nixon Administration: Those who first break the law cannot complain when when they are answered in their on their own terms. Certainly Felt's actions were not done to bring down the rule of law but to expose that others were seeking to do so. If sometimes you must break rules to uphold the greater system of law is it wrong? Not in my view. Mark Felt broke the law to uphold the US Constitution, he deserves respect not condemnation.

Now you have a similar situation. It is clear that Comey was "pressured" by Trump (having asked everyone else to leave the room) to drop the Flynn investigation (that Sally Yates had warned him about - getting her fired) and when Comey refused to swear loyalty to Trump he followed Yates. It is clear your President and his advisors have lied repeatedly about their contacts with Moscow during the election. It is clear that your President has lied repeatedly about his business dealings with Moscow. It is clear he and his associates want the Muscovite investigation closed and have accomplices in Congress - who have sent the Department of Justice a request to investigate of all people Christoper Steele - who did hand over his findings to the FBI without having been asked because he thought they should know.

You have been attacked. You are at war whether you like it or not. We have the same here and understand - and I do not trust Poroshenko farther than could I throw him, which is not a foot as he is too fat and I am too small. The world cannot afford to lose the rule of law in the US. All during the dark days of the Soviet oppression people here used to listen to BBC and Voice of America and dream one day they could enjoy the same liberty as the "West", now in large part we do - except in the revanchest Muscovite state that attacked your democracy; there are Muscovites even today who pray for a strong American President to denounce Putin and his Mafia kleptocracy. Every person today is today a front line in this information and disinformation war. We all know that truth is single and pure and in our heart of hearts know what is right. Yesterday I lit a candle in the Orthodox Greek church in the mountains of Ukraine for America. God go with you because it is him as well as your children you will answer for actions or inaction's in the days that come this year.

Well said.
Brava.

astralis
08 Jan 18,, 14:59
no more personal invective. this stops now.

GVChamp
08 Jan 18,, 15:26
This is where I where I fall out with today's GOP. I don't know what "the right" means here; to some it seems to mean the President is above the law - in which case Nixon and Hitler were within their rights to commit the crimes they participated in. To some it just seems that Trump is always right. I fundamentally disagree with both: Nobody, not even a King, can be above the law or freedom of property and every other liberty ends. Nor is any single person always right. We have all made mistakes and failed before - I mean Trump has seven corporate bankruptcies to his name so he is hardly some business genius. I am not "the right" but a Conservative. I get things wrong - hell I voted for PiS in Poland but regret it now. But failure and understanding our mistakes is a strength; we learn and grow. Today these Trump apologists - and Trump himself "I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius....and a very stable genius at that!" try to say he is beyond the law and a genius. He is not. How a genius goes broke with a casino I have no idea. How a 'stable genius' manages to misunderstand so much and lie about so much - give so many versions of a story (for example the Comey firing) is not making sense to me. How other idiots still apologise for this Idiot in Chief, entrapped by the Muscovites years ago, is making you look either stupid or worse. This guy has to go. He is mentally and emotionally incapable of performing the duties of a head of State as well as being in debt to Muscovy.

Is it "right" to leak to the press? It may be illegal; Mark Felt ("Deepthroat" from the Watergate business) was deputy FBI boss so certainly his leaking was illegal but there was more criminality within the Nixon Administration: Those who first break the law cannot complain when when they are answered in their on their own terms. Certainly Felt's actions were not done to bring down the rule of law but to expose that others were seeking to do so. If sometimes you must break rules to uphold the greater system of law is it wrong? Not in my view. Mark Felt broke the law to uphold the US Constitution, he deserves respect not condemnation.

Now you have a similar situation. It is clear that Comey was "pressured" by Trump (having asked everyone else to leave the room) to drop the Flynn investigation (that Sally Yates had warned him about - getting her fired) and when Comey refused to swear loyalty to Trump he followed Yates. It is clear your President and his advisors have lied repeatedly about their contacts with Moscow during the election. It is clear that your President has lied repeatedly about his business dealings with Moscow. It is clear he and his associates want the Muscovite investigation closed and have accomplices in Congress - who have sent the Department of Justice a request to investigate of all people Christoper Steele - who did hand over his findings to the FBI without having been asked because he thought they should know.

You have been attacked. You are at war whether you like it or not. We have the same here and understand - and I do not trust Poroshenko farther than could I throw him, which is not a foot as he is too fat and I am too small. The world cannot afford to lose the rule of law in the US. All during the dark days of the Soviet oppression people here used to listen to BBC and Voice of America and dream one day they could enjoy the same liberty as the "West", now in large part we do - except in the revanchest Muscovite state that attacked your democracy; there are Muscovites even today who pray for a strong American President to denounce Putin and his Mafia kleptocracy. Every person today is today a front line in this information and disinformation war. We all know that truth is single and pure and in our heart of hearts know what is right. Yesterday I lit a candle in the Orthodox Greek church in the mountains of Ukraine for America. God go with you because it is him as well as your children you will answer for actions or inaction's in the days that come this year.

I think you're misreading the point of both Bf's and Zraver's posts. I am not following this thread or the whole Russia thing too closely: IMO, this was wrapped up when Comey gave his testimony, had absolutely nothing, and the media spun it as "TRUMP IS THE BIGGEST MONSTER ON EARTH!"

Manafort is not a policy maker. He is not in the bureaucracy, he is not the President, he is not a Congressman, he is not a Senator. To the extent that he is a "bought man," it is legal, because he is a lobbyist for a foreign nation. To the extent he is a criminal, it is because he unquestionably failed to register as a foreign lobbyist, which is a crime. So is jaywalking. He's getting hit for money-laundering...which...sure...okay? Do we need a special investigator for that?

I think Zraver has been saying that a sitting President cannot be indicted for a criminal charge. That is NOT the same as saying the President is above the law. You can still sue the President, you can still impeach the President, the President cannot just steal your property, etc. It's also not the same as saying you cannot prosecute a FORMER President for a crime committed during his Presidency.

I think it's clear that you are pretty paranoid about Russian intentions and Russian influence in the US and are just assuming the worst about Trump. Make no mistake, I think Trump is bad for the Republic, but I think it's worse to have half-baked conspiracy theories being peddled in order to remove a sitting President. This is equally true for the various Birther conspiracies. And this comes from a guy who has been anti-Russia since 2003, when it was still popular to think that Russia might be our newest and bestest BFF given enough time.

snapper
08 Jan 18,, 18:02
Manafort is not a policy maker. He is not in the bureaucracy, he is not the President, he is not a Congressman, he is not a Senator. To the extent that he is a "bought man," it is legal, because he is a lobbyist for a foreign nation. To the extent he is a criminal, it is because he unquestionably failed to register as a foreign lobbyist, which is a crime. So is jaywalking. He's getting hit for money-laundering...which...sure...okay? Do we need a special investigator for that?

But he was other things; Trumps campaign manager and a colleague of a known GRU agent among other Muscovites. He offered information to Moscow on the Trump campaign and laundered stolen Ukrainian money - which we would appreciate back. He was no "tea boy". Why was he campaign manager at a time when all these denied contacts were going on? Why ask for back channels? Dots may be dots but they make a picture. That is why Mueller matters and if he is fired you must examine your conscience.


I think Zraver has been saying that a sitting President cannot be indicted for a criminal charge. That is NOT the same as saying the President is above the law. You can still sue the President, you can still impeach the President, the President cannot just steal your property, etc. It's also not the same as saying you cannot prosecute a FORMER President for a crime committed during his Presidency.

I think anyone should be prosecuted for a crime. Particularly those in the highest offices. That is my view. I would respect a differing view if put politely and a conversation regarding our contrasting views. Some it seems are not upto that though. I would also remind you that Caesar crossed the Rubicon to prevent his being prosecuted when his Consulship ended.


I think it's clear that you are pretty paranoid about Russian intentions and Russian influence in the US and are just assuming the worst about Trump. Make no mistake, I think Trump is bad for the Republic, but I think it's worse to have half-baked conspiracy theories being peddled in order to remove a sitting President. This is equally true for the various Birther conspiracies. And this comes from a guy who has been anti-Russia since 2003, when it was still popular to think that Russia might be our newest and bestest BFF given enough time.

I am not paranoid. I knew the war in Ukraine was coming after the so called "free West" did nothing after they invaded Georgia; you did not need a crystal ball. I warned as others did before me; nobody listened. "Paranoid Poles and Lithuanians" or "Cassandra's" we were. Paranoia no. We were right. You have been attacked, we more blatantly but we weathered the storm and are now used to it. You may not like that fact but fact it remains. Your democracy has been undermined by a milign mafia state that has nuclear weapons aimed at you. How you react to that I hope you allow your conscience rather than self interest dictate; that is why I lit a candle and prayed for your country that for so long has been an example to all oppressed nations. No Chekist Mafia will ever be anyone's best friend - not even their own. Forget deals - they do not do them except to get you in their power - as with your President and his money. Decide how you act if/when Mueller is fired. Decide how you will vote if nothing else. That is all the world asks for as US citizen you carry the hopes -and fears - of so many who aspire to your liberties and ideals of justice across the world. May God guide you wisely.

Ironduke
08 Jan 18,, 20:14
And this comes from a guy who has been anti-Russia since 2003, when it was still popular to think that Russia might be our newest and bestest BFF given enough time.
"I looked the man in the eye. I found him very straightforward and trustworthy – I was able to get a sense of his soul." - George W. Bush

Anybody remember the reset button in 2009? It English it was labeled 'reset', but it Russian it was labeled 'peregruzka' (overcharged). They pressed it, and that's what happened. :-)

astralis
08 Jan 18,, 20:51
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mueller-indicates-he-will-likely-seek-interview-with-trump/2018/01/08/86100bb2-f473-11e7-beb6-c8d48830c54d_story.html

ought to be good.

snapper
08 Jan 18,, 21:29
"I looked the man in the eye. I found him very straightforward and trustworthy – I was able to get a sense of his soul." - George W. Bush

"I looked him in the eye and saw KGB" McCain. Guess who was right. INF Treaty? Budapest Memorandum? Helsinki Final Accords? UN Charter? Means nothing.

Ironduke
08 Jan 18,, 21:32
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mueller-indicates-he-will-likely-seek-interview-with-trump/2018/01/08/86100bb2-f473-11e7-beb6-c8d48830c54d_story.html

ought to be good.
Well hell, even if Trump has done absolutely nothing wrong in his entire life, and I'm stating the obvious here, his tenuous grasp on the truth could potentially prove to be extremely dangerous if he sits down in an interview with Mueller's people.

Ironduke
09 Jan 18,, 03:07
I think it's clear that you are pretty paranoid about Russian intentions and Russian influence in the US and are just assuming the worst about Trump. Make no mistake, I think Trump is bad for the Republic, but I think it's worse to have half-baked conspiracy theories being peddled in order to remove a sitting President. This is equally true for the various Birther conspiracies. And this comes from a guy who has been anti-Russia since 2003, when it was still popular to think that Russia might be our newest and bestest BFF given enough time.
It may very well turn out to be the case that there is no underlying crime regarding the collusion with Russia accusations.

I believe it has become very evident that even if there's not, that Donald Trump was the target of an extremely concerted and dedicated Russian influence operation, and that his and his people's judgments were so exceedingly poor, their ignorance so vast, their gullibility so great, and their ethics and morals so absent, that they were getting taken in by it as unwitting fools, and that's something that's very dangerous for the country.

I don't think this is some conspiracy that stretches back for years, that the Russians were cultivating Trump as some Mongolian Candidate from way back when. I think in the last couple years, they sensed an opportunity, that there were connections, prior business dealings, and relationships that provided openings, and they gradually exploited it in an escalating manner.

That being said, I think Paul Manafort is a Russian agent/asset, and there's a lot more going on with him than what is covered in his indictment.

zraver
09 Jan 18,, 04:37
I think anyone should be prosecuted for a crime. Particularly those in the highest offices. That is my view. I would respect a differing view if put politely and a conversation regarding our contrasting views. Some it seems are not upto that though. I would also remind you that Caesar crossed the Rubicon to prevent his being prosecuted when his Consulship ended.

You've yet to provide any proof of a crime though. My point was that a sitting president could not be indicted. The US Constitution has other means to remove a president for high crimes and misdemeanors. Its called impeachment.

TopHatter
09 Jan 18,, 12:24
Donald Trump was the target of an extremely concerted and dedicated Russian influence operation, and that his and his people's judgments were so exceedingly poor, their ignorance so vast, their gullibility so great, and their ethics and morals so absent, that they were getting taken in by it as unwitting fools, and that's something that's very dangerous for the country.

Marvelous. Absolutely accurate IMO, could not have said it any better myself. Can I quote that elsewhere at some point in the future?

Ironduke
09 Jan 18,, 23:42
Marvelous. Absolutely accurate IMO, could not have said it any better myself. Can I quote that elsewhere at some point in the future?
By all means. The Mongolian Candidate™ though, is mine.

zraver
10 Jan 18,, 01:17
So Russia magically knew that Trump could wipe the floor with 17 other candidates and then beat Hillary in order to unleash a foreign policy hostile to them. They wanted NATO too meet their defense obligations ahead of schedule and for the US to permanently station US troops in Poland and Baltics? They wanted us to lob missiles at Assad and screw thier buddy John Podesta who was working so hard on their behalf? Uh-huh sure.

Ironduke
10 Jan 18,, 01:28
So Russia magically knew that Trump could wipe the floor with 17 other candidates and then beat Hillary in order to unleash a foreign policy hostile to them. They wanted NATO too meet their defense obligations ahead of schedule and for the US to permanently station US troops in Poland and Baltics? They wanted us to lob missiles at Assad and screw thier buddy John Podesta who was working so hard on their behalf? Uh-huh sure.
Practically all of the Russian activity we know about took place after he became the presumptive nominee. Like I said, there's no master stroke conspiracy, with Trump cultivated and positioned by puppet masters as some kind of Mongolian Candidate the Russians were maneuvering into place over the course of many years, but that they sensed opportunities as they arose and acted on them, exploiting and attempting to exploit them in an increasing manner.

WABs_OOE
10 Jan 18,, 04:42
I, too, failed to see any benefit the Russians had derived from the Trump Presidency. The only possible one is the divide between Europe and the US but Western Europe had kept American JAVELINS out of the Ukraines.

snapper
10 Jan 18,, 07:46
Glenn Simpson at the Senate Judiciary: https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3/9/3974a291-ddbe-4525-9ed1-22bab43c05ae/934A3562824CACA7BB4D915E97709D2F.simpson-transcript-redacted.pdf

DOR
10 Jan 18,, 10:07
Everyone seems to be missing the key point: One doesn’t have to love Trump to work to defeat Clinton.

The Russians correctly analyzed the situation and determined that it would be either in Russia’s best interests or against America’s best interests if Trump beat Clinton.

That’s all.

They determined that Trump would be less threatening to Russia’s interests than Clinton. And, they most certainly were right. I don’t think anyone can honestly point to US troops in Poland and the Baltics or shooting missiles at Assad and say that Clinton would never have done anything of the sort.

(What the Russians didn't count on was getting caught, and then being defended by The Trumpets.)

zraver
10 Jan 18,, 11:25
Practically all of the Russian activity we know about took place after he won the nomination and the election. Like I said, there's no master stroke conspiracy, with Trump cultivated and positioned by puppet masters as some kind of Mongolian Candidate the Russians were maneuvering into place over the course of many years, but that they sensed opportunities as they arose and acted on them, exploiting and attempting to exploit them in an increasing manner.

The DNC is saying the Russians hacked them before the election, the supposed meeting with a Russian lawyer was before the election, everything in the FAKE Dossier was written before the election, the FBI text messages talking about helping HRC win was before the election. You've been running around saying Trump is a Manchurian candidate who only won becuae Russia rigged the game, but now your saying he won fair and square and was then corrupted after he won the prize? Sorry, once he wins the election he's allowed to begin laying the ground work of his foreign policy.

Trump the improbable candidate trounced the anointed not becuase of Russia, but because he campaigned in places like Wisconsin. I know you lefty eliitst don't understand how badly she is despised in the middle of the country but she was. She couldn't win there in 08 either. The country would rather have had a no name unknown junior senator than HRC then. Russia didn't cost HRC the election, she did it to herself. Trump has been a disaster for Russia; stronger Europe, missiles to the Ukraine, US troops on the Russian border, bombing Russian vassal states under the Russian noses... Instead of an appeasement monkey who only wanted to bomb goat herders we have an actual president who is more restrained in the application of military force but more robust in deterrence so he doesn't have to bomb.

zraver
10 Jan 18,, 11:27
Everyone seems to be missing the key point: One doesn’t have to love Trump to work to defeat Clinton.

The Russians correctly analyzed the situation and determined that it would be either in Russia’s best interests or against America’s best interests if Trump beat Clinton.

That’s all.

They determined that Trump would be less threatening to Russia’s interests than Clinton. And, they most certainly were right. I don’t think anyone can honestly point to US troops in Poland and the Baltics or shooting missiles at Assad and say that Clinton would never have done anything of the sort.

(What the Russians didn't count on was getting caught, and then being defended by The Trumpets.)

I'll say it. She never met a third world villager she didn't want to bomb but she never stood up to Russia, why would she/ Russia was a virtual money tree for her and her husband.

astralis
10 Jan 18,, 14:19
z,


She never met a third world villager she didn't want to bomb but she never stood up to Russia, why would she/ Russia was a virtual money tree for her and her husband.

it's quite well-known that Putin hates HRC with a burning passion. he blames her directly for the protests in Russia during the last election there.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/the-roots-of-the-hostility-between-putin-and-clinton/2016/07/28/85ca74ca-5402-11e6-b652-315ae5d4d4dd_story.html

astralis
10 Jan 18,, 14:26
I, too, failed to see any benefit the Russians had derived from the Trump Presidency. The only possible one is the divide between Europe and the US but Western Europe had kept American JAVELINS out of the Ukraines.

only reason is because of the investigation, the public outcry, and lingering Congressional GOP suspicion against Russia.

if not for that, one of the few stated foreign policy interests of this administration was to revive the US-Russia relationship. for some (Flynn), against jihadis; for others (Bannon), against China.

even today:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/white-house-official-floated-withdrawing-us-forces-to-please-putin

Ironduke
10 Jan 18,, 14:52
The DNC is saying the Russians hacked them before the election, the supposed meeting with a Russian lawyer was before the election, everything in the FAKE Dossier was written before the election, the FBI text messages talking about helping HRC win was before the election. You've been running around saying Trump is a Manchurian candidate who only won becuae Russia rigged the game, but now your saying he won fair and square and was then corrupted after he won the prize? Sorry, once he wins the election he's allowed to begin laying the ground work of his foreign policy.
I said:


Practically all of the Russian activity we know about took place after he won the nomination and [...]
And so on. But to clarify, I had meant to say from the time he became the presumptive nominee. I'll correct that post to clear up any confusion.

The only comment of mine I could find regarding 'who' put Trump in office was:


I don't blame Trump supporters for putting him in office. I blame structural and institutional failings in the US that unfolded over the last 20-odd years.

Manchurian Candidate? I said something about him not being a Mongolian Candidate.

WABs_OOE
10 Jan 18,, 17:21
only reason is because of the investigation, the public outcry, and lingering Congressional GOP suspicion against Russia.

if not for that, one of the few stated foreign policy interests of this administration was to revive the US-Russia relationship. for some (Flynn), against jihadis; for others (Bannon), against China.

even today:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/white-house-official-floated-withdrawing-us-forces-to-please-putinI see no difference with previous administrations bonehead ideas that were floated from time to time, at times even with the POTUS. For those of us who are not privy to the inside workings, only the results matter.

astralis
10 Jan 18,, 19:44
OTOH the previous administration's bonehead ideas never got to the point where members of NATO openly talked about how the US was no longer reliable as an ally. even after the Syria red-line shenanigans, Merkel didn't go in front of cameras and say that.

moreover it's not done in a vacuum. the response by a HRC administration to Russian electoral interference, especially when she found out from US intel that it was done on behalf of her political opponent no less, would have engendered a significantly different response than the one that we see now.

GVChamp
10 Jan 18,, 20:00
You just had the Saudis and the Israelis screaming bloody murder because the US let Iran retain domestic enrichment capacity.

astralis
10 Jan 18,, 20:12
yup, but i'd rather have those two screaming rather than NATO screaming. besides, Israel's -always- screaming.

WABs_OOE
10 Jan 18,, 20:19
OTOH the previous administration's bonehead ideas never got to the point where members of NATO openly talked about how the US was no longer reliable as an ally.France's ANYBODY BUT CARTER campaign. And Obama could not have reversed non-nuke use against a biochem attack fast enough after Assad used his stocks.


even after the Syria red-line shenanigans, Merkel didn't go in front of cameras and say that. Because they were the ones in command under Obama. They now lost command under Trump and they're bitching about it.


moreover it's not done in a vacuum. the response by a HRC administration to Russian electoral interference, especially when she found out from US intel that it was done on behalf of her political opponent no less, would have engendered a significantly different response than the one that we see now.Electoral interference? She was NOT crying foul until AFTER THE election. She was predicted to win by a landslide. It's a damned poor excuse to blame a yet to have any evidence of a Trump-Russian collusion for her loss.

astralis
10 Jan 18,, 20:23
Because they were the ones in command under Obama. They now lost command under Trump and they're bitching about it.


i don't see this. where did Merkel or Hollande direct Obama to do anything? conversely, where is Trump directing Merkel or Macron to do what he wants?


Electoral interference? She was NOT crying foul under AFTER THE election. She was predicted to win by a landslide. It's a damned poor excuse to blame a yet to have any evidence of a Trump-Russian collusion for her loss.

but that's not what i'm addressing. what i'm saying is that her response would have been different than Trump's response were she President today. for instance, Trump cannot even bring himself to acknowledge that Russia interfered, let alone that Russia interfered on his behalf.

WABs_OOE
10 Jan 18,, 20:27
but that's not what i'm addressing. what i'm saying is that her response would have been different than Trump's response were she President today. for instance, Trump cannot even bring himself to acknowledge that Russia interfered, let alone that Russia interfered on his behalf.You mean to tell me that HRC would have given up the Presidency to Trump if this was the case?

She will have more sugar in her words but her meaning would have been the same, "I ain't giving sweet all back."

WABs_OOE
10 Jan 18,, 20:28
i don't see this. where did Merkel or Hollande direct Obama to do anything? conversely, where is Trump directing Merkel or Macron to do what he wants?Lybia. And I will remind you the Red Line horse puckey happenned because the allies said no.

astralis
10 Jan 18,, 20:28
You mean to tell me that HRC would have given up the Presidency to Trump if this was the case?

i'm talking about the situation where she were to win the Presidency under the exact same conditions as today, where US intel agencies report that not only was there Russian interference in the election, the Russians interfered on behalf of Trump.

astralis
10 Jan 18,, 20:31
Lybia.

i don't see where they directed Obama there. it was the other way around, where Obama prodded the Europeans to do more while the US sat back (well, sort of: we ended up giving most of the munitions and ISR and whatever to the europeans while they conducted the strikes).

as far as i know the Europeans would have been perfectly content, in fact happy, to let the Americans do ALL of the hard lifting. Libya was ironically the distillation of what "America First" was supposed to be, lol.

WABs_OOE
10 Jan 18,, 20:32
i'm talking about the situation where she were to win the Presidency under the exact same conditions as today, where US intel agencies report that not only was there Russian interference in the election, the Russians interfered on behalf of Trump.And I'm telling you that her actions would be very similar if not identicle to Trump's.

WABs_OOE
10 Jan 18,, 20:34
i don't see where they directed Obama there. it was the other way around, where Obama prodded the Europeans to do more while the US sat back (well, sort of: we ended up giving most of the munitions and ISR and whatever to the europeans while they conducted the strikes).

as far as i know the Europeans would have been perfectly content, in fact happy, to let the Americans do ALL of the hard lifting. Libya was ironically the distillation of what "America First" was supposed to be, lol.I remind you that Obama was perfectly happy to stay out of Lybia and went in to help European interests, especially Italian interests. And then let a Canadian C-130 pilot take command of the entire campaign.

astralis
10 Jan 18,, 20:34
Putin just supported her political enemy...and you think her reaction would be to deny that interference happened, and then argue against Congressional efforts to smack down Putin??

WABs_OOE
10 Jan 18,, 20:36
Putin just supported her political enemy...and you think her reaction would be to deny that interference happened, and then argue against Congressional efforts to smack down Putin??That's not your point. Your point was had Putin interfere on her behalf.

astralis
10 Jan 18,, 20:38
I remind you that Obama was perfectly happy to stay out of Lybia and went in to help European interests, especially Italian interests. And then let a Canadian C-130 pilot take command of the entire campaign.

even under that interpretation of events...that's -still- not "Hollande or Merkel directing Obama" to do so. they had no leverage over the US on this matter.

astralis
10 Jan 18,, 20:40
That's not your point. Your point was had Putin interfere on her behalf.

i'm confused. here is what i originally wrote:



moreover it's not done in a vacuum. the response by a HRC administration to Russian electoral interference, especially when she found out from US intel that it was done on behalf of her political opponent no less, would have engendered a significantly different response than the one that we see now.

if she found out that Putin had supported Trump, she would have both national, political, AND personal reasons to go after Putin aggressively. that contrasts with Trump's current approach, because he does not view Putin as a threat.

WABs_OOE
10 Jan 18,, 20:47
even under that interpretation of events...that's -still- not "Hollande or Merkel directing Obama" to do so. they had no leverage over the US on this matter.And the US had no interests in Lybia to commit to a force of arms. And again, I remind you that Obama chickened out on Assad primarily because he had no allied support. You can word this any way you want but there is no compelling reason for the US to act in Lybia and then refused to act in Syria.


i'm confused. here is what i originally wrote:

if she found out that Putin had supported Trump, she would have both national, political, AND personal reasons to go after Putin aggressively. that contrasts with Trump's current approach, because he does not view Putin as a threat.And open up on what and how the Russians got what they got? She's not going to expose a vulnerability just to publically go after Putin.

HRC's relations with Putin would be what it would be regardless of what the Russians did in the elections. They burned her in the past and she's not one to forget.

astralis
10 Jan 18,, 22:32
And the US had no interests in Lybia to commit to a force of arms.

meh, same reasoning why we chose to intervene in say, Bosnia...and the scale of US involvement was considerably lower in Libya.

i'm not making a judgment here on whether or not it was wise, i am merely pointing out that at the last, it was an American decision to commit resources to the conflict. no one, least of all the Europeans, -commanded- Obama to do anything.


HRC's relations with Putin would be what it would be regardless of what the Russians did in the elections. They burned her in the past and she's not one to forget.

well, i doubt that-- it'd be a very, very public reason for her to do what she wanted to do in the first place with extra gusto. there certainly wouldn't be any political issue from the liberal base with her giving arms to Ukraine or for increasing support to NATO, for instance. in fact, her base would DEMAND that she do something about it. Putin effectively turned doves into hawks.

but i agree, she wouldn't be one to forget. and that would result in a different US foreign policy towards Russia than the one we have today.

Ironduke
10 Jan 18,, 22:53
Trump dodges on prospect of a Mueller interview: 'We'll see what happens'

President Donald Trump refused for the second time in the last week to say whether he would be willing to be interviewed by the investigative team led by special counsel Robert Mueller.

"We'll see what happens," Trump said Wednesday while taking questions alongside Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg.

Pressed again, Trump crossed his arms and said: "When they have no collusion and nobody has found any collusion at any level, it seems unlikely that you'd even have an interview."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/10/politics/president-donald-trump-erna-solberg-questions/index.html

Ironduke
10 Jan 18,, 23:24
So I'm just beginning to read the Fusion GPS transcript.

Now Trump said:


The fact that Sneaky Dianne Feinstein, who has on numerous occasions stated that collusion between Trump/Russia has not been found, would release testimony in such an underhanded and possibly illegal way, totally without authorization, is a disgrace. Must have tough Primary!

Now if he'd turned to page 8, he'd see that Patrick Davis stated, almost right off the bat:


This interview is unclassified.

WABs_OOE
10 Jan 18,, 23:57
meh, same reasoning why we chose to intervene in say, Bosnia...- Y O U - chose and YOU lead and YOU solve a problem that 3 major NATO allies could not solve through military means under UN dither daddering.


and the scale of US involvement was considerably lower in Libya.Which again the US chosed not to be involved initially.


i'm not making a judgment here on whether or not it was wise, i am merely pointing out that at the last, it was an American decision to commit resources to the conflict. no one, least of all the Europeans, -commanded- Obama to do anything.Fine. Sweet talk Obama into an ego trip. The effects are the same. The Europeans could get Obama to do anything through pillow talk. Now, they're bitching that Trump ain't bending over. Better?


well, i doubt that-- it'd be a very, very public reason for her to do what she wanted to do in the first place with extra gusto. there certainly wouldn't be any political issue from the liberal base with her giving arms to Ukraine or for increasing support to NATO, for instance. in fact, her base would DEMAND that she do something about it. Putin effectively turned doves into hawks.And start eMailGate II? The fact she kept important Democratic documents on ANOTHER unsecured server is going to do her more damage than any public posturing is going to have an effect on Putin. And she would have a hell of a time justifying a special council doing exactly what Mueller is currently doing, going on a witch hunt far beyond this current election.

HRC maybe technologically naive but she ain't politically stupid.

zraver
11 Jan 18,, 00:23
If the emerging scuttlebutt is true, all Muellers convictions are about to vanish. The committees have now seen the FISA application. If the Dossier was used to get those warrants, any convictions resulting from them face two serious legal challenges. 1. Fruit of the poisonous tree. The government can't use illegally gathered information to obtain a conviction. While the FBI may try to wash how the dossier was used this is not the only major legal hurdle. 2. A Brady Violation is the big one. Generally plea agreements can't be appealed; the exception is if one party was dishonest. A prosecutor failing to turn over exculpatory information is a Brady Violation. A common remedy is to not just set aside the plea, but to bar further prosecution. That is what happened in the Bundy Case.

DOR
11 Jan 18,, 09:16
So I'm just beginning to read the Fusion GPS transcript.

Now Trump said:



Now if he'd turned to page 8, he'd see that Patrick Davis stated, almost right off the bat:

Page 8?
Really?

Who in their right mind would expect The Trumpet to read past the first paragraph?
If it wasn't reported as an official statement by Fox News, then it must have been a "sneaky" unauthorized leak!

/sarcasm

astralis
11 Jan 18,, 13:51
Fine. Sweet talk Obama into an ego trip. The effects are the same. The Europeans could get Obama to do anything through pillow talk. Now, they're bitching that Trump ain't bending over. Better?


not really. the explanation that Obama had such an ego that he'd execute a war for the Europeans for no other reason than sweet talk...and Trump does not? i'm not sure what aspect where Trump is demonstrating that he "ain't bending over", when everyone from Moon to Abe to Xi to Macron knows that once you shower flattery and parades and compliments on Trump, he gives you everything you want.

in any case, i think we're getting caught up in politicized terminology. what i'd call as "commitment to allies", you call "being commanded by allies". what i'd call "defining NATO as a protection racket and talking about walking away", you say "he ain't bending over".

well, OK, but can you really say that NATO relations are better now or Western Europe is more secure now that Trump is Prez?


And start eMailGate II? The fact she kept important Democratic documents on ANOTHER unsecured server is going to do her more damage than any public posturing is going to have an effect on Putin. And she would have a hell of a time justifying a special council doing exactly what Mueller is currently doing, going on a witch hunt far beyond this current election.

your assessment confuses the hell out of me. what you're saying that is with two completely different personalities, two completely different motivations, two completely different stated foreign policies...and a President Clinton would not treat Russia significantly different than President Trump?

GVChamp
11 Jan 18,, 17:02
yup, but i'd rather have those two screaming rather than NATO screaming. besides, Israel's -always- screaming.

Generally agree, but that's not to say that Obama's FP was a masterpiece. Saudi and Israel complaining is a concern because it means the Mideast policy was generally fucked up: and it WAS fucked up. I guess that's not really Obama's fault, because it's not like W's was a master-piece either, but NATO is making a big show over very little.

Also, if we have to have a confrontational stance with Russia over Baltic states, it's appropriate to question whether NATO is now a liability.



your assessment confuses the hell out of me. what you're saying that is with two completely different personalities, two completely different motivations, two completely different stated foreign policies...and a President Clinton would not treat Russia significantly different than President Trump?

What material differences would there be? She might be able to throw a few more sanctions down. I guess she could have pursued Syria differently, but pursuing Syria differently would be a detriment, not an improvement.

WABs_OOE
11 Jan 18,, 17:53
not really. the explanation that Obama had such an ego that he'd execute a war for the Europeans for no other reason than sweet talk...and Trump does not?Again, Obama had decided that the US should stay out of Lybia and then went in full bore for the Europeans who did not even had the munitions for such a small campaign. The results speak for themselves.


i'm not sure what aspect where Trump is demonstrating that he "ain't bending over", when everyone from Moon to Abe to Xi to Macron knows that once you shower flattery and parades and compliments on Trump, he gives you everything you want.Sweet talk will only get you so far with Trump. In the end, the businessman shines through and through. Show him the money.


in any case, i think we're getting caught up in politicized terminology. what i'd call as "commitment to allies", you call "being commanded by allies". what i'd call "defining NATO as a protection racket and talking about walking away", you say "he ain't bending over".

well, OK, but can you really say that NATO relations are better now or Western Europe is more secure now that Trump is Prez?This ain't new and West Europe is under ZERO threat and Trump is telling the Europeans to do their own dirty work.


your assessment confuses the hell out of me. what you're saying that is with two completely different personalities, two completely different motivations, two completely different stated foreign policies...and a President Clinton would not treat Russia significantly different than President Trump?I'm saying that had the positions been reversed, HRC would not have yield her Presidency nor call for a new election to the point of denying the Russians interfered n the election.

And what different personalities, they're both New Yorkers.

astralis
11 Jan 18,, 19:05
I'm saying that had the positions been reversed, HRC would not have yield her Presidency nor call for a new election to the point of denying the Russians interfered n the election.

And what different personalities, they're both New Yorkers.

again, that's not the scenario which i brought up. but yes, if for some utterly bizarre reason Putin interfered in the election for HRC and HRC won, I also wouldn't expect HRC to yield her Presidency or call for a new election.

on the other hand, i would also expect that she would not fire the FBI director, not talk about firing her head of DOJ, not reject the intel community's conclusions wholesale, nor insult the FBI/CIA..

astralis
11 Jan 18,, 19:11
GVChamp,


Generally agree, but that's not to say that Obama's FP was a masterpiece. Saudi and Israel complaining is a concern because it means the Mideast policy was generally fucked up: and it WAS fucked up. I guess that's not really Obama's fault, because it's not like W's was a master-piece either, but NATO is making a big show over very little.

no, Obama's FP was not a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination. but i'll take uninspired, incremental but generally correct actions (rebalance to Asia, TPP, etc) over utter incompetency (Dubya's first administration, Trump).

for instance, take Trump pushing for greater NATO financial commitment: something I -wholeheartedly- agree with, yet done with such blundering incompetence, it takes the breath away.



Also, if we have to have a confrontational stance with Russia over Baltic states, it's appropriate to question whether NATO is now a liability.

in short, Cold War 2.0. if NATO wasn't a liability then, it's not a liability now. the only reason why there's a confrontation is because Russia buys into natural spheres of influence. the Baltic states certainly aren't causing the problem, because they know full well that even if NATO comes to the rescue, their respective countries will be parking lots by the time NATO troops roll in.


What material differences would there be? She might be able to throw a few more sanctions down. I guess she could have pursued Syria differently, but pursuing Syria differently would be a detriment, not an improvement.

pretty big, i'd think. the sanction space for Russia is actually relatively large. openly announce that Russia is a strategic competitor, the way that we're doing with China now. dramatically reduce Russian embassy presence. more funds to the European Reassurance Initiative. bump up the covert findings of the Obama Administration. ramped up cyber offense. arms transfers to the Baltics, Poland, and Ukraine. hell, just announce a semi-permanent US presence in Ukraine...for military training, lol.

Syria probably not, because frankly if Putin wants to spend his people and money blasting away for the greater glory of Assad, let him.

surfgun
11 Jan 18,, 19:28
Thread drift?

astralis
11 Jan 18,, 19:36
^ this is something with a rich WAB tradition! like how our Fall of France thread turned into a discussion of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and a truck discussion, lol.

Ironduke
11 Jan 18,, 21:32
Semi-tagents may arise, but it's going to keep snapping back as new developments and revelations occur in the ongoing Mueller probe. WWII is not an ongoing event.

WABs_OOE
11 Jan 18,, 22:47
on the other hand, i would also expect that she would not fire the FBI director, not talk about firing her head of DOJ, not reject the intel community's conclusions wholesale, nor insult the FBI/CIA..No, just the usual expecting resignations in the morning, cutting people out of the decision loops, and ignoring intel as usuai. You know, the standard Washington DC way of firing FBI directors, talking about firing DOJ heads, and regecting spooks wholesale. She won't insult FBI/CIA but she would blame them wholesale for any mess they involved her ... like she did the whole Lybian Embassy fiasco.

zraver
12 Jan 18,, 03:22
GVChamp,



no, Obama's FP was not a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination. but i'll take uninspired, incremental but generally correct actions (rebalance to Asia, TPP, etc) over utter incompetency (Dubya's first administration, Trump).

for instance, take Trump pushing for greater NATO financial commitment: something I -wholeheartedly- agree with, yet done with such blundering incompetence, it takes the breath away.

But did it work?



Obama's FP was an abject failure. Russia and ISIS expanded, Iran saw its coffers replenished, NK went full speed ahead on Nukes, China built islands and planted flags all over the SCS, Turkey bombed our Kurdish allies, Libya immolated. He had zero FP successes.

v Trump

NATO is increasing defense spending, NK sanctions are applying real pressure, US troops are physically interposing themselves between Russia and NATO allies because you know that is what reliable allies do, China is being far less aggressive and at least halfheartedly joining the sanctions regime against NK.

End of the day its didn't work at all vs it seems to be working pretty well.

surfgun
13 Jan 18,, 03:18
Alleged abuse of power to obtain FISA warrants.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/12/nunes-charges-abuse-government-surveillance-by-fbi-and-justice-officials.html

Ironduke
16 Jan 18,, 18:08
Bannon Is Subpoenaed in Mueller’s Russia Investigation

WASHINGTON — Stephen K. Bannon, President Trump’s former chief strategist, was subpoenaed last week by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, to testify before a grand jury as part of the investigation into possible links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter.

The move marked the first time Mr. Mueller is known to have used a grand jury subpoena to seek information from a member of Mr. Trump’s inner circle. The special counsel’s office has used subpoenas before to seek information on Mr. Trump’s associates and their possible ties to Russia or other foreign governments.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/us/politics/steve-bannon-mueller-russia-subpoena.html


Bannon refused to answer House panel's questions about time in White House

President Donald Trump's former adviser Steve Bannon refused to answer questions Tuesday from the House intelligence committee about his time in the White House, prompting panel members to subpoena him on the spot, according to a person familiar with the interview.
[...]
According to the source, Bannon's attorney told the committee that he wouldn't discuss anything about his time in the White House or during the transition after the 2016 election.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/16/steve-bannon-congress-testimony-subpoena-341492

Ironduke
17 Jan 18,, 16:51
Bannon will do interview with special counsel, avoiding grand jury for now

Steve Bannon has struck a deal with special counsel Robert Mueller's team and will be interviewed by prosecutors instead of testifying before the grand jury, two people familiar with the process told CNN. He is expected to cooperate with the special counsel, the sources said.

The sources did not say when the interview will take place or if the subpoena would be withdrawn.

Bannon, the former White House chief strategist for President Donald Trump, is expected to talk openly to Mueller's team. Bannon's attorney told the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday that Bannon would answer questions when he goes to the special counsel because executive privilege would not apply, according to one of the sources.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/17/politics/bannon-mueller-strike-deal/index.html


Lawmakers vow to force answers from Bannon in Russia probe after he defies subpoena

Lawmakers investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election vowed Tuesday to force answers from Steve Bannon after the former senior strategist to President Donald Trump stonewalled their inquiries — even after the committee issued a subpoena with bipartisan support.

Lawmakers in both parties attributed Bannon's silence to the White House, which they said told him to refuse to discuss his time in the West Wing or on Trump's transition team. Bannon's refusal to speak clearly angered lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee, who vowed to make him speak.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/16/steve-bannon-congress-testimony-subpoena-341492

Ironduke
17 Jan 18,, 23:39
A bit curious. Why is it that the White House is not wanting Bannon to speak?


The White House is working behind the scenes to limit the testimony to congressional investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, according to multiple sources.

The attempts to curtail testimony to congressional investigators became clear this week when former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon appeared before the House Intelligence Committee and infuriated both sides of the aisle by refusing to answer questions about his work during the presidential transition and in the White House.

At some points during Bannon's six hours of closed-door testimony, his attorney took breaks to confer via telephone with the White House counsel's office to clarify what questions could be answered and came back with the same guidance: Bannon could not discuss any activities related to the transition or his tenure in the White House.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/17/politics/steve-bannon-white-house-limit-testimony/index.html

surfgun
19 Jan 18,, 01:57
Congress is to review a classified report on FBI and DOJ shenanigans.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/18/republican-authorizes-classified-report-fbi-348024

And calls to make the report public.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/01/18/gop-rep-gaetz-calls-house-release-important-intelligence-document-goes-foundations-democracy-involves-fbi-doj-trump/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/18/gop-lawmakers-demand-alarming-memo-on-fisa-abuses-be-made-public.html

Ironduke
19 Jan 18,, 23:40
If it's released, without the underlying evidence to corroborate the allegations in the memo, it's just a memo, liable to be seen as a product of partisan motivations.

Trump, of course, can declassify all of the alleged underlying evidence if he so chooses. If the whole Russia thing is a hoax, as he says, it's a no-brainer, and he should not have any reservations in doing so.

zraver
20 Jan 18,, 00:34
A bit curious. Why is it that the White House is not wanting Bannon to speak?


https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/17/politics/steve-bannon-white-house-limit-testimony/index.html

Executive privilege, Congress' probe was about the election and alleged Russian collusion. Given Schiff's grandstanding it was a smart move.

snapper
20 Jan 18,, 13:21
How could Bannon claim 'executive privalege' when asked about the transition?

surfgun
21 Jan 18,, 19:38
The FISA Memo may be publicly released by mid March.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/01/21/gop-congressman-reveals-house-intel-committee-will-release-top-secret-fisa-memo-to-public

DOR
22 Jan 18,, 10:20
The FISA Memo may be publicly released by mid March.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/01/21/gop-congressman-reveals-house-intel-committee-will-release-top-secret-fisa-memo-to-public

Check source.

zraver
23 Jan 18,, 02:48
How could Bannon claim 'executive privalege' when asked about the transition?

Because Trump was president elect and privy to state secrets and entitled to frank advice on building his administration. The president elect doesn't have the football yet, or the keys of power to make policy, but in all other regards he is treated the same as the president so he can hit the ground running on day 1.

zraver
23 Jan 18,, 02:56
Latest round of FBI texts released and they have a smoking gun. They prove that Lynch knew there would be no charges against HRC and this before the main players were even interviewed. Its a stunning display of obstruction of justice by the FBI and DoJ.

Page to Strozk July 1 2016; Page: And yeah, it’s a real profile in couragw [sic], since she knows no charges will be brought.

Hillary was not interviewed by the FBI until July 2.

The fix was in. If Lynch knew, then Comey knew.

tbm3fan
23 Jan 18,, 03:28
How could Bannon claim 'executive privalege' when asked about the transition?

The previous answer is incorrect. Only one person can have Executive Privilege and that is the Executive. It is an implied presidential power. President-elect is not the Executive/President and won't be until sworn in. Now if someone can find strong case law that says otherwise we have Bannon/Trump trying to push the envelope.


More recently, a federal district court rejected Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach’s objection to production of information about a conversation with president-elect Trump on a legal theory grounded in executive privilege. The court there held:

" Defendant’s argument for withholding the photographed document under the executive privilege is unpersuasive. First, Secretary Kobach’s communication was made to a president-elect, not to a sitting president. Although a president-elect by statute and policy may be accorded security briefings and other transitional prerogatives, he or she has no constitutional power to make any decisions on behalf of the Executive Branch. No court has recognized the applicability of the executive privilege to communications made before a president takes office. If that were the law, it would mean that potentially almost everything communicated to a president-elect by the hundreds of persons seeking appointments in the new administration would be shielded by privilege."

As such, Bannon’s refusal to testify about presidential transition matters looks quite weak.

https://www.justsecurity.org/51134/bannons-testimony-executive-privilege/

Ever hear this old trial lawyer saying? If the evidence is on your side, pound the evidence. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If you have none of that, then pound the table. Someone is doing a lot of table pounding. See post above ^^^

zraver
23 Jan 18,, 03:50
The previous answer is incorrect. Only one person can have Executive Privilege and that is the Executive. It is an implied presidential power. President-elect is not the Executive/President and won't be until sworn in. Now if someone can find strong case law that says otherwise we have Bannon/Trump trying to push the envelope.



https://www.justsecurity.org/51134/bannons-testimony-executive-privilege/

Ever hear this old trial lawyer saying? If the evidence is on your side, pound the evidence. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If you have none of that, then pound the table. Someone is doing a lot of table pounding. See post above ^^^

Except 1. Congress is not a court of law. 2. Trump is now the president and now is when the request for testimony was made. 3. The scope of questions by Schiff were unrelated to Russia. 4. Claims of privilege may be overcome as in your example, but they must be overcome once asserted. We will see if Congress wants to have that fight or it accepts Bannon's claims in fact or by default.

snapper
23 Jan 18,, 15:27
Except 1. Congress is not a court of law. 2. Trump is now the president and now is when the request for testimony was made. 3. The scope of questions by Schiff were unrelated to Russia. 4. Claims of privilege may be overcome as in your example, but they must be overcome once asserted. We will see if Congress wants to have that fight or it accepts Bannon's claims in fact or by default.

So Trump was NOT the 'Executive' (President) during the transition but because he is now he can retroactively claim 'Executive privilege' to times before he was President? How far back can this go? To when he was born? Why should he be permitted to claim privilege to times when he was not President? Can you quote me a precedent for this? Seems like total nonsense to me but I am no expert in US Constitutional law. Seems to me that Congress thinks it's nonsense too as they have subpoena'd Bannon for refusing to answer questions on the transition - allegedly on WH instructions.

zraver
24 Jan 18,, 01:41
So Trump was NOT the 'Executive' (President) during the transition but because he is now he can retroactively claim 'Executive privilege' to times before he was President?

Yes, if it deals with matters touching his current executive functions


How far back can this go? To when he was born?

Probably to the start of serious campaigning


Why should he be permitted to claim privilege to times when he was not President?

Because he was being frankly advised on polices and positions he should take as president.


Can you quote me a precedent for this? Seems like total nonsense to me but I am no expert in US Constitutional law.

Eisenhower, his advisers were not allowed to talk about anything.


Seems to me that Congress thinks it's nonsense too as they have subpoena'd Bannon for refusing to answer questions on the transition - allegedly on WH instructions.

Claims can be overcome but it takes a fight.