DOJ inquiry tied to Clinton, touted by Trump winds down with no tangible results: report

redleghunter · Jan 10, 2020

Yarddog said:
Strzok supported reopening the investigation into the emails when new ones were found just before the election. Not very tidy for Clinton which probably cost her the election.

He really had no choice. But the hard evidence was already destroyed thanks to plea deals.

Schlauch Mann · Jan 10, 2020

tulc said:
Actually, a threads point is to discuss what's in the OP, so if you'd like to discuss hypocrisy you should start a thread about that. If you have no interest in the subject contained in the OP there's nothing stopping you from just starting a different thread about something that does interest you.
tulc(isn't sure why that would be a problem)

Actually, the thread's point is to discuss what's in the OP as well as discussing what people in the thread say. Otherwise, going by your own standard, you should have started a new thread to discuss how you think my comment doesn't belong here. I'm just gonna ignore and further replies from you if this is all you have to say. Not gonna chase you down rabbit holes.

Schlauch Mann · Jan 10, 2020

The Barbarian said:
Given the fact that numerous Trump people where convicted or pleaded guilty to felonies, your assumption is faulty.

My "assumption" is that the report failed to find any evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia - you know, the whole main point of the the thing.

tulc · Jan 11, 2020

Schlauch Mann said:
Actually, the thread's point is to discuss what's in the OP

That's true.

as well as discussing what people in the thread say.

As long as it's about the OP, that's true, but if it's not about the OP it's isn't.

Otherwise, going by your own standard, you should have started a new thread to discuss how you think my comment doesn't belong here.

Actually, I think of it as more of a polite gesture to point out that the thread is about what's contained in the OP. Some people simply aren't aware that it's impolite to try and steer a thread in a different direction then what's in the OP, and if they have a desire to discuss something else it's a simple matter to start a thread about what they would rather be discussing. Of course some people simply want to derail a thread because A) they simply want everything to be about want they want to discuss or B) they want to derail a thread because they can't support the other side of a discussion. So instead of simply moving on to a discussion they can participate in they try and make the thread about something else instead. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and point out the first option (start a different thread to discuss what they want to discuss)

I'm just gonna ignore and further replies from you if this is all you have to say.

Ahhh! That reminds me of something a friend once told be: "ignoring isn't refuting" :wave:

Not gonna chase you down rabbit holes.

Interesting, you want to go on other peoples threads and dig rabbit holes and then try and pretend they're the ones doing the digging? :scratch:

tulc(wonders why Schlauch Mann doesn't just simply start another thread about the Russian investigation?) :wave:

The Barbarian · Jan 11, 2020

Schlauch Mann said:
My "assumption" is that the report failed to find any evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia - you know, the whole main point of the the thing.

Mueller found that the evidence available was not sufficient to charge Trump personally with a crime in that respect. He only documented Trump's attempts to obstruct the investigation, which is also a felony. But since the Justice Department says a sitting president can't be indicted, he could only document the attempted obstruction.

That can be remedied after Trump leaves office. If you look into Watergate or Iran-Contra, you will find that most of the perps who were convicted, were convicted for the cover-up, not the burglary/embezzlement. It's the way it usually goes, and Russiagate was no different.

The numerous criminals charged and convicted in the inquiry were mostly nailed for lying to investigators, or otherwise attempting a cover-up.

Schlauch Mann · Jan 11, 2020

The Barbarian said:
Mueller found that the evidence available was not sufficient to charge Trump personally with a crime in that respect. He only documented Trump's attempts to obstruct the investigation, which is also a felony. But since the Justice Department says a sitting president can't be indicted, he could only document the attempted obstruction.

Yet that supposed "felony obstruction" wasn't even used in the House's impeachment attempts. With the Democrats' desperate obsession with impeachment, kinda seems odd they wouldn't even add a charge as well documented as you claim.

The Barbarian · Jan 11, 2020

Schlauch Mann said:
Yet that supposed "felony obstruction" wasn't even used in the House's impeachment attempts.

Doesn't have to be. Trump handed them the evidence for his attempt to withhold aid to get Ukraine to help him get dirt on his political opponent. The obstruction charge will wait until he leaves office, when he can be indicted.

With the republicans' desperate attempt to divert attention from Trump's crimes , it's very understandable why they wouldn't want to talk about the actual crime.

After a nearly two-year investigation, culminating in a 448-page report, Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded that Russia attempted to influence the 2016 election but found insufficient evidence to prove the Trump campaign conspired with Russia. Mueller did not decide, however, if Trump obstructed justice.

The special counsel detailed 10 acts that could constitute obstruction of justice. But based on a memo from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel that says a sitting president can’t be indicted, Mueller refrained from concluding whether the evidence was sufficient to charge Trump with obstruction.
Mueller Documented Probable Cause That Trump Obstructed Justice

Schlauch Mann · Jan 11, 2020

The Barbarian said:
Doesn't have to be.

I never said it had to be. But with the utter lack of evidence with the other charges, it only makes sense to include this charge if it's as solid as you make it out to be.

Trump handed them the evidence for his attempt to withhold aid to get Ukraine to help him get dirt on his political opponent.

What evidence would that be? The Democrats brought witness that offered nothing but hearsay and suppositions. The sole meaningful witness of anything factual - Sondland - testified that Trump specifically did NOT want any quid pro quo, and testified that he never discussed withholding military or financial aid with anyone, at anytime.

Bruce Leiter · Jan 11, 2020

tulc said:
DOJ inquiry tied to Clinton, touted by Trump winds down with no tangible results: report

tulc(wonders why there wasn't a big announcement about this by the administration?)

The way I understand that investigation, it just involved the Uranium One deal, not the other Clinton actions.

tulc · Jan 11, 2020

Bruce Leiter said:
The way I understand that investigation, it just involved the Uranium One deal, not the other Clinton actions.

You mean the one that President Trump quite a lot of his supporter has claimed is true for many years now, but actually isn't? In spite of it being repeatedly debunked?
FACT CHECK: Hillary Clinton Gave 20 Percent of United States' Uranium to Russia in Exchange for Clinton Foundation Donations?
so when do you think President Trump and all those people who spread the myth about her are going to apologize? Or are they simply going to wait a week and start spreading the myth again? oops...looks like it didn't take that long:
Team Trump's latest Clinton investigation ending with a whimper
tulc(will wait to see if any of the Christians who spread the myth apologize for doing so) :wave:

Tom 1 · Jan 12, 2020

tulc said:
tulc(will wait to see if any of the Christians who spread the myth apologize for doing so)

Tulc ‘slander your enemies’ is one of the 10 commandments of Trumpism. People should stick to their beliefs, right?

tulc · Jan 12, 2020

Tom Farebrother said:
Tulc ‘slander your enemies’ is one of the 10 commandments of Trumpism. People should stick to their beliefs, right?

Sadly true.
tulc(not enough coffee in the world sometimes)

tulc · Jan 12, 2020

SeventyOne said:
From the second sentence of the story, "The investigation has not formally ended and no official notice has been sent to the Justice Department or lawmakers".

Yes, that's why it was said to end with a wimper. :wave:

But if you feel strongly enough perhaps you should let all these people know it "didn't end"?
Justice Department inquiry into Hillary Clinton's business dealings winds down - CNN Video

Another vindication for Clinton as probe reportedly hits dead end

Surprise, Surprise: The DOJ’s Hillary Clinton Investigation Has Been a Bust

Report: Probe into alleged Clinton corruption closes

The Justice Department investigation into Trump's claims of Hillary Clinton's corruption is reportedly over, and found nothing
because they also all seem to think it ended. :wave:

Perhaps that's why. You can always be counted on to spread gossip and rumors.

well...since this is actual news that I've supported with several links explaining why I believe what I believe perhaps you should try and not make this about me? I do understand how it must be really frustrating realizing the whole "Hillary Clinton is a crook!!" belief, which is one of the cornerstones for some of President Trumps supporters, is actually just that, a myth. And I know people can get a little...cranky if it's shown that one of those beloved cornerstones is simply a myth used by President Trump to manipulate his base into doing what he wants. That's why I don't take it personally when people try the make it about me instead of addressing the OP. :oldthumbsup:

tulc(just posting stuff on CF and drinking some more coffee)

The Barbarian · Jan 12, 2020

Schlauch Mann said:
What evidence would that be?

The transcript of the call handed over by the WH. Testimony of those who were actually witnessing the call. Emails of Trump underlings discussing Trump's actions, worried about it being a crime. Stuff like that.

The Democrats brought witness that offered nothing but hearsay and suppositions.

No, that's wrong:
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council aide, said he thought President Trump's July 25 call to the Ukrainian leader was "inappropriate."

He said he listened to the call in the Situation Room with White House colleagues.

"I was concerned by the call, what I heard was inappropriate, and I reported my concerns to Mr. Eisenberg," Vindman said.

The decorated service member went on to explain why he thought the call was inappropriate.

"It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a US citizen and a political opponent. It was also clear that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma, it would be interpreted as a partisan play. This would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing bipartisan support, undermine US national security, and advance Russia's strategic objectives in the region."
Vindman says he was concerned by July 25 call because "what I heard was inappropriate"

The sole meaningful witness of anything factual - Sondland - testified that Trump specifically did NOT want any quid pro quo,

No. Sondland testified that after Trump was aware that he had been reported, he then said he didn't want it. Which contradicts the emails that say he did.

The call occurred on September 7th. In this call, Trump did say there was “no quid pro quo” with Ukraine, but he then went on to outline his preconditions for releasing the security assistance and granting a White House visit. The call was so alarming that when John Bolton learned of it, he ordered his deputy Tim Morrison to immediately report it to the National Security Council lawyers.

...

the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union told Ukrainians officials that there would be a “pre-requisite of investigations” before any White House meeting would occur. (Sondland Opening Statement, Nov. 20, 2019, at 10; Hill Depo. at 27; Vindman Depo. at 29)
President Trump asked President Zelenskyy for the “favor” of an investigation into Joe Biden and the false, Russian-backed claims that it was Ukraine that interfered in the 2016 U.S. election. (Memcon of Trump-Zelenskyy Call, July 25, 2019)

...

Trump demanded that President Zelenskyy make a public announcement that he was opening an investigation into Biden and the 2016 election as a pre-requisite before he would agree to a White House meeting. (Sondland Opening Statement, Nov. 20, 2019, at 14)
President Trump’s personal attorney told both American officials and Ukrainian officials that the president would require, as a quid pro quo, that Ukraine announce the desired investigations before any White House meeting would occur. (Sondland Opening Statement, Nov. 20, 2019, at 14)
At a meeting in Warsaw, Poland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union informed a senior Ukrainian official that the security assistance money would not be released until Ukraine publicly announced an investigation into “Burisma and 2016.” (Sondland Declaration, Nov. 4, 2019, at 2; Taylor Opening Statement, Oct. 22, 2019, at 10-11; Morrison Depo. at 144-145)

Here's the Proof that Trump's "No Quid Pro Quo" Call Never Happened

and testified that he never discussed withholding military or financial aid with anyone, at anytime.

See above.

U.S. Ambassador Gordon Sondland tells the House impeachment hearing that President Trump directed his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani to pursue a “quid pro quo” with Ukraine.

“Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit” for Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Sondland says.

“Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President,” he adds.
Trump ordered Ukraine 'quid pro quo' through Giuliani, key witness Sondland testifies

The Barbarian · Jan 12, 2020

For weeks, officials at the Office of Management and Budget ignored warnings from the Department of Defense that placing a hold on a congressionally appropriated $391 million military-aid package to Ukraine violated the law, according to new unredacted emails obtained by Just Security and published Thursday.
...
between June and September — when the aid was ultimately released following an anonymous whistleblower's complaint — the Defense Department repeatedly asked the OMB why the military aid was being held up.

Crucially, the department warned several times that continuing to withhold the aid violated the Impoundment Control Act, which stipulates that if the federal funds are not spent on their designated purpose within a certain period, they will be taken, or impounded, by the Treasury Department.
Explosive new documents reveal the lengths to which the Justice Department went to conceal the Pentagon's concerns about Trump's Ukraine aid freeze

The Barbarian · Jan 14, 2020

Yarddog said:
There's far more evidence that he killed himself than the Clintons had anything to do with it.

Well, there is the fact that the executive branch of our government is now controlled by the Clintons, who would have the power to pull off a killing in federal lockup.

Oh, wait...

Queller · Jan 14, 2020

Bobber said:
Not sure too many Republican EVER SAID such a thing especially Trump supporters. Most I think have given up in despair that justice will ever be done. It's just baked in the cake.....if you're a Clinton you get a free pass.

7-8 Republican-led investigations all gave Clinton a free pass?

The Barbarian · Jan 14, 2020

Queller said:
7-8 Republican-led investigations all gave Clinton a free pass?

It was pretty funny watching Trey Gowdy at the news conference ending the "investigation." The reporters kept trying to get him to summarize the findings, and he kept telling them to read the report. He repeatedly refused to admit that all of his work to find something criminal Clinton had done had been in vain.

Mountainmanbob · Jan 15, 2020

tulc said:
tulc(wonders why there wasn't a big announcement about this by the administration?)

Because, as usual everyone knows that she was caught dirty but, the Clintons have friends in high places.
High places = The Swamp.
M-Bob

The Barbarian · Jan 15, 2020

Mountainmanbob said:
Because, as usual everyone knows that she was caught dirty

Seems unlikely, since Trey Gowdy spent tens of millions of our money in an attempt to find something, anything she might have done wrong, and came up with nothing.

but, the Clintons have friends in high places.

That might be one explanation. But "lack of a crime" is a more realistic conclusion.

High places = The Swamp.

Lately, yes:

DOJ inquiry tied to Clinton, touted by Trump winds down with no tangible results: report

Thank You Jesus!

Active Member

Active Member

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

Crabby Old White Guy

Active Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Active Member

A sinner saved by God's astounding grace and love

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

Optimistic sceptic

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

I'm where?

Crabby Old White Guy

Goat Whisperer

Crabby Old White Guy

Similar threads