Trump allies await results of two internal probes that could expose Russia investigation backstory

Confident that any revelations about FBI misconduct will be buried in the obituary pages of your local paper.....

civilwarbuff said:

Confident that any revelations about FBI misconduct will be buried in the obituary pages of your local paper.....

Click to expand...

You really have to wonder if there is still a problem at the FBI when you consider some folks (Obama and friends) tried to get the Smollett investigation turned over to the FBI right before it was dropped altogether.

One backstory that's still being checked out:

Trump’s lawyer isn’t exactly denying that Trump had foreknowledge of WikiLeaks dumps
During an interview on This Week, President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, softened the hardline denials Trump World has made about contacts with Russia during the 2016 campaign.

Giuliani didn’t rule out that confidante Roger Stone looped in Trump ahead of time about WikiLeaks’s dumps of emails given to them by Russian hackers. And he backtracked on the claim that Trump didn’t continue to pursue a lucrative real estate deal in Russia throughout the entire presidential campaign.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/17/18144376/rudy-giuliani-russia-stephanopoulos

Cohen testified he was in the room when Republican strategist Roger Stone called President Donald Trump and told him about an impending WikiLeaks release of stolen Democratic National Committee emails. Stone and Trump have not only denied that claim — but also done so in a coordinated way that may shape what Mueller ultimately does.

The consequences here are simple.

If Cohen lied to Congress, he could be indicted for it and the world would soon find out.

If Cohen told the truth, then Trump is in trouble.

The allegation could be pivotal because Trump and Stone have been united in denying it, not only in public statements, but also in legally binding assurances to the government.

Lying in public is legal. Lying to the government is a crime. That is why this part of Cohen’s allegation poses such serious legal risks to both Stone and Trump.

Unfortunately for the White House, Cohen’s account has extra corroboration, which provides more supporting evidence than his other new claims that could be dismissed as a “he said/he said” dispute.
Cohen’s testimony could spell trouble for Trump. Here’s why.

redleghunter said:

Following the revelation that Special Counsel Robert Mueller unearthed no evidence that President Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia to sway the 2016 election, Trump allies are now awaiting the results of two long-running internal probes that could expose the backstory behind the Russia probe's beginnings -- and provide more detail on already-documented misconduct among top FBI and DOJ officials.

DOJ Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz confirmed at a panel discussion last week that his office is continuing to review potential surveillance abuses by the FBI, a review that began last March and that Fox News is told is nearing completion. Horowitz has previously found that senior FBI officials routinely leaked information without authorization to the media, and also received "improper gifts" from reporters, including meals and sporting event tickets. Most notably, Horowitz found that FBI officials' anti-Trump communications raised doubts as to the integrity of their work.

Republicans, meanwhile, are increasingly looking for answers from U.S. Attorney for Utah John Huber, who was appointed a year ago by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions to review not only surveillance abuses by the FBI and DOJ, but also authorities' handling of the probe into the Clinton Foundation. Huber, Republicans have cautioned, has apparently made little progress, and spoken to few key witnesses and whistleblowers.

But in January, then-Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker reportedly indicated at a private meeting that Huber's work was continuing apace.

Click to expand...

Sistrin said:

Click to expand...

Yep. Remember the last time they tried it?







You see, to have an effective criminal investigation, there must be real criminals.

Not in the two tiered justice system the swamp (and their supporters) subscribe to, Hilliary sure likes it.

If Comey ends up in jail I wonder if he'll stay quiet or sing like a canary to save his rat self? Even if he had done the right thing he would have ended up like Ken Starr. So maybe we'll get to see what is more important to him being exiled from the elitist society or have his freedom taken from him?

Gigimo said:

If Comey ends up in jail I wonder if he'll stay quiet or sing like a canary to save his rat self? Even if he had done the right thing he would have ended up like Ken Starr. So maybe we'll get to see what is more important to him being exiled from the elitist society or have his freedom taken from him?

Click to expand...

I don't think Comey is going to save all those guys Mueller caught. We don't know why Barr is hiding the report from everyone, but even Barr admitted that the report does not clear Trump of obstruction.

It looks like it will take a congressional subpoena to shake it loose. It will be interesting to see what Trump didn't want us to see in it.

The Barbarian said:

You see, to have an effective criminal investigation, there must be real criminals.

Click to expand...

How many times do you need pointed out to you the fact not one single indictment Mueller handed down had anything to do with collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia in attempts to influence the 2016 election? You just keep tossing this number around as if it means something.

In context of the various Clinton matters, there were actual crimes committed by actual criminals. People died in connection with Clinton's actions. But within the circle of leftist loyalist, I understand. Acceptable sacrifices.

Oh, and really, you are just going to steal my grasping at straws metaphor? Well, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so thanks, I guess.

Sistrin said:

How many times do you need pointed out to you the fact not one single indictment Mueller handed down had anything to do with collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia in attempts to influence the 2016 election?

Click to expand...

It's just about the criminal activities they hired Mueller to investigate. As you know, he nailed a good number of criminals involved in the Trump organizations, for things like lying about speaking to Russian agents, paying off inappropriate content stars to keep them from talking about sexual activities with Trump, and so on.

You just keep tossing this number around as if it means something.

Click to expand...

It means Trump had a lot of criminals working for him. Some of them have admitted that Trump was involved those crimes. That's still being sorted out, much of it by the SDNY or New York state, for criminal activities under state laws. A cynic might suggest that Mueller passed the information on to the state and did not indict for those crimes so that Trump couldn't pardon himself or others, and there would be no double jeopardy.

In context of the various Clinton matters, there were actual crimes committed by actual criminals.

Click to expand...

I know you want to believe it, but as you know, years of work by the republicans and tens of millions of our tax dollars got us how many indictments? (Barbarian checks)
None. There were no indictments. So there you are. Time for you to make an accommodation to reality.

People died in connection with Clinton's actions.

Click to expand...

In the sense that she warned Congress that cutting security for our embassies would be dangerous.

Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'

Republicans wish we would all forget about it. But within the circle of republican loyalists, I understand. There were "priorities." For the republicans, our embassy staff were acceptable sacrifices.

Oh, and really, you are just going to steal my grasping at straws metaphor?

Click to expand...

Actually, I used it here three years ago; imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so thanks, I guess. . But it certainly fits the "oh, we know that someday, we'll prove Hillary did something wrong" rationalizations, doesn't it?

The Barbarian said:

It's just about the criminal activities they hired Mueller to investigate.

Click to expand...

Your reverence and devotion to the religious icons of the American left will never waver, I suppose. But then that is the nature of a zealot. You're always right.

Officially Mueller was appointed to investigate the matter of collusion between the Trump campaign and officials within the Russian government to influence the 2016 election. Today you guys have exactly the same amount of evidence of this act as you did two and a half years ago. Zero. Nothing. Less than nothing.

And yet the faithful are still out there claiming it still must be true, asserting the absolutely ridiculous and deranged notion Barr must be part of the conspiracy.

But you are correct about one fact, whether you meant to be or not. Mueller's actual mandate was to go and find a crime, any crime conducted anywhere by anyone, as long as that crime could be used against Trump and his Presidency with the ultimate goal of reversing the results of the legal, lawful, and constitutional election results. In following that Mandate Mueller indicted people in association with matters which would never, and you know this if you are willing to admit to any intellectual honesty, never have even been investigated if Clinton had won the election.

The Barbarian said:

As you know, he nailed a good number of criminals involved in the Trump organizations...

Click to expand...

George Papadopoulos got a 14-day sentence. Wow, massive victory. You must be so proud.

Manafort's only crime the American left cared anything about was he once worked for the Trump campaign. Regardless, the crimes he was convicted for had nothing, as you know, to do with Trump at all.

Rick Gates, and Michael Flynn both plead guilty to process crimes, Gates pleading guilty to just one false statements charge and one conspiracy charge. But again, even according to Vox, none of the charges in the indictments of Gates, Manafort, or Flynn had anything to do with campaign collusion between Trump and the Russians.

Michael Cohen plead guilty to tax and bank charges related to his taxi business and supposed campaign finance violations in regard to affairs alleged to have occurred.

Meanwhile, according to various sources to include The Washington Post, Congress's Office of Compliance has paid out more than "17 million dollars in 264 settlements related to various employer related disputes, including sexual harassment." Congressmen who have so benefited form this fund include Democrat John Conyers, accused of actual sexual assault by a female staffer.

I thought all women who claimed to be the victim of sexual assault had to be believed?

Roger Stone was accused and subsequently indicted in a matter concerning his attempt to talk with people at WikiLeaks. Wow. The FBI needs more guys with guns.

The Barbarian said:

...paying off inappropriate content stars to keep them from talking about sexual activities with Trump...

Click to expand...

The rich are targets of extortion attempts as a matter of course. The allegations Daniels made were never proven, except within that circle of people who believe the term 'alleged' is defined as guilty beyond all doubt.

The Barbarian said:

It means Trump had a lot of criminals working for him. Some of them have admitted that Trump was involved those crimes.

Click to expand...

And which crimes would those be?

The Barbarian said:

That's still being sorted out, much of it by the SDNY or New York state, for criminal activities under state laws.

Click to expand...

Desperation is all that amounts to.

The Barbarian said:

I know you want to believe it...

Click to expand...

It isn't a matter of what I want to believe, it is a matter of fact. Even the Apostle Comey made the case during his now infamous press briefing that Clinton has violated 18 United States Code Sections 793 and 1924. According to Townhall "some of the information Clinton had on the bathroom server was so sensitive that his agents needed upgraded clearances to see it."

But again you are promoting the approved party line. The fact Comey usurped the responsibility of the Attorney General and announced a refusal to prosecute does not mean there were no crimes. Except to the faithful.

The Barbarian said:

In the sense that she warned Congress that cutting security for our embassies would be dangerous.

Click to expand...

I think you need to read that article again and concentrate on what it really says.

The Barbarian said:

...our embassy staff were acceptable sacrifices.

Click to expand...

And stop just parroting my words.

The Barbarian said:

I don't think Comey is going to save all those guys Mueller caught.

Click to expand...

I'm curious as to how this morphed from Comey protecting Hilliary to Comey saving all the guys the Obama administration knew about and Mueller cherry picked, rationalizing again?

The Barbarian said:

One backstory that's still being checked out:

Trump’s lawyer isn’t exactly denying that Trump had foreknowledge of WikiLeaks dumps
During an interview on This Week, President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, softened the hardline denials Trump World has made about contacts with Russia during the 2016 campaign.

Giuliani didn’t rule out that confidante Roger Stone looped in Trump ahead of time about WikiLeaks’s dumps of emails given to them by Russian hackers. And he backtracked on the claim that Trump didn’t continue to pursue a lucrative real estate deal in Russia throughout the entire presidential campaign.
Trump’s lawyer isn’t exactly denying that Trump had foreknowledge of WikiLeaks dumps

Cohen testified he was in the room when Republican strategist Roger Stone called President Donald Trump and told him about an impending WikiLeaks release of stolen Democratic National Committee emails. Stone and Trump have not only denied that claim — but also done so in a coordinated way that may shape what Mueller ultimately does.

The consequences here are simple.

If Cohen lied to Congress, he could be indicted for it and the world would soon find out.

If Cohen told the truth, then Trump is in trouble.

The allegation could be pivotal because Trump and Stone have been united in denying it, not only in public statements, but also in legally binding assurances to the government.

Lying in public is legal. Lying to the government is a crime. That is why this part of Cohen’s allegation poses such serious legal risks to both Stone and Trump.

Unfortunately for the White House, Cohen’s account has extra corroboration, which provides more supporting evidence than his other new claims that could be dismissed as a “he said/he said” dispute.
Cohen’s testimony could spell trouble for Trump. Here’s why.

Click to expand...

Gigimo said:

I'm curious as to how this morphed from Comey protecting Hilliary to Comey saving all the guys the Obama administration knew about and Mueller cherry picked, rationalizing again?

Click to expand...

I think that's your fantasy. It hardly needs to be said that Comey's statement about Clinton being a target, just before the election was intended to damage her chances of winning the election. So "protecting" seems to be a fantasy.

How do you think Obama knew about all those guys Mueller indicted? Sounds pretty fantastic as well.

Barbarian observes:
It's just about the criminal activities they hired Mueller to investigate.

Sistrin said:

Your reverence and devotion to the religious icons of the American left

Click to expand...

Mueller is a republican, and a conservative. I thought you knew that. I suppose you reclassified him as a "leftist" after he started taking down criminals in the Trump organizations.

But then that is the nature of a zealot. You're always right.

Officially Mueller was appointed to investigate the matter of collusion between the Trump campaign and officials within the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.

Click to expand...

Well, let's take a look...

The Special Counsel investigation of 2017 to 2019 (also referred to as the Mueller probe, Mueller report, Mueller investigation, and Russia investigation)[1][2] was a United States law enforcement and counterintelligence investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. According to its authorizing document which was signed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on May 17, 2017, the investigation's scope included the allegation that there were links or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government[3][4] as well as "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation". The scope of the investigation also included potential obstruction of justice by Trump and others.

Here's the authorization:
Rosenstein letter appointing Mueller special counsel

Doesn't even mention collusion. You've been had by people you trusted, once again.

Today you guys have exactly the same amount of evidence of this act as you did two and a half years ago.

Click to expand...

And numerous Trump underlings indicted, convicted, or pleading guilty to crimes in his service. Compare this to the investigations of Hillary Clinton, republicans spent years of time and tens of millions of our tax dollars on. What did they get?

Zero. Nothing. Less than nothing.

Click to expand...

Yep. See the difference, now?

Mueller's actual mandate was to go and find a crime, any crime conducted anywhere by anyone, as long as that crime could be used against Trump and his Presidency with the ultimate goal of reversing the results of the legal, lawful, and constitutional election results.

Click to expand...

(Barbarian reads the authorization, again)

Nope. You let your imagination get the better of your reasoning, again.

In following that Mandate Mueller indicted people in association with matters which would never, and you know this if you are willing to admit to any intellectual honesty, never have even been investigated if Clinton had won the election.

Click to expand...

Given that she was repeatedly "investigated" when there were no crimes at all, a reasonable person wouldn't take your beliefs seriously.

George Papadopoulos got a 14-day sentence.

Click to expand...

Manafort will probably spend the rest of his life in prison. Does that make you feel better? The key is that criminal behavior in the Trump organization took down numerous criminals who were convicted or pleaded guilty to various felonies.

Wow, massive victory.

Click to expand...

Yep. Not done yet. As you might know, the SDNY and the state of New York still have a lot of investigations going on over corruption in the Trump organizations. Be patient; it's all underway.

Manafort's only crime the American left cared anything about was he once worked for the Trump campaign.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. Before he joined the organization, he was being criticized for a political payoff from Russian agents over his work trying to undermine elections in Ukraine.

Rick Gates, and Michael Flynn both plead guilty to process crimes

Click to expand...

A top presidential advisor, lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian agents, is a serious crime, yes.

I understand why, as a true zealot, you want to somehow make all that go away. I don't think it's going to happen. You'd like to believe it will, but I don't think so.

It isn't a matter of what I want to believe,

Click to expand...

Reality has a way of being there, even when one wants to believe something else, yes.

But again you are promoting the approved party line. The fact that Comey didn't find any crimes that could be prosecuted against Clinton merely reinforces the fact that republicans spent all that time and money, coming to the same conclusion. Again, what you believe makes no difference. There it is.

The Barbarian said:

I think that's your fantasy.

Click to expand...

Projecting and twisting words again that's not really a good way for you to try to win a conversation, but it is for scoring points with certain other political ideologues.

The one hand is still empty isn't it?

Gigimo said:

Projecting and twisting words again

Click to expand...

As you see, it really didn't help you. Trying the "Obama was behind all of this" ploy fails for two reasons:

First no one, even Trump people, actually believe it. It's good for scoring points with certain other political ideologues, but absent any evidence... well, you know.

Second, Trump already tried that one, and it collapsed immediately. You know what they say about trying the same thing over and over, and expecting the outcome to be different.

Be honest with yourself; there's no way to spin what Comey did to Clinton, just before the election, by saying she was a target of the investigation, as helping her. By the time he admitted that there wasn't anything indictable, it was too late to make a difference. Probably threw the election.

The exculpatory fantasy that it's all a conspiracy against Trump, just won't fly.

I am going to try and make some sense out of this disjointed post. In the future I respectfully suggest you learn to properly use the quote function, it will facilitate matters here.

The Barbarian said:

Mueller is a republican, and a conservative.

Click to expand...

So?

Again you pontificate from on high issuing a pronouncement which in context of the issue means absolutely nothing. For over two years the Democrats along with all of the liberal/progressive Trump-hating masses have been extolling the virtue of Robert Mueller, practically deifying the guy all based on the hope he would deliver the killing blow on the Trump presidency. That is exactly what you expected him to do, and throughout his tenure his status as a registered Republican mounted no more than his status as a Star Wars fan.

The Barbarian said:

Well, let's take a look...

The Special Counsel investigation of 2017 to 2019...

According to its authorizing document which was signed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on May 17, 2017, the investigation's scope included the allegation that there were links or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government...

Doesn't even mention collusion.

Click to expand...

Wow. You do realize the phrase "the allegation that there were links or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government" means collusion?

You want to argue from the ultimate minimalist prospective, please, be my guest. Just know once you embrace that tactic you have lost.

The Barbarian said:

You've been had by people you trusted, once again.

Click to expand...

And what has Rachael Maddow ever done for you? Not much, obviously...

The Barbarian said:

And numerous Trump underlings indicted, convicted, or pleading guilty to crimes in his service.

Click to expand...

"In his service." You keep revealing yourself.

The Barbarian said:

Given that she was repeatedly "investigated" when there were no crimes at all...

Click to expand...

Her crimes were numerous, obvious, even specified by the Director of the FBI. No one had the backbone to prosecute.

The Barbarian said:

Manafort will probably spend the rest of his life in prison. Does that make you feel better?

Click to expand...

What is this even supposed to mean? If you actually interpreted my comment concerning George Papadopoulos as an expression of lament, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. However I know you didn't interpret my comment in such manner, you are simply making another puerile, obvious, and ham-handed attempt to cast dispersion.

As a further example of disjointed word-salad:

The Barbarian said:

The key is that criminal behavior in the Trump organization took down numerous criminals who were convicted or pleaded guilty to various felonies.

Click to expand...

Your protestations ring hollow. Again, the only crime any of those indicted committed the American left cared anything about was they once worked for the Trump campaign. That is it, and if you were playing here with any intellectual honesty you would admit that.

Oh, and please:

The Barbarian said:

I understand why, as a true zealot...

Click to expand...

Try and indulge in an original thought.

Sistrin said:

I am going to try and make some sense out of this disjointed post.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you could start by focusing on one thing, and finding evidence to support it. It would make your replies much more readable, and certainly more persuasive.

(Sistrin thinks "collusion" is a crime)

Well, let's take a look...

The Special Counsel investigation of 2017 to 2019...

According to its authorizing document which was signed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on May 17, 2017, the investigation's scope included the allegation that there were links or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government...

Doesn't even mention collusion.

Wow. You do realize the phrase "the allegation that there were links or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government" means collusion?

Click to expand...

Nope. That's why "collusion" isn't a crime. Remember, he's focusing on crimes.

For over two years the Democrats along with all of the liberal/progressive Trump-hating masses have been extolling the virtue of Robert Mueller, practically deifying the guy all based on the hope he would deliver the killing blow on the Trump presidency. That is exactly what you expected him to do,

Click to expand...

I've told you before that Mueller might very well clear Trump of crimes, as well as he might indict him. At this point, it appears Mueller said that there is not sufficient evidence indict Trump on conspiracy. We can't be sure, because Trump has decided to hide the actual report. But there seems to be more evidence for obstruction; Barr says that there is insufficient evidence on conspiracy, but the report does not clear Trump on obstruction. Which is a bit puzzling, since it hasn't cleared him on conspiracy, either. It merely says that they don't have sufficient evidence to indict him.

When you get excited, you often dream up opinions, and then wrongly insist others believe them. It's another one of those things you could address to make more sense of you slightly disjointed posts.

and throughout his tenure his status as a registered Republican mounted no more than his status as a Star Wars fan.

Click to expand...

As you probably know, Mueller has a very good reputation for integrity and service. So yes, it did matter.

Wow. You do realize the phrase "the allegation that there were links or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government" means collusion?

Click to expand...

No. You're confusing "conspiracy" with "collusion." One is a crime. The other isn't.

You want to argue from the ultimate minimalist prospective, please, be my guest. Just know once you embrace that tactic you have lost.

Click to expand...

Words mean things. If you don't use them as they are used in the law, your posts will fail to make sense.

Barbarian observes:
You've been had by people you trusted, once again.

And what has Rachael Maddow ever done for you?

Click to expand...

Usually, had me out, checking sources on her claims. She's a commentator, so not much in the way of citations.

Barbarian observes:
And numerous Trump underlings indicted, convicted, or pleading guilty to crimes in his service.

"In his service." You keep revealing yourself.

Click to expand...

Trump's term. I thought you knew.

Barbarian observes:
Given that she was repeatedly "investigated" when there were no crimes at all, a reasonable person wouldn't take your beliefs seriously.

Her crimes were numerous, obvious, even specified by the Director of the FBI.

Click to expand...

Nope. He said that no prosecutor would indict for her private email account, for example.

Ivanka Trump used personal email for White House business
Ivanka used personal email for WH business

No one had the backbone to prosecute.

Click to expand...

Or maybe that's what a lot of people do. You think Ivanka should be indicted?

(whinging about how a crook caught by Mueller got off with a light sentence)

Manafort will probably spend the rest of his life in prison. Does that make you feel better?

What is this even supposed to mean?

Click to expand...

The punishment seems to have been calibrated for the crime in most cases.

As a further example of disjointed word-salad:

Your protestations ring hollow. Again, the only crime any of those indicted committed the American left cared anything about was they once worked for the Trump campaign. That is it, and if you were playing here with any intellectual honesty you would admit that.

Click to expand...

I think maybe if you avoided so much "people I don't like are all poopy-heads" you might be able to make a more cogent argument. Worth a try?

Oh, and please:

Click to expand...

Barbarian observes:
A top presidential advisor, lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian agents, is a serious crime, yes.

I understand why, as a true zealot, you want to somehow make all that go away. I don't think it's going to happen. You'd like to believe it will, but I don't think so.

Try and indulge in an original thought.

Click to expand...

Well, you know how unoriginal Barbarians are... Think about it, and try to focus on one thing you want to present. It would make your posts easier to read, and much more logically coherent. At least give it a try, next time.