likely would need a formal ruling from the SC, but the likely process would be impeachment-->conviction/removal from office--> THEN criminal prosecution.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ex-FBI Director Mueller appointed DOJ Special Counsel
Collapse
X
-
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
-
Originally posted by Ironduke View Post18 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostUhm 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.
"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?Last edited by Ironduke; 25 Dec 17,, 00:32."Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ironduke View PostI'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?
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View Post
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."Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
Comment
-
Flynn was found out relatively early on that he did have contact with the Russians and the FBI did not bring up charges.
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.)There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
Comment
-
Originally posted by astralis View PostFlynn 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.)
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."Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
Comment
-
Originally posted by WABs_OOE View PostThe 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.
Flynn was also charged and pled guilty to making materially false statements and omissions in his March 7 FARA filing."Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
Comment
-
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."There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
Comment
-
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...:-)There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
Comment
-
Please forgive my delayed reply... new husband etc...
Originally posted by WABs_OOE View PostAnd Trump is no tyrant. Deal with it.
Originally posted by WABs_OOE View PostAll 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.
Originally posted by WABs_OOE View PostThose 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.
Originally posted by WABs_OOE View PostOf 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.
Originally posted by WABs_OOE View PostPlato did not and could not have stopped Octavian and Mark Anthony. Philosophical debate vs staying alive. Guess which mattered more.
Originally posted by WABs_OOE View PostThe earth is flat because the universe is flat.
Originally posted by WABs_OOE View PostWhat? You only know that one? The Metro bombings.
Originally posted by WABs_OOE View PostOh wow, an American businessman doing business in Russia.
Originally posted by WABs_OOE View PostI 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.
Originally posted by WABs_OOE View PostStrawman. I never said it was easy nor would you be successful. Only that those with conviction will find ways. Those without find excuses.
Originally posted by WABs_OOE View PostYou'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!
Originally posted by WABs_OOE View PostOh horse puckey. You've been on this thread telling the Americans to lynch Trump.
Originally posted by WABs_OOE View PostYou 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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by snapper View Post
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostBusiness partner with the brother of HRC's campaign manager Tony Podesta
[/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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by snapper View PostIs that where the money laundering charges derive from?
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.
Trump has never personally filed bankruptcy. Companies have done so 4 times, all four as chapter 11 re-organisations not chapter 13 liquidations.
Comment
Comment