OK. So in your world in order for there to be an investigation of a crime, there has to be evidence that a crime occurred? Is that what you are saying?
OK. So in your world in order for there to be an investigation of a crime, there has to be evidence that a crime occurred? Is that what you are saying?
Im confused...as far as I know, at least in the US, there has to be evidence of a crime before it can be investigated . Isnt that correct ? The exception I see to that is evidence of a conspiracy to commit a crime. In the Russian collusion, there is no evidence of a crime having been committed or or anyone conspiring to commit a crime... Everything the liberals claimed was evidence, was only circumstantial, hearsay, or just plain faked. As the Mueller investigation has concluded there is no actual evidence of anything. Hillary on the other hand, is neck deep in actual evidence and was not charged with anything.
Im confused...as far as I know, at least in the US, there has to be evidence of a crime before it can be investigated . Isnt that correct ?
A perfect example of a no evidence needed criminal investigation is a missing person. Or a theft of property like a missing car or valuables.
Off Topic a bit: remember Scott Peterson? He was sent to death row with NO evidence directly linking him to his missing Wife.
quote
The exception I see to that is evidence of a conspiracy to commit a crime. In the Russian collusion, there is no evidence of a crime having been committed or or anyone conspiring to commit a crime... Everything the liberals claimed was evidence, was only circumstantial, hearsay, or just plain faked. As the Mueller investigation has concluded there is no actual evidence of anything. Hillary on the other hand, is neck deep in actual evidence and was not charged with anything.
The word. "Investigation" has many definitions. Not all investigations are "criminal" investigations. Not all investigations are bond to the same rules and guidelines, for example the Trump investigation had ABSOLUTELY NO "evidence" of a crime. And so, no charges brought up, that includes more than the "conspiracy" (by the way was not a point of contention) it also included obstruction of justice wich is a felony. No "evidence" was required for the FBI investigation into "obstruction of justice". As the Director of the FBI said to Congress "reasonable suspension" can open an FBI investigation.
BTW, I can't resist repeating that one of the 2 main reasons for the Trump investigation was for meddling in an American election. Of wich no actual meddling was even proven to have happened. At least not by the Russians. No voting machines were tampered with, by Russia. No electronic fraud was found from Russia. NOTHING AT ALL was found in the investigation that proved meddling even happened.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 03-31-2019).]
You missed the announcement of the forming of a line for where brains were handed out, . No, that's not right !
You were in the wrong line. You got the wrong brain. Or maybe I am wrong. Perhaps, you have just not fully grasped how to use the one you have. Try as I have to kill every brain cell that I was given, I have failed, .
Since you weren't paying attention, I will fill you in.
What you missed ! I will type slowly for you. Perhaps you can grasp one post at a time.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: I actually didn't focus on the Clinton-related emails that were "set free" by Wikileaks, with the help of the Russian Federation.
What were the big takeaways?
That the e-mails were not 'lost' ? That they were hidden ? Diliberately ? By the Hillary Federation ? That the American Federation could not find ? Does that not give you pause to use your brain ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: So where does that take this discussion?
Something smells within the whole Dumbocratic Federation ?
Originally posted by olejoedad: The media creates the drama. The Democrats use it to misinform their base. The grownups try to clean up after them both.
I think politicians come up with the drama to keep us entertained so that we do not hound them for not doing the jobs they were elected to do.
Indeed. They also like to playcate us with hand outs and would most likely like us to be stoners. Also look at the media, they get paid directly to keep us entertained...
People have suggested the investigation needs to be investigated because they feel like some laws were broken, however they aren't basing it off any evidence, they just say "I'm sure there is some" much like the people who were obsessed with the Mueller investigation. No amount of social pressure should be responsible for "Red Herring" investigations. Wether they want to admit it or not, if your suggesting there be an investigation yet you know of no evidence, you're a social justice warrior.
None of this applies of there's evidence, but if it exists, nobody cares to reference it.
Clinton and Obama sold nuke fuel to Russia, Obama told putin he be more "flexable" after the election 2012. among others things. that this special investigation council seemed to not bother with. I'd hazard a guess, that Russia if they did hack the dems network and all that, did so. because Clinton and Obama. didn't come through with promises. The fact that all of the above is know facts, and that council didn't think it have any bearing on a reason for Russia to pick a side. is blind bliss. as they say. or most likely turning a blind eye to that stuff as the goal was a trump witch hunt. and not to find the Russia links/collusion or any of the crap they sold this witch hunt with.
This was all about character assassination to win mid term seats. nothing more.
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 04-02-2019).]
Clinton and Obama sold nuke fuel to Russia, Obama told putin he be more "flexable" after the election 2012. among others things. that this special investigation council seemed to not bother with. I'd hazard a guess, that Russia if they did hack the dems network and all that, did so. because Clinton and Obama. didn't come through with promises. The fact that all of the above is know facts, and that council didn't think it have any bearing on a reason for Russia to pick a side. is blind bliss. as they say. or most likely turning a blind eye to that stuff as the goal was a trump witch hunt. and not to find the Russia links/collusion or any of the crap they sold this witch hunt with.
This was all about character assassination to win mid term seats. nothing more.
My big surprise is that they didn't drag it out for the next Presidential election cycle. I really expected them to.
I did not think it would last that long, but it would not have surprised me. I did however think it would end soon after Kavanaugh was elected to the Supreme Court. It just ran out of steam and was getting more pressure for results.
Here is a more complete compilation of some actual crimes that can be easily deduced, committed by the Democrats and the Deep State. Most of this is verified by testimony in front of either a house or senate committee.
This is an article from Victor Davis Hansen, he was a professor at Cal State Fresno and is a highly respected historian.
______________________________________
The Tables Turn in Russian Collusion Hunt
"The irony of the entire Russian collusion hoax is that accusers who cried the loudest about leaking, collusion, lying, and obstruction are themselves soon very likely to be accused of just those crimes.
Now that Robert Mueller’s 674-day, $30 million investigation is over and has failed to find the original goal of its mandate—evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the Trump presidential campaign and the Russian government to sway the 2016 election—and now that thousands of once-sealed government documents will likely be released in unredacted form, those who eagerly assumed the role of the hunters may become the hunted, due to their own zealous violation of the nation’s trust and its laws.
Take Lying
Former FBI Director James Comey’s testimonies cannot be reconciled with those of his own deputy director Andrew McCabe. He falsely testified that the Steele dossier was not the main basis for obtaining FISA court warrants. On at least 245 occasions, Comey swore under oath that he either did not know, or could not remember, when asked direct questions about his conduct at the FBI. He likely lied when he testified that he did not conclude his assessment of the Clinton illegal email use before he had even interviewed Clinton, an assertion contradicted by his own written report. I guess his credo and modus operandi are reflected in the subtitle of his recent autobiography A Higher Loyalty: “Truth, Lies, and Leadership.”
Andrew McCabe currently is under criminal referral for lying to federal investigators about leaking to the media. He and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein each have accused each other of not telling the whole truth about their shared caper of trying to force President Trump out of office by invoking the 25th Amendment.
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has admitted to lying under oath to Congress—and since lied about his earlier admission of that lying. His recent sworn congressional testimony of not having leaked information about the Steele dossier to the media is again likely to be untrue, given that Clapper had admitted to speaking to CNN’s Jake Tapper about the dossier’s contents. CNN, remember, would in turn go on to hire the mendacious Clapper as an analyst. And once on air, Clapper would insist that Trump was both a Russian asset and thus guilty of collusion crimes greater than those of Watergate. Lies. All lies.
Former CIA Director John Brennan has admitted to lying under oath to Congress on two occasions. He may well face further legal exposure. When he lost his security clearance, he repeatedly lied that Trump was guilty of collusion, however that non-crime is defined. And as the Mueller probe wound down, Brennan with pseudo-authority and trumped-up hints of phony access to secret intelligence sources deceitfully assured the nation that Trump within days would face indictment—perhaps along with his family members.
Brennan in 2016 also reached out to foreign intelligence services, primary British and Australian, to surveille and entrap Trump aides, as a way of circumventing rules preventing CIA monitoring of American citizens. And he may well have also reverse-targeted Americans, under the guise of monitoring foreign nationals, in order to build a case of so-called Trump collusion.
Finally, Brennan testified to Congress in May 2017 that he had not been earlier aware of the dossier or its contents before the election, although in August 2016 it is almost certain that he had briefed Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on it in a spirited effort to have Reid pressure the FBI to keep or expand its counterintelligence investigation of Trump during the critical final weeks of the election.
Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin likely also lied to FBI investigators when they claimed they had no knowledge while working at the State Department that their boss, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was using an illegal private email server. In fact, they had read her communications on it and actually inquired about its efficacy.
Samantha Power, the former U.N. ambassador, in her last year in office requested on more than 260 occasions to unmask names of Americans monitored by the government. Yet Power later claimed that most of these requests were not made by her. And yet she either does not know or does not cite who exactly used her name to make such requests during the election cycle. In any case, no one has come forward to admit to the improper use of Power’s name to request the hundreds of unmaskings.
Susan Rice, the former Obama national security advisor, could have made a number of unmasking requests in Power’s name, although she initially denied making any requests in her own name—a lie she immediately amended. Rice, remember, repeatedly lied on national television about the cause and origins of the Benghazi attack, denied there were cash payments for hostages in the Iran deal, misled about the conduct of Beau Bergdahl, and prevaricated over the existence and destruction of weapons of mass destruction in Syria.
Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr did not tell the truth on a federal written disclosure required by law when he omitted the key fact that his wife Nellie worked on Christopher Steele’s Fusion GPS dossier. Ohr’s testimony that he completely briefed key FBI officials on the dossier in July or August 2016 is not compatible to what former FBI attorney Lisa Page has testified to concerning the dates of her own knowledge of the Steele material. Take Foreign Collusion
Christopher Steele is a foreign national. So are many of the Russian sources that he claims he had contacted to solicit dirt on Donald Trump and his campaign aides. In fact, John Brennan’s CIA, soon in consultation with the FBI, was used in circuitous fashion to facilitate surveillance of Donald Trump’s campaign through the use of foreign nationals during the 2016 campaign.
Foreigners such as Maltese professor Josef Mifsud, and former Australian minister for foreign affairs Alexander Downer and an array of intelligence contractors from the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) mysteriously met with minor Trump aide George Papadopoulos and others. It is likely that to disguise American intelligence agencies’ efforts to besmirch, surveille, and leak to the press damaging unfounded rumors about the Trump campaign that John Brennan enlisted an entire cadre of foreign nationals. And it is likely to be the most egregious example of using non-U.S. citizens to affect the outcome of an election in our history. If there is a crime of foreign collusion—a conspiracy of U.S. officials to use foreigners to interfere with an American election—then Brennan’s efforts are the textbook example.
Take Leaking
Many of the names unmasked by requests from Samantha Power and Susan Rice were leaked illegally to the media. James Comey himself leaked confidential memos of presidential conversations to the press; in at least one case, the memo was likely classified.
Former FBI general counsel James Baker is currently under criminal referral for improperly leaking classified documents. He seems to have been in contact with the media before the election and he may have been one of many FBI officials and contacts, along with Christopher Steele, that reporters such as David Corn, Michael Isikoff, and Julia Ioffe anonymously referenced in their pre-election published hit pieces on Russian collusion—all the result of the successful strategies of Fusion GPS, along with some in the FBI, to seed unverified anti-Trump gossip to warp the election. Andrew McCabe also is under criminal referral both for leaking classified information and then lying about it.
In a fashion emblematic of this entire sordid mess, the always ethically compromised James Clapper in January 2017 had leaked the dossier to Jake Tapper of CNN and likely other journalists and then shortly afterwards publicly deplored just this sort of government leaking that had led to sensational stories about the dossier.
Take Obstruction of Justice
A number of FBI and Department of Justice high ranking employees such as James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, and Sally Yates all signed off on FISA warrants to surveille Carter Page without apprising the courts that they knew that their chief evidence, the Steele Dossier, was unverified, was paid for by Hillary Clinton, and was used in circular fashion as the basis for news accounts presented to the court. Nor did the Justice Department and FBI officials apprise the FISA justices that Christopher Steele had been terminated as a FBI source.
No one believes that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch just happened to meet Bill Clinton on a Phoenix airport tarmac and confined their conservations to a variety of topics having nothing to do with Hillary Clinton—at a time when Lynch’s Justice Department was investigating her. Note the meeting was only disclosed because a reporter got a tip and arrived on the scene of the two adjoining Lynch and Clinton private jets—which suggests that the only thing Lynch and Clinton regretted was being found out. Few believe that Lynch had recused herself as she promised, given her strict oversight of the sort of language Comey’s FBI was allowed to use in its investigation of Clinton.
Take Conflict of Interest
Andrew McCabe never should have been in charge of the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton, given that just months earlier his wife had been the recipient of $675,000 in campaign cash donated by Clinton and Democratic Party-affiliated political action committees. And the apology of a “time line” that suggests conflicts of interest like McCabe’s expired after an arbitrary date is specious. McCabe knew his spouse had been a recent recipient of Clinton-related money, knew that he had substantial influence on the fate of her email investigation, and hoped and assumed that she was likely to be the next president of the United States quite soon.
Rod Rosenstein never should have been appointed acting attorney general in charge of oversight of the Mueller investigation. He knew Mueller well. In circular fashion, he had drafted the rationale to fire Comey that had prompted the Mueller’s appointment. He had signed off on a FISA warrant request without apprising the court of the true nature of the Steele dossier’s origins and nature. He had met shortly before the Mueller appointment with acting FBI director Andrew McCabe to investigate the chance of removing Trump under a distortion of the 25th Amendment. So, in essence, Rosenstein had been one of the catalysts for McCabe to investigate removing Trump for his own part in the removal of Comey and then in Orwellian fashion joined McCabe’s efforts.
Comey deliberately leaked a classified memo of a presidential conversation, in which he had misled the president about his actual status under FBI investigations, in order to cause enough media outrage over his firing to prompt the hiring of a special counsel. That gambit succeeded in the appointment of his own longtime associate Robert Mueller, who would be charged to investigate “collusion,” in which Comey played an important role in monitoring the Trump campaign with the assistance of British national Christopher Steele.
Robert Mueller did not need to appoint a legal team inordinately Democratic, which included attorneys who had been either donors to the Clinton campaign, or had been attorneys for Clinton aides, or had defended the Clinton Foundation. And he certainly should not have included on his investigative team that was charged with adjudicating Russian collusion in the 2016 election both Zainab Ahmad and Andrew Weissman, Obama Justice Department officials, who had been briefed by Bruce Ohr before the election on the nature of the Steele dossier and its use of foreign sources.
It will be difficult to unravel all of the above lying, distortion, and unethical and illegal conduct.
The motives of these bad actors are diverse, but they share a common denominator. As Washington politicos and administrative state careerists, all of them believed that Donald Trump was so abhorrent that he should be prevented from winning the 2016 election. After his stunning and shocking victory, they assumed further that either he should not be inaugurated or he should be removed from office as soon as they could arrange it.
They further reasoned that as high and esteemed unelected officials their efforts were above and beyond the law, and rightly so, given their assumed superior wisdom and morality.
Finally, if their initial efforts were predicated on winning not just exemption from the law, but even promotions and kudos from a grateful President Hillary Clinton, their subsequent energies at removing Trump and investing in the collusion hoax were preemptive and defensive. Seeding the collusion hoax was a way either of removing Trump who had the presidential power to call them all to account for their illegality, or at least causing so much media chaos and political havoc that their own crimes and misdemeanors would be forgotten by becoming submerged amid years of scandal, conspiracies, and media sensationalism.
And they were almost—but so far not quite—correct in all their assumptions.
Im confused...as far as I know, at least in the US, there has to be evidence of a crime before it can be investigated . Isnt that correct ?
No, all that is required is a complaint or suspicion of a wrongdoing, and it doesn't have to be of a statute crime either. An investigation can be launched solely on the grounds of ethics violations as well as suspected/reported criminal activity. The investigation yields the evidence..not the other way around.
No, all that is required is a complaint or suspicion of a wrongdoing, and it doesn't have to be of a statute crime either. An investigation can be launched solely on the grounds of ethics violations as well as suspected/reported criminal activity. The investigation yields the evidence..not the other way around.
Thank you, well said. Now, that being said, how is it that I and others want an investigation into the Trump investigation? Because I believe that the Trump investigation was politically motivated (the investigation was a tool used for political gain and revenge), and that makes it an illegal (unjustified) investigation. I want to know from the investigators if in fact I am correct, and if so I want the full weight of the law to come down on those responsible for the missus of the justice system and 35 million dollars of tax payer money. In short, I want to drain the swamp and prevent this type of abuse from happening again. If this investigation is not examined thoroughly, from inception to final printed version, then it will no doubt happen again.
In short, I want to drain the swamp and prevent this type of abuse from happening again. If this investigation is not examined thoroughly, from inception to final printed version, then it will no doubt happen again.
More than drain the swamps, the water sources need to be diverted.
More than drain the swamps, the water sources need to be diverted.
Yup. and that requires people to get involved in their local city/town and state and drain the swamps there, The folks in D.C. started local and learned the tricks of the trade there before jumping on the big stage. Sadly many won't bother as it takes effort and time on their part. heck it is hard enough to get them to bother to vote. nevermind get involved and to work without being paid, researching people,issues,etc. Most don't have a clue want is on the docket in their town/city/state this week/month. unless the local news media reports on it. and by then it's already moved through 90% of the red tape and is about to happen. and folks are like how in the world..lol
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 04-03-2019).]
Yup. and that requires people to get involved in their local city/town and state and drain the swamps there, The folks in D.C. started local and learned the tricks of the trade there before jumping on the big stage. Sadly many won't bother as it takes effort and time on their part. heck it is hard enough to get them to bother to vote. nevermind get involved and to work without being paid, researching people,issues,etc. Most don't have a clue want is on the docket in their town/city/state this week/month. unless the local news media reports on it. and by then it's already moved through 90% of the red tape and is about to happen. and folks are like how in the world..lol
For sure.
One scary thing your post made me think about is "AOC" Alexandria Cortez is an actor off the streets, a puppet. That mess will be harder to deal with. It undermines things.
One scary thing your post made me think about is "AOC" Alexandria Cortez is an actor off the streets, a puppet. That mess will be harder to deal with. It undermines things.
MEH. She is a loose cannon, The dems will destroy her to shut her up. I don't think they knew what they were buying when they propped her up. worse is the fact that n.y. voters put her there
Originally posted by E.Furgal: MEH. She is a loose cannon, The dems will destroy her to shut her up. I don't think they knew what they were buying when they propped her up. worse is the fact that n.y. voters put her there
As long as there isn't a next one and a next one, etc. They might get an effective one.
AG Barr was in a committee meeting today discussing the budget for DOJ. Many of the questions he answered were unrelated to budget concerns, as the committee members took the opportunity to ask questions concerning the release of the Mueller report.
Sh!t is about to hit the fan. There are most likely many in DC with a new set of worries.
I think it "sucks"... I would go with Mauve for grand jury information, Chartreuse for intelligence and national security, Burnt Sienna for ongoing investigations and Royal Purple for "privacy or reputational interest."
quote
I think it "sucks"... I would go with Mauve for grand jury information, Chartreuse for intelligence and national security, Burnt Sienna for ongoing investigations and Royal Purple for "privacy or reputational interest."
Just using the white background of the Quotation format to bring out all of the colors.
That's my "Mueller Color" scheme.
Could be a roll of the dice, for anyone who has a color blindness.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-10-2019).]
Nothing against Trump will come from this report. At least, not in the spirit of the investigation. This report is worthless and I would (if I had the power) not let out the "full results" until AFTER the 2020 election, just because.
The information gathered in the course of the investigation into Russian meddling in the election does not point to the Trump campaign. The investigation has raised questions and provided evidence pointing in other directions that will be explored. AG Barr will be looking in those directions.
The information gathered in the course of the investigation into Russian meddling in the election does not point to the Trump campaign. The investigation has raised questions and provided evidence pointing in other directions that will be explored. AG Barr will be looking in those directions.
remember that 57 million dollars went missing in the middle east under obamma. my money is that was/is his get out of dodge ,s**t hit the fan .fund.
If anyone were to listen in to just a bit of our government's current hearings, you would not need the "Plastic Media" to tell us what is actually said. Use the internet for learning. We can watch the actual events as they unfold. Or, wait until you have time and instead of left or right leaning news, take it in by the horse's mouth.
There are minutes and hours of this stuff going on right now. Heck, Maxine Waters is using her committee power egregiously this afternoon not allowing Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to rightfully leave. She beat around the bush attempting to have a person show contempt. She baited this man until she was satisfied with her little tantrum.
Ron, if you would like to hear what actually was said, instead of the very biased report on AOL, you should listen to the conversation that happened in the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting. The AOL version is very misleading and leaves out some of the important stuff.
Ron, if you would like to hear what actually was said, instead of the very biased report on AOL, you should listen to the conversation that happened in the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting. The AOL version is very misleading and leaves out some of the important stuff.
I offered this only as interesting for discussion, didn't suggest it was 100% accurate and not spun.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 04-10-2019).]
It is interesting how things are represented to have happened on the different news sources. I was listening to the Committee meeting real-time, and then browsed the reports. After listening and browsing, I'm really confused. Should I believe the reports or my lying ears?
The Dems and the left wing media are having a meltdown over the AG using the term spying as related to the FBI and the Trump campaign. It’s just amazing to watch how loud they scream the closer the light comes to their dark world.
What if the things being redacted were detrimental to the left? What if Barr just threw his hands up and said, "Fine....you want it? You got it!". Wouldn't that be just too much fun?
What if the things being redacted were detrimental to the left? What if Barr just threw his hands up and said, "Fine....you want it? You got it!". Wouldn't that be just too much fun?
It should be obvious that mendacious leftists presume that any redactions in the report are for the reasons that THEY would do so, (i.e.political), and not because of legitimate reasons such as lawful protection of privacy or national security concerns.
It is also obvious that they are unable to accept the reality that the fantasy they hoped Mueller would deliver to them will not happen.
Note how they seem to have grudgingly accepted the "no collusion" determination but are now clinging desperately to the idea of "obstruction".
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 04-11-2019).]
Well, someone is being charged as a result of the Mueller investigation. But, it has nothing to do with candidate Trump, or President Trump. It is a former White House Counsel for the Obama Administration. Who would have thought that it would come back to bite the Obama Administration? And will the press even acknowledge that this is happening?
Well, someone is being charged as a result of the Mueller investigation. But, it has nothing to do with candidate Trump, or President Trump. It is a former White House Counsel for the Obama Administration. Who would have thought that it would come back to bite the Obama Administration? And will the press even acknowledge that this is happening?
.
.
Well, they are your ears ya know....... 🤣
