Trump investigation documents release starting Wednesday, full criminal investigation underway

DaisyDay · Aug 12, 2019

cow451 said:
A poster notes the weather has been hot and humid.

Yeah, but it's not climate change!!!

Notice how they changed it from global warming to global climate change?

Well, at this point, they might as well change it back.

At least, until winter comes.

NightHawkeye · Aug 12, 2019

I would invite readers to note the title and subject of the thread. Thanks. :wave:

DaisyDay · Aug 12, 2019

Zanting said:
Except I didn't say there was a plot...the investigators did and I happen to agree.

What/which investigators said there was a plot? No one official that I've seen, just pundits. If you know of anyone specific, name and when and where they said it, cite it. It's possible that you "heard" somewhat more than anyone actually said.

The investigators released the text documents between certain members of the FBI and the UK that reveal this plot against the POTUS (which also reveals it began even before he was elected) and I happen to believe them...go figure. You don't have to.

Did you even read the documents for yourself? Christopher Steele is not "the UK"; he retired from MI6 before he was hired by Fusion GPS and started his own information business counting on the contacts he built up throughout his career. So, that is one point ~~you got wrong~~ where you are mistaken.

Bruce Ohr was head of the division in charge of investigating organized crime and Russian racketeering. He had a duty to look into any allegations of Russians committing crimes in America. One of Steele's informants told him that the Russians had compromising information (and a video) on Donald and might try to blackmail him. Of course, that will be looked into. It would be negligent not to.

Many people dislike/d Donald and thought he would make an incredibly incompetent and possibly compromised president, but they investigated in a professional manner. There is no evidence that anyone in the FBI ever tried to frame him, so - no, there was no "plot".

Fantine · Aug 12, 2019

NightHawkeye said:
LOL, I know how you must feel.

I've listened to all the lies for over two years now about how the downfall of the Trump administration was imminent this week or next week. Yet, somehow the deadline always slipped away into the future. Now, that deadline looks like maybe the twelfth of never, possibly later.

Be patient though. This is the government. There's always some well-meaning civil servant who just can't quite get the job done by the appointed deadline, or who encounters yet another legal impediment.

It has been Trump's obstruction and the appointment of enablers and downright accomplices to DOJ and other positions that has prevented the truth from being confirmed.

I believe in the dozens of well-researched investigative reports much more than Barr, whom I feel should be indicted when the truth comes out.

I am glad for the many states pursuing the truth because they are beyond the reach of the suppressors. I am glad that Deutsche and other banks have released Manafort and other records whose transactions can be linked to Trump. If that's what it takes to bring him to justice that's what has to be done.

No innocent man would act as completely guilty as Trump does.

cow451 · Aug 12, 2019

NightHawkeye said:
I would invite readers to note the title and subject of the thread. Thanks.

Oh, that’s right. The documents that haven’t led to anything yet. Thanks for keeping us on track. :wave:

NightHawkeye · Aug 12, 2019

Fantine said:
It has been Trump's obstruction and the appointment of enablers and downright accomplices to DOJ and other positions that has prevented the truth from being confirmed.

I believe in the dozens of well-researched investigative reports much more than Barr, whom I feel should be indicted when the truth comes out.

I am glad for the many states pursuing the truth because they are beyond the reach of the suppressors. I am glad that Deutsche and other banks have released Manafort and other records whose transactions can be linked to Trump. If that's what it takes to bring him to justice that's what has to be done.

No innocent man would act as completely guilty as Trump does.

No argument from me on putting Trump behind bars ... if he's guilty of treason or high crimes and misdemeanors, or even Russian collusion, lock him up. Innocent until proven guilty though ... there has to be evidence. So far, the opposition admits to having no evidence.

I feel the same way about all sides here and look forward to seeing what evidence Bill Barr comes up with.

Fantine · Aug 12, 2019

The opposition has dozens of subpoenas and lawsuits pending to obtain the evidence that is already there. That's a big difference.

There are also subpoenas for former and current Trump employees which have been ignored.

He says executive privilege, but if he gets all his news from Fox and Friends, Doesn't read reports or attend meetings, ears cheeseburgers in bed and can't talk in sentences he ain't no executive.

NightHawkeye · Aug 12, 2019

Fantine said:
The opposition has dozens of subpoenas and lawsuits pending to obtain the evidence that is already there. That's a big difference.

There are also subpoenas for former and current Trump employees which have been ignored.

He says executive privilege, but if he gets all his news from Fox and Friends, Doesn't read reports or attend meetings, ears cheeseburgers in bed and can't talk in sentences he ain't no executive.

Not gonna buy into the conspiracy theories which some Democrats have been promoting. Mueller had years and a swarm of high-powered anti-Trump talent ... but produced no evidence of criminal wrong-doing by Trump. If he had, Mueller would have referred charges for impeachment.

What will you say if indictments and even convictions of those who started the Russia investigation happen? Already, there's more criminal evidence of wrong-doing by those who started the Russian investigation than there is against Trump.

Fantine · Aug 12, 2019

Mueller did not recommend charges because he was told a sitting president could not be indicted. He indicated that there were numerous incidents of obstruction. He wrote AG Barr about his attempts to deceive the public with his own sham interpretation of the report which incorrectly interpreted the evidence therein.

Since then, the House Committees have been trying to gain copies of the underlying evidence and the unredacted report, and Barr has refused--because God forbid if the truth ever came out!

To give an analogy: Let's say John Gotti or a similar Mafia boss was indicted on numerous criminal charges--and managed to pull strings so that the District Attorney for the district was a puppet who would do his bidding. What would the chances be that the citizenry would be fairly represented? Or that he would be convicted?

I am not drawing a comparison between the president and Mafia bosses (although numerous columnists and others have...) i am just giving an analogy.

NightHawkeye · Aug 12, 2019

Fantine said:
Mueller did not recommend charges because he was told a sitting president could not be indicted.

Not true.

Barr specifically asked Mueller if that was the reason. Three times Mueller said it wasn't. Mueller also stated that in congressional testimony.

cow451 · Aug 12, 2019

cow451 · Aug 12, 2019

Fantine said:
I am not drawing a comparison between the president and Mafia bosses (although numerous columnists and others have...) i am just giving an analogy.

A poster, however, is inclined to draw such a comparison in management style which would be consistent with a President’s response to a perceived threat.

DaisyDay · Aug 12, 2019

NightHawkeye said:
No argument from me on putting Trump behind bars ... if he's guilty of treason or high crimes and misdemeanors, or even Russian collusion, lock him up. Innocent until proven guilty though ... there has to be evidence. So far, the opposition admits to having no evidence.

That is contrary to actual fact. There is evidence up the wazoo. However, ignorance of the law and difficulty proving intent got Donald off the collusion hook. I believe 10 separate instances of obstruction were documented; appointing sycophant Barr got Donald off the obstruction hook.

I feel the same way about all sides here and look forward to seeing what evidence Bill Barr comes up with.

In the meanwhile, Andrew McCabe is suing for wrongful termination.

NPR said:
"It was Trump's unconstitutional plan and scheme to discredit and remove DOJ and FBI employees who were deemed to be his partisan opponents because they were not politically loyal to him," the complaint alleges.

Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions dismissed McCabe in March 2018, only hours before his 50th birthday, when his full law enforcement pension would have vested. McCabe's filing argues that he is "entitled to his full law enforcement pension and all other benefits, privileges, and rights currently being withheld."

Link to Legal Complaint - McCabe v Barr, the US DOJ, Christopher Wray, and the FBI.

DaisyDay · Aug 12, 2019

NightHawkeye said:
Not gonna buy into the conspiracy theories which some Democrats have been promoting.

I see what you did! ^_^

If people call your "Russian hoax" a conspiracy theory, you're going to call their charges the same! ^_^

How Trumpian.

Mueller had years and a swarm of high-powered anti-Trump talent ... but produced no evidence of criminal wrong-doing by Trump. If he had, Mueller would have referred charges for impeachment.

That isn't true. He came up with many instances of obstruction. He said the difficulty proving intent precluded conspiracy charges, not that there was no evidence.

What will you say if indictments and even convictions of those who started the Russia investigation happen? Already, there's more criminal evidence of wrong-doing by those who started the Russian investigation than there is against Trump.

Only in your fantasies. We all know this is just vindictive "you investigated me, so I'll investigate you!" poop.

Hank77 · Aug 12, 2019

Fantine said:
Mueller did not recommend charges because he was told a sitting president could not be indicted. He indicated that there were numerous incidents of obstruction. He wrote AG Barr about his attempts to deceive the public with his own sham interpretation of the report which incorrectly interpreted the evidence therein.

Since then, the House Committees have been trying to gain copies of the underlying evidence and the unredacted report, and Barr has refused--because God forbid if the truth ever came out!

NightHawkeye said:
Not true.

Barr specifically asked Mueller if that was the reason. Three times Mueller said it wasn't. Mueller also stated that in congressional testimony.

I have heard this before as to why Mueller made the determination that he did, to not reach a judgement of Trump for obstruction of justice. Considering that one is innocent until proven guilty and Trump couldn't be indicted/stand trial while President, it would be unjust to state that he had committed a crime or may have committed a crime, when he couldn't defend himself in court, where it counts.

Mueller’s decision not to reach a prosecutorial judgment as to obstruction flowed from the DOJ’s policy against indicting a sitting president. Because Mueller couldn’t indict Trump, he felt it would be unfair to Trump if he reached a conclusion that Trump would be unable to challenge in court. But if Mueller merely reached no conclusion, that could leave the false impression that he found no evidence that Trump committed a crime. So Mueller famously said that he was “unable” to state that Trump “clearly did not commit obstruction of justice,” and thus his report “does not exonerate” Trump. This may sound confusing to a layperson, but it is a very careful approach that permitted Mueller to be as fair as possible to Trump under the circumstances.
Actually, Robert Mueller Was Awesome

DaisyDay · Aug 12, 2019

What Mueller, Barr Say About Obstruction of Justice - FactCheck.org

Mueller, May 29: The department’s written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report and I will describe two of them for you. First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president, because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now. And second, the opinion says that the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.

Mueller, May 29: [A]s set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.

NightHawkeye · Aug 12, 2019

DaisyDay said:
That isn't true. He came up with many instances of obstruction. He said the difficulty proving intent precluded conspiracy charges, not that there was no evidence.

As always, the standard is presumption of innocence unless convincing evidence of guilt exists.

As I've stated before let's assume you are correct, DaisyDay, and enough evidence exists that a normal criminal jury would convict under such circumstances. In effect, the nation would become the jury in that case. Once Congress makes a clear and convincing case voters will turn on Trump. Guaranteed. At the very least he wouldn't be re-elected. It wouldn't even matter about the Senate.

It would be a big win for Democrats. The only possible reason for not impeaching is that they either have no case or the charges are frivolous. Don't forget that juries throw out frivolous cases too. That helps keep prosecutors in line. After all, it was clear that Hillary broke numerous laws ... but James Comey got her off by saying that no decent prosecutor would actually bring charges because the crimes weren't of sufficient magnitude. To an extent, Comey had a point. You or I would do jail time for doing what Hillary did, but with politicians the bar is somewhat higher because voters hate to see their favored politicians harshly punished for minor matters.

So impeach. That's all Democrats have to do really. Everything else follows along and we get a new president when Trump leaves. The problem Democrats have though is that they have ... well ... nothing. Mueller provided nothing useful for impeachment. As a result Schiff and Nadler have been saying they need new investigations. If Democrats impeach for no good reason, they will be punished at election time. And if they don't impeach, it will be equally clear that they were simply bluffing. I don't see a win for Democrats out of it. Only the news media benefits in the short term. But that would seem to have a limited lifespan as well.

DaisyDay said:
Only in your fantasies. We all know this is just vindictive "you investigated me, so I'll investigate you!" poop.

I won't try to change your opinion, DaisyDay. Just don't be too surprised if things turn out a little differently than you believe they will.

whatbogsends · Aug 12, 2019

NightHawkeye said:
As always, the standard is presumption of innocence unless convincing evidence of guilt exists.

As I've stated before let's assume you are correct, DaisyDay, and enough evidence exists that a normal criminal jury would convict under such circumstances. In effect, the nation would become the jury in that case. Once Congress makes a clear and convincing case voters will turn on Trump. Guaranteed. At the very least he wouldn't be re-elected. It wouldn't even matter about the Senate.

It would be a big win for Democrats. The only possible reason for not impeaching is that they either have no case or the charges are frivolous. Don't forget that juries throw out frivolous cases too. That helps keep prosecutors in line. After all, it was clear that Hillary broke numerous laws ... but James Comey got her off by saying that no decent prosecutor would actually bring charges because the crimes weren't of sufficient magnitude. To an extent, Comey had a point. You or I would do jail time for doing what Hillary did, but with politicians the bar is somewhat higher because voters hate to see their favored politicians harshly punished for minor matters.

So impeach. That's all Democrats have to do really. Everything else follows along and we get a new president when Trump leaves. The problem Democrats have though is that they have ... well ... nothing. Mueller provided nothing useful for impeachment. As a result Schiff and Nadler have been saying they need new investigations. If Democrats impeach for no good reason, they will be punished at election time. And if they don't impeach, it will be equally clear that they were simply bluffing. I don't see a win for Democrats out of it. Only the news media benefits in the short term. But that would seem to have a limited lifespan as well.

I won't try to change your opinion, DaisyDay. Just don't be too surprised if things turn out a little differently than you believe they will.

No, the reason for not impeaching is because the Republicans in the Senate haven't shown one iota of backbone in terms of standing up to Trump. They fall in line behind Trump because politically, going against Trump hasn't worked well for Republicans. The Democrats and their strategists have expressed concern over the political fallout of an impeachment process where Trump is acquitted in the Senate.

Personally, I think they're foolish, as shining the spotlight on Trump and forcing him to testify under oath is their best strategy, but you're presenting a false dichotomy with what you've bolded above.

NightHawkeye · Aug 12, 2019

whatbogsends said:
Personally, I think they're foolish ...

In this we agree, though perhaps for different reasons.

whatbogsends said:
... as shining the spotlight on Trump and forcing him to testify under oath is their best strategy ...

Then they should have the courage of their convictions. (Also, I'm not sure why you only blamed Republicans for being cowards here.)

whatbogsends said:
... but you're presenting a false dichotomy with what you've bolded above.

... which was: "It would be a big win for Democrats. The only possible reason for not impeaching is that they either have no case or the charges are frivolous."

I don't see how this is wrong. The mainstream media will declare the "evidence" against Trump for the entire world to see and hear. I daresay few people in the entire world will escape seeing the "evidence". The only reason I can see for Democrats not impeaching is, as I stated already, "they either have no case or the charges are frivolous." Just my $0.02 though. Feel free to have a different opinion.

Hank77 · Aug 12, 2019

NightHawkeye said:
The only possible reason for not impeaching is that they either have no case or the charges are frivolous.

I don't agree. I don't want to see Trump impeached because I believe that it would make an even bigger division of the people in this country. It's bad enough as it is, we need to stick to fair elections, win or lose.

NightHawkeye said:
After all, it was clear that Hillary broke numerous laws ...

I didn't vote for Clinton so I'm not standing up for her but honestly I only know of one law that she broke that Comey had anything to do with, and that was using her private server rather than a government server for government business.

So what numerous laws did she break?

Trump investigation documents release starting Wednesday, full criminal investigation underway

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Work-in-progress

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Dona Quixote

Standing with Ukraine.

Work-in-progress

Dona Quixote

Work-in-progress

Dona Quixote

Work-in-progress

Standing with Ukraine.

Standing with Ukraine.

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Well-Known Member

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Work-in-progress

Senior Veteran

Work-in-progress

Well-Known Member

Similar threads