Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ex-FBI Director Mueller appointed DOJ Special Counsel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • tbm3fan
    replied
    Originally posted by surfgun View Post

    His professionalism, that prohibited him the ability to police his small band of miscreants that tainted his whole investigation?
    I know many Trump supporters are fairly dense but there are some who take it to a whole other level. Like I said you wouldn't know true professionalism or ethics even if it slammed you in the face head on. Actually pretty sad but not unexpected...

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by surfgun View Post

    His professionalism, that prohibited him the ability to police his small band of miscreants that tainted his whole investigation?
    Not surprising that you believe that. Of course, you don't believe that Russia interfered with the 2016 election and the Trump Campaign wholeheartedly welcomed and invited that interference either, do you.

    Because...Trump told you so.


    H.R. McMaster On Trump and Russian Interference:

    As for the president, McMaster told us foreign policy was not his favorite subject. McMaster would brief to the limits of Mr. Trump's attention, then watch him shoot from the hip.

    Scott Pelley: The president was speaking to reporters on Air Force One in late 2017. The president was asked about the Russian cyber assault on the 2016 election. Mr. Trump said of Russian President Putin, quote, "Every time he sees me, he says, 'I didn't do that,' and I really believe that when he tells me that. He means it." What was your reaction after the president said that?

    H.R. McMaster: Well, my reaction was one of surprise, disappointment, disbelief.

    Scott Pelley: Later the same day, the president went before cameras and said he didn't mean it.

    President Trump: I'm surprised that there's any conflict on this. What I said there is that I believe he believes that…

    Scott Pelley: Did you have a hand in the president's retraction?

    H.R. McMaster: I did, and others. We had a conversation with the president afterwards we said, "your answer to that question will be misconstrued as a complete denial of Russian meddling when we know it's incontrovertible. It's just, it's just a fact."

    Leave a comment:


  • surfgun
    replied
    Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post

    Wow. I don't know if you realize this but you are not even qualified to shine his shoes much less critique his professionalism. Yet, that is what people do when they know they can't possibly measure up so they instead try to tear down to their low level.
    His professionalism, that prohibited him the ability to police his small band of miscreants that tainted his whole investigation?

    Leave a comment:


  • tbm3fan
    replied
    Originally posted by surfgun View Post
    Mueller refuses to testify about his corrupted investigation (he does not have enough time).
    https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...eller-refused/
    Wow. I don't know if you realize this but you are not even qualified to shine his shoes much less critique his professionalism. Yet, that is what people do when they know they can't possibly measure up so they instead try to tear down to their low level.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by surfgun View Post
    Mueller refuses to testify about his corrupted investigation (he does not have enough time).
    https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...eller-refused/
    Ahh, we're right back to that hypocritical faux-outrage thing again.

    Mueller, unlike virtually every person within Trump's justice obstructing grasp, has already testified before Congress.....over a year ago.

    Here's a complete transcript, if you're interested. Which I doubt.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	190724-robert-mueller-full-testimony-ew-118p_9f7e5d3a6485cb076b997e5f64fe1a78.fit-2000w.jpg
Views:	164
Size:	470.0 KB
ID:	1566040

    Leave a comment:


  • surfgun
    replied
    Mueller refuses to testify about his corrupted investigation (he does not have enough time).
    https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...eller-refused/

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    U.S. Admits That Congressman Offered Pardon to Assange If He Covered Up Russia Links

    LONDON—Lawyers representing the United States at Julian Assange’s extradition trial in Britain have accepted the claim that the WikiLeaks founder was offered a presidential pardon by a Congressman on the condition that he would help cover up Russia’s involvement in hacking emails from the Democratic National Committee.

    Jennifer Robinson, a lawyer, told the court that she had attended a meeting between Assange, then Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, and pro-Trump troll Charles Johnson at Assange’s hide-out, the Ecuadorian embassy in London, on August 15, 2017.

    Robinson said the two Americans claimed to be emissaries from Washington and “wanted us to believe they were acting on behalf of the president.” The pair allegedly told Assange that they could help grant him a pardon in exchange for him revealing information about the source of the WikiLeaks information that proved it was not the Russians who hacked Democratic emails.

    “They stated that President Trump was aware of and had approved of them coming to meet with Mr. Assange to discuss a proposal—and that they would have an audience with the president to discuss the matter on their return to Washington, D.C.,”
    Robinson said.

    The White House has denied that Trump took part in any such plan.

    The claim itself is not new—Assange’s lawyers previewed the allegation in a pre-trial hearing in February—but this is the first time Robinson’s testimony has been heard in full. The WikiLeaks lawyer said Rohrabacher offered Assange the deal a year after emails that damaged Hillary Clinton in the presidential race had been published, when the Russia investigation was gathering pace. The stolen DNC emails posted by WikiLeaks were hacked by Russian operatives.

    After Robinson read her testimony in a London courtroom on Friday, lawyers representing the U.S. accepted the witness statement as accurate and confirmed they had no intention of cross-examining the claim. They did dispute, however, that President Donald Trump gave his blessing for the pardon offer.

    James Lewis, who was representing the U.S. government, said: “The position of the government is we don't contest these things were said. We obviously do not accept the truth of what was said by others.”

    Rohrabacher, who was known as Putin’s favorite congressman, partially corroborated the claim back in February, saying at the time: “I spoke to Julian Assange and told him if he would provide evidence about who gave WikiLeaks the emails I would petition the president to give him a pardon... He knew I could get to the president.”

    Rohrabacher said he followed up the meeting by calling then White House chief of staff John Kelly to discuss the pardon. However, the ex congressman said he never spoke to Trump about it.

    Regardless, Assange turned the offer down, his lawyers said.

    Assange has argued that he should not be extradited to the U.S. because the American case against him is politically motivated. He spent almost seven years hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy in Central London, claiming that he would be jailed in the U.S. if he wasn’t granted asylum. He was kicked out of the embassy last year.
    ______________

    They stab it with their steely knives but they just can't kill the beast....

    Leave a comment:


  • surfgun
    replied
    Justice Dept. records of centrifuge within the Mueller farce.

    https://www.justice.gov/oip/foia-lib...04_20/download

    Leave a comment:


  • DOR
    replied
    Originally posted by surfgun View Post
    So it is still a kangaroo court after all. Maybe four more years can fix that?
    "Kangaroo court" -- one that doesn't bow to surfgun's preconceived notions.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by surfgun View Post
    So it is still a kangaroo court after all. Maybe four more years can fix that?
    Four more years of...Trump? Fixing something? After the last four years of doing...what, exactly?

    Ehhhh...I'm afraid I have some bad news for you surfgun:

    Click image for larger version  Name:	5TdSZwg.jpg Views:	2 Size:	129.1 KB ID:	1479217

    Leave a comment:


  • surfgun
    replied
    So it is still a kangaroo court after all. Maybe four more years can fix that?

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Appeals court denies ex-Trump adviser Michael Flynn's request to force dismissal of case

    WASHINGTON – The criminal case against Michael Flynn should not be immediately dismissed, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., ruled Monday in a major setback for President Donald Trump's former national security adviser, who has proclaimed his innocence.

    The 8-2 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which reverses a previous decision by a three-judge panel, is the latest in the long and politically fraught legal case of the former Army general.

    At issue before the appeals court was whether U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan abused his powers when he did not immediately grant dismissal of the case against Flynn after the Justice Department decided to drop the prosecution. Instead, Sullivan appointed a third party, known as an amicus, to challenge the Justice Department's motion and to determine if Flynn had committed perjury for claiming to be innocent of a crime to which he had earlier pleaded guilty.

    Flynn's attorneys also asked the appeals court to remove Sullivan from the case, arguing the judge's actions showed his inability to be impartial.

    The case now goes back to Sullivan. A Justice Department spokeswoman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

    A three-judge panel from the appeals court sided with Flynn in June, ruling that Sullivan's actions were "unprecedented intrusions of individual liberty" and on the Justice Department's prosecutorial powers.

    The full appeals court, which granted Sullivan's request to rehear the case, disagreed, saying judges have the authority to appoint third parties as they decide on rulings. In Sullivan's case, his attorney has argued what the judge was simply doing what judges do: seeking to hear both sides before ruling on the motion to dismiss.

    The appeals court said that Sullivan may ultimately dismiss the case and that concerns over "intrusive judicial proceedings" were "speculative." The judges also said there's no basis in removing Sullivan from the case, saying opinions or statements judges make while presiding on a case don't indicate bias.

    Sidney Powell, Flynn's attorney, has argued that because the Justice Department no longer wanted to prosecute Flynn, Sullivan's only role is to promptly grant dismissal of the case. Instead, Sullivan appointed an amicus to "usurp" the role of prosecutors and has "so invested himself" for the purpose of prosecuting Flynn, Powell said during oral arguments in August.

    Acting Solicitor General Jeff Wall said Sullivan cannot probe the Justice Department's motives for dropping the prosecution of Flynn and doing so entrenches on executive power. Sullivan's actions also have created an appearance that he can't be impartial, Wall said.

    Flynn is one of half a dozen former Trump aides and advisers who were indicted as a result of the special counsel investigation on Russian election interference.

    Flynn pleaded guilty in 2017 to making false statements to the FBI about his communications with a former Russian ambassador. He later reversed course, claiming investigators entrapped him into making false statements. The Justice Department also reversed course and sought to dismiss the case, arguing that the interview during which Flynn made false statements was "unjustified."
    _________

    Poor dumb bastard just can't seem to catch a break. Should've never came within 50 yards of Trump, he'd be much better off.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    The SSCI has been a model on how to run a bipartisan investigation into national security matters. They kept the political BS to a minimum and did a solid job.

    Burr & Warner have ensured that members stick to the committee's agenda and do the Nation's business.

    Good on them and a welcome blast from the past.

    Leave a comment:


  • snapper
    replied
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
    The panel, formally called the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, also alleged Manafort collaborated with Russians, including oligarch Oleg Deripaska and an alleged Russian intelligence operative, Konstantin Kilimnik, before during and after the election.

    "Kostya from the GRU."

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Senate committee made criminal referral of Trump Jr., Bannon, Kushner, two others to federal prosecutors
    WASHINGTON — The Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee made criminal referrals of Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Steve Bannon, Erik Prince and Sam Clovis to federal prosecutors in 2019, passing along their suspicions that the men may have misled the committee during their testimony, an official familiar with the matter told NBC News.

    The official confirmed reports in the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post, which reported on the matter last week. A criminal referral to the Justice Department means Congress believes a matter warrants investigation for potential violation of the law.

    The committee detailed its concerns in a letter to the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, D.C., in June 2019, the official said.

    The Post reported that the letter was divided into two sections. One named those suspected of making false statements, The Post said: Bannon; Clovis, a co-chair of the Trump campaign in 2016; and Prince, a private security contractor.

    A second section raised concerns about the testimony of other witnesses, including Trump Jr. and Kushner, whose statements were contradicted by Trump campaign aide Richard Gates, although it did not pointedly make a false-statements allegation, The Post reported.

    The Los Angeles Times reported that the committee questioned whether Bannon lied about his interactions and conversations with Prince about a meeting in the Seychelles between Prince and a top Russian official. Prince told special counsel Robert Mueller's prosecutors that he briefed Bannon on the January 2017 meeting, but Bannon said the conversation never happened.

    A lawyer for Prince told The Post that if there was such a referral, it did not appear to have resulted in an investigation. There has been no public indication of any investigation.

    Lawyers for Trump Jr., Kushner, Bannon and Clovis have previously denied that their clients misled the committee.
    ____________

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X