Duh duh dummmmmmmm.....

Duh duh dummmmmmmm.....

He has reportedly plead to lying to FBI. Still nothing that confirms collusion.

I want this investigation confirmed one way or the other, legit, least amount of politics as possible.

I can't wait for this to be finalized, it's so painful to watch all this posturing.

He has reportedly plead to lying to FBI. Still nothing that confirms collusion.

I want this investigation confirmed one way or the other, legit, least amount of politics as possible.

You know better than this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Where is the outrage?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I want this investigation confirmed one way or the other, legit, least amount of politics as possible.

this is entirely the result of Obama/Clinton politicization of the FBI

this is entirely the result of Obama/Clinton politicization of the FBI


No... it has everything to do with Flynn lying to the FBI and the administration claiming no one spoke to the Russians

But Trump supports are so loyal it wont matter truth has never mattered

I love the feigned outrage from the left. A selective group with short memories I would say.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mike Flynn could be the new Ollie North.

I love the feigned outrage from the left. A selective group with short memories I would say.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


what selective group memories are you suggesting ?

no outrage.. just living in the present along with the facts as they appear ... and waiting to see the next shoe to drop

what selective group memories are you suggesting ?
To some, Clinton's improper use of private email is the same thing as colluding with the enemy to undermine your own government.

colluding with the enemy to undermine your own government.



pretty big stretch there...you've been overly dramatic lately

So Trump fired Flynn because he lied to the FBI then fired Comey for investigating that lie?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So Trump fired Flynn because he lied to the FBI then fired Comey for investigating that lie?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think Comey went away for incompetence...that seemed to be the bi-partisan review of his job performance...Flynn went away for optics, sounds like he's pleading guilty to a speeding ticket which is funny considering the bluster

pretty big stretch there...you've been overly dramatic lately
Seems like you have two examples already proven. Will be interesting to see how many more come to light.

I think Comey went away for incompetence...that seemed to be the bi-partisan review of his job performance...Flynn went away for optics, sounds like he's pleading guilty to a speeding ticket which is funny considering the bluster
0 for 3.

Seems like you have two examples already proven. Will be interesting to see how many more come to light.

I hope so for your sake...

To some, Clinton's improper use of private email is the same thing as colluding with the enemy to undermine your own government.

Define enemy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

0 for 3.

Prominent liberals and conservatives states comet wasn’t up to the job. He was right on that.

If you didn’t want an investigation of Hilary, or looked for every conceivablenreason to giver her a pass, then unless you do the same with Flynn, there’s some hypocrisy there.

I wanted Hilary investigated, I want Flynn investigated. We need people with better ethical standards, we really do, and that applies to both sides.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I just listened to a former democrat congressman explain that there has been no collusion demonstrated...there is not likely to be any collusion demonstrated and that his hope and expectation was that Trump, going forward would do something that could be construed as obstruction of justice, reminding us of 1972, and then they could nail him....this is just sad;)

here's the REAL question...if Flynn testifies that he identifies as an illegal immigrant....will they just let him go?

here's the REAL question...if Flynn testifies that he identifies as an illegal immigrant....will they just let him go?

Nope. He’s not in a sanctuary city.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

✔
@realDonaldTrump
Tainted (no, very dishonest?) FBI “agent’s role in Clinton probe under review.” Led Clinton Email probe. @foxandfriends Clinton money going to wife of another FBI agent in charge.

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
After years of Comey, with the phony and dishonest Clinton investigation (and more), running the FBI, its reputation is in Tatters - worst in History! But fear not, we will bring it back to greatness.
The president seized on the officer's dismissal, tweeting: "Report:

'ANTI-TRUMP FBI AGENT LED CLINTON EMAIL PROBE' Now it all starts to make sense!"


A spokesman for Mr Mueller said the officer was dismissed from the investigating team as soon as the messages were discovered.


Another example of a trump trying the discredit his own FBI (as Fake news) and who says he is not an Authoritarian .he has no time for the rule of law unless it falls on his side

sounds like it's a real mess over there...

U.S. House Republicans are drafting a contempt of Congress resolution against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray, claiming stonewalling in producing material related to the Russia-Trump probes and other matters.

Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes and other committee Republicans, after considering such action for several weeks, decided to move after media including the New York Times reported Saturday on why a top FBI official assigned to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of Russia-Trump election collusion had been removed from the investigation.

“a months-long pattern by the DOJ and FBI of stonewalling and obstructing this Committee’s oversight work,” including also withholding subpoenaed information about their use of an opposition research dossier that targeted Trump in the 2016 election.


maybe Trump can 'Make the FBI Great Again":cool:

Let’s all watch ABC to get the straight scoop on what’s happening with this story.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

typical democrats..there should be an investigation of democrat criminal hackery ..talk about "collusion"

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-in-trump-russia-probe-was-it-all-about-the-logan-act/article/2642434

The documents outlining Michael Flynn's guilty plea in the Trump-Russia investigation do not allege collusion or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the 2016 election. They do, however, suggest that the Obama Justice Department was intensely interested in Flynn's discussions:think: with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak about policy issues — sanctions against Russia, a United Nations resolution on Israel — during the presidential transition, when Barack Obama was still in the White House and Donald Trump was preparing to take office.

At the time, top Justice officials suspected Flynn of violating the Logan Act, the 218-year-old law under which no one has ever been prosecuted.:huh:

In short, there's no doubt the Logan Act, a law dismissed as a joke or an archaic irrelevancy or simply unconstitutional by many legal experts, played a central role in the Obama administration's aggressive and enormously consequential investigation of its successor.:lasso:

Democrats began accusing Trump of Logan Act violations in the summer of 2016, immediately after the Republican convention.:deadhorse:

There wasn't much public discussion of the Logan Act in October and November, as the campaign reached its final weeks and the political world dealt with the shock of Trump's victory. The subject re-emerged in December as Democrats, stunned and angry, watched Trump prepare for the presidency — and prepare to undo many of Obama's policies.:realmad:

On Dec. 8, Democratic Rep. Jared Huffman introduced the "One President at a Time Act of 2016." The bill would have amended the Logan Act to specify that a president-elect, or anyone acting on a president-elect's behalf, was specifically subject to its restrictions.:kewl:

On Dec. 20, Reps. Conyers:humpty: and Sheila Jackson Lee:screwy: asked the Justice Department to investigate Trump for a possible violation of the Logan Act.

A critical moment came two weeks later, on Jan. 12, 2017, when the Washington Post's David Ignatius reported the Flynn-Kislyak calls. Ignatius said his source was a "senior U.S. government official." "What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions?" Ignatius asked. "The Logan Act (though never enforced):rtfm: bars U.S. citizens from correspondence intending to influence a foreign government about 'disputes' with the United States."

It was a stunning leak; the existence and content of U.S. spy intercepts are highly, highly classified. But the Obama administration let the information out.:drevil:

And by the way, when it finally came time to charge Flynn with a crime, did prosecutors:huh:, armed with the transcripts of those Flynn-Kislyak conversations, choose to charge him with violating the Logan Act? Of course not.:bs: But for the Obama team:gh:, the law had already served its purpose, months earlier, to entangle the new administration in a criminal investigation as soon as it walked:walk:in the door of the White House.:smash:

But Trump supports are so loyal it wont matter truth has never mattered



and just to reiterate...I don't like Trump...don't think many here do ....that does not make the democrat habit of use of government through any means necessary to maintain and promote their agenda any less despicable... I judge Trump on a level playing field of rules the democrats themselves have established....hopefully, post-Trump there will be a rekindling of spirit and respect for the laws and tradition that keep all parties in check...that is lost for now as the end justifies the means clearly rules the day....


now on to obstruction...did you get the memo in your inbox yet?

and just to reiterate...I don't like Trump...don't think many here do ....that does not make the democrat habit of use of government through any means necessary to maintain and promote their agenda any less despicable... I judge Trump on a level playing field of rules the democrats themselves have established....hopefully, post-Trump there will be a rekindling of spirit and respect for the laws and tradition that keep all parties in check...that is lost for now as the end justifies the means clearly rules the day....


now on to obstruction...did you get the memo in your inbox yet?

you as well as other appear that there is no collusion.. but the case is on going 2 guilty pleas and counting and as for obstruction he is tweeting his way right into that one .. or is that another false possibility ...

typical democrats..there should be an investigation of democrat criminal hackery ..talk about "collusion"

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-in-trump-russia-probe-was-it-all-about-the-logan-act/article/2642434

The documents outlining Michael Flynn's guilty plea in the Trump-Russia investigation do not allege collusion or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the 2016 election. They do, however, suggest that the Obama Justice Department was intensely interested in Flynn's discussions:think: with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak about policy issues — sanctions against Russia, a United Nations resolution on Israel — during the presidential transition, when Barack Obama was still in the White House and Donald Trump was preparing to take office.

At the time, top Justice officials suspected Flynn of violating the Logan Act, the 218-year-old law under which no one has ever been prosecuted.:huh:

In short, there's no doubt the Logan Act, a law dismissed as a joke or an archaic irrelevancy or simply unconstitutional by many legal experts, played a central role in the Obama administration's aggressive and enormously consequential investigation of its successor.:lasso:

Democrats began accusing Trump of Logan Act violations in the summer of 2016, immediately after the Republican convention.:deadhorse:

There wasn't much public discussion of the Logan Act in October and November, as the campaign reached its final weeks and the political world dealt with the shock of Trump's victory. The subject re-emerged in December as Democrats, stunned and angry, watched Trump prepare for the presidency — and prepare to undo many of Obama's policies.:realmad:

On Dec. 8, Democratic Rep. Jared Huffman introduced the "One President at a Time Act of 2016." The bill would have amended the Logan Act to specify that a president-elect, or anyone acting on a president-elect's behalf, was specifically subject to its restrictions.:kewl:

On Dec. 20, Reps. Conyers:humpty: and Sheila Jackson Lee:screwy: asked the Justice Department to investigate Trump for a possible violation of the Logan Act.

A critical moment came two weeks later, on Jan. 12, 2017, when the Washington Post's David Ignatius reported the Flynn-Kislyak calls. Ignatius said his source was a "senior U.S. government official." "What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions?" Ignatius asked. "The Logan Act (though never enforced):rtfm: bars U.S. citizens from correspondence intending to influence a foreign government about 'disputes' with the United States."

It was a stunning leak; the existence and content of U.S. spy intercepts are highly, highly classified. But the Obama administration let the information out.:drevil:

And by the way, when it finally came time to charge Flynn with a crime, did prosecutors:huh:, armed with the transcripts of those Flynn-Kislyak conversations, choose to charge him with violating the Logan Act? Of course not.:bs: But for the Obama team:gh:, the law had already served its purpose, months earlier, to entangle the new administration in a criminal investigation as soon as it walked:walk:in the door of the White House.:smash:


tin foil hats in fashion once again

you as well as other appear that there is no collusion.. but the case is on going 2 guilty pleas and counting and as for obstruction he is tweeting his way right into that one .. or is that another false possibility ...

Here is a sincere question, not a sarcastic wise-ass comment...

Collusion between whom? For what purpose?

When Flynn met with Russians (which he lied about, and deserves to be punished for that because he knows better), was he working for Trump at the time?

You know better than this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No Spence, I do know better and I suspect several different avenues are possible and I want a proper investigation to get to the core truths.

You know how I feel WRT Russian Interference / Influence in the election, they did it and it was an operation that paid off their investment (and O should have hampered it but the effectiveness of a sternly worded letter dot dot dot) . This is what Russians do, the Soviets did (to the benefit of Dem party for decades) and what the Czars did before them (something a barely competent Secretary of State would know).

I do not think they "Hacked" the election tampering with voting machines. The Dems still effed up running Hillary who beat - or stole - from Marty from MD, The Missing Link, and a Commie. That is what cost the middle.

I believe DJT has more shadiness with RUS than what is confirmed and I also believe the Russians actively sprinkle false breadcrumbs for people to chase in addition to legit stuff. The Steele Dossier is parts truth and half truth mixed with pure make believe - which is far more effective at polluting the political environment than an all true document.

But I do not see a post-election transition team discussing things with the RUS as colluding. We do not have verifiable proof the DJT "colluded" with RUS to rig election or hack influence (like Wikileaks). The Mueller investigation has not provided proof that there was collusion.

To some, Clinton's improper use of private email is the same thing as colluding with the enemy to undermine your own government.

There ya go again with a little misdirection, and those some would be wrong. There is a difference between collusion (actively working with) and being numb nuts effing stupid with massive doses of hubris and political privilege placing significant amounts of data on unmanaged and unsecured servers for other nations' competent intelligence services to pluck from.

Alan Dershowitz is a very liberal, very famous law professor at Harvard. To quote Spence, he says that the corruption investigation thus far, is a nothingburger.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/04/alan-dershowitz-obstruction-justice-charges-against-trump-would-lead-constitutional

Alan Dershowitz is a very liberal, very famous law professor at Harvard. To quote Spence, he says that the corruption investigation thus far, is a nothingburger.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/04/alan-dershowitz-obstruction-justice-charges-against-trump-would-lead-constitutional


Republicans spent $7m on 33 separate hearings over four years. They hope to find evidence that the Secretary of State at the time, Hillary Clinton, was in some way guilty of wrongdoing. knows she would be the nominee and found nothing .. and now theses same republicans are crying foul ... curious

but now they are upset with the current investigation

and as for obstruction he is tweeting his way right into that one .. or is that another false possibility ...

right...so hopefully they'll get him for obstructing the investigation into the collusion that they can't seem to prove :biglaugh:

Republicans spent $7m on 33 separate hearings over four years.



sounds like a bargain by DC standards

and political privilege placing significant amounts of data on unmanaged and unsecured servers for other nations' competent intelligence services to pluck from.



and remember, Obama was conversing with her highness under a pseudonym on that unsecured server

Republicans spent $7m on 33 separate hearings over four years. They hope to find evidence that the Secretary of State at the time, Hillary Clinton, was in some way guilty of wrongdoing. knows she would be the nominee and found nothing .. and now theses same republicans are crying foul ... curious

but now they are upset with the current investigation

I'm not upset that they are investigating Trump. But let's investigate thoroughly and fairly. I'm upset that some people who should know better, are acting as if there's evidence to suggest Trump is guilty. There isn't.

And Hilary was guilty of wrongdoing. She had highly classified emails on an unsecured server, and lied about it, and in true Clinton fashion, changed the precise verbiage of her story 85 times. When asked if she wiped the server, she mocked "you mean, like, with a cloth"? Hardy-har-har...

I'm not upset that they are investigating Trump. But let's investigate thoroughly and fairly. I'm upset that some people who should know better, are acting as if there's evidence to suggest Trump is guilty. There isn't.

And Hilary was guilty of wrongdoing. She had highly classified emails on an unsecured server, and lied about it, and in true Clinton fashion, changed the precise verbiage of her story 85 times. When asked if she wiped the server, she mocked "you mean, like, with a cloth"? Hardy-har-har...

There is an ongoing investigation if Trump colluded and your upset that people have a belief he is guilty (of something) yet you believe that Clinton guilty of wrongdoing even though the FBI said that while careless there is no evidence she intended to violate the law and that no reasonable prosecuter would charge her.

Aren't you in someways doing what your upset others are doing?

There is an ongoing investigation if Trump colluded and your upset that people have a belief he is guilty (of something) yet you believe that Clinton guilty of wrongdoing even though the FBI said that while careless there is no evidence she intended to violate the law and that no reasonable prosecuter would charge her.

Aren't you in someways doing what your upset others are doing?

Am I missing something? Was there a special independent consul leading an investigation of her use of a private server? And didn't Comey say there was evidence of a crime being committed or that a crime was committed but that, in his opinion, no reasonable prosecutor would charge her. And wasn't his assumption vehemently protested as false, that he actually laid out a more than reasonable case for prosecution.

Republicans spent $7m on 33 separate hearings over four years. They hope to find evidence that the Secretary of State at the time, Hillary Clinton, was in some way guilty of wrongdoing. knows she would be the nominee and found nothing .. and now theses same republicans are crying foul ... curious

but now they are upset with the current investigation

There was an investigation of why Benghazi went wrong--it did actually go wrong. They weren't searching for evidence that it went wrong. It actually did go wrong. And they did conclude what why it went wrong and laid much of the blame on SecState. The notion of nothing being found is political spin.

The Benghazi investigation was not a search for evidence. The supposed Trump collusion investigation is not based on a known crime. Nor on the basis of evidence that Trump collusion occurred. It is a hunt for evidence. Which is standing due process on its head.

Am I missing something? Was there a special independent consul leading an investigation of her use of a private server? And didn't Comey say there was evidence of a crime being committed or that a crime was committed but that, in his opinion, no reasonable prosecutor would charge her. And wasn't his assumption vehemently protested as false, that he actually laid out a more than reasonable case for prosecution.
I believe he stated there wasn't enough evidence to charge anyone with a crime.

I believe he stated there wasn't enough evidence to charge anyone with a crime.

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." - James Comey

I believe he stated there wasn't enough evidence to charge anyone with a crime.

He said "“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgement is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

There was no special prosecutor to investigate this "evidence," there was no congressional investigation. There is no comparison of it to what is happening in the Trump/collusion investigation. Clinton did violate statutes on handling classified information. There was not only evidence that she did, there was proof that she did. It simply wasn't prosecuted on the opinion of Comey that no reasonable person would prosecute if because no proof of intent, even though the statute did not allow lack of intent as an excuse.

In the meantime, Trump is being investigated in order to find evidence, and even to find if a crime was even committed--no known crime, no evidence, yet there is an investigation.

How is there even a minute comparison in how the Clinton and Trump matters were/are being handled?

Alan Dershowitz is a very liberal, very famous law professor at Harvard. To quote Spence, he says that the corruption investigation thus far, is a nothingburger.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/04/alan-dershowitz-obstruction-justice-charges-against-trump-would-lead-constitutional

The Dersh - spent time on Epstein's Island with Willy Clinton and Trump, right? Don't know if that is true (DJT and BC on Island of underage sexploitation) but might explain the rare space where AD, BC, DT intersect.

(returns Eben's TFH)

There is an ongoing investigation if Trump colluded and your upset that people have a belief he is guilty (of something) yet you believe that Clinton guilty of wrongdoing even though the FBI said that while careless there is no evidence she intended to violate the law and that no reasonable prosecuter would charge her.

Aren't you in someways doing what your upset others are doing?

I'm upset that the reporting is as blatantly dishonest as it is. A once highly respected reporter at ABC got suspended for a month, because he lied through his teeth about a big scoop, to the point where it caused the stock market to go down because if he was telling the truth, it sounded like impeachment was likely.

I'm upset because any credibility the mainstream media had before he won the election, is gone. A free press can be a vitally important thing to securing our democracy, now the press is trying to undermine our democracy. It's a violation of a sacred trust.

That's why I am upset, so you can stop speculating, wrongly, about why I am upset.

"the FBI said that while careless there is no evidence she intended to violate the law"

People get found guilty all the time, of doing things without specifically intending to break the law. Intent isn't always a prerequisite. And this is the same FBI that was headed up by Loretta Lynch, who had a secret meeting with Bill on his plane, just before the announcement of no charges?

"Aren't you in someways doing what your upset others are doing"

I do not believe so.

I declared Hilary guilty after I knew she lied about having classified emails on her server. There's nothing remotely that compelling, to suggest Trump illegally colluded with anyone. If there is, charge him. If there isn't, stop claiming there is.

The Dersh - spent time on Epstein's Island with Willy Clinton and Trump, right? Don't know if that is true (DJT and BC on Island of underage sexploitation) but might explain the rare space where AD, BC, DT intersect.

(returns Eben's TFH)

I have no idea. I do know that I just lost my appetite.

It's hard not to take notice when Dershowitz defends Trump, and he has really been critical of the Mueller investigation for going way outside the scope of its authority. I have no idea if that's true, but I presume he knows a thing or two about the subject.

.

There's nothing remotely that compelling, to suggest Trump illegally colluded with anyone. If there is, charge him. They are looking into whether he colluded currently. Do you want them to rush to judgement? If there isn't, stop claiming there is.

There is more than collusion - which they are currently looking at.

Trump just said he fired Flynn for lying to the FBI then after he knew this he fired the FBI agent looking into that. What do you call that?

There is more than collusion - which they are currently looking at.

Trump just said he fired Flynn for lying to the FBI then after he knew this he fired the FBI agent looking into that. What do you call that?

"are looking into whether he colluded currently"

And that's fine. But that's not what ABC reported, which even impacted the stock market. This is why the guy got elected, because of what liberals, and their PR minions in the media, do to conservatives.

"Trump just said he fired Flynn for lying to the FBI then after he knew this he fired the FBI agent looking into that. What do you call that? "

Stupidity.

Paul, I have no problem with the investigation. The reporting of the investigation, is horribly distorted. As it always is when Trump/Hitler is concerned.

"are looking into whether he colluded currently"

And that's fine. But that's not what ABC reported, which even impacted the stock market. This is why the guy got elected, because of what liberals, and their PR minions in the media, do to conservatives. Drudge, Breitbart, Conservatives, and their PR minions in the media reported that Clinton was running a child sex ring out of Comet pizza - is that different?

"Trump just said he fired Flynn for lying to the FBI then after he knew this he fired the FBI agent looking into that. What do you call that? "

Stupidity.

Paul, I have no problem with the investigation. The reporting of the investigation, is horribly distorted. As it always is when Trump/Hitler is concerned.

Same thing - both sides.

Same thing - both sides.

"Drudge, Breitbart, Conservatives, and their PR minions in the media reported that Clinton was running a child sex ring out of Comet pizza - is that different?"

I literally have zero knowledge of the story you are talking about. I will tell you that I have never, not once, looked at Breitbart or Drudge, nor do I think they are anywhere near as influential as ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC.

I googled that story you mentioned...all I saw were reports that it was fake news. I don't know who reported it as legitimate, or for how long. Shame on Breitbart and Drudge if they presented it as real.

yeah...I've never heard that one either...sounds like something Clinton would do though...

But I do not see a post-election transition team discussing things with the RUS as colluding. We do not have verifiable proof the DJT "colluded" with RUS to rig election or hack influence (like Wikileaks). The Mueller investigation has not provided proof that there was collusion.
At this point I don't think it's the point of the Mueller investigation to provide proof for anything beyond what they have indicted. Certainly these plea agreements are not given as get out of jail free cards. They are evidence that further indictments are justified for more severe crimes.

There's also plenty of evidence that does indicate pre-election collusion did occur. Even if it wasn't substantial we do know for a fact there were attempts to collude with Russia and Wikileaks (i.e. Russia) to influence the election.

Roll this together with the Turkey connection to kidnap a dissident, attempts to influence US policy at the UN and lest we not forget Manefort's earlier efforts to set GOP policy relative to his cash payments...there's a lot to go on. Even if it's not 100%. And there's no Russian trickery in that calculation.

Here is a sincere question, not a sarcastic wise-ass comment...

Collusion between whom? For what purpose?

When Flynn met with Russians (which he lied about, and deserves to be punished for that because he knows better), was he working for Trump at the time?

If we knew who and for what purpose the collusion investigation would be over?.

Why do you demand answers that can only come after the investigation is complete ?

If we knew who and for what purpose the collusion investigation would be over?.

Why do you demand answers that can only come after the investigation is complete ?

"If we knew who and for what purpose the collusion investigation would be over?. "

Nope. I was just asking what is alleged here.

"Why do you demand answers that can only come after the investigation is complete "

I didn't demand any answers, I asked a simple question. One that you could not answer.

Duh duh dummmmmmmm.....

Out of curiosity...isn't it true that if the democrats hadn't done so many unethical things during the campaign, that there would have been nothing for Wikileaks to reveal?

If the democrats' actions were so underhanded, that it cost them the election when the public found out...why is the whole story centered around how it was revealed? Is anyone asking why the democrats behaved this way? Was there anything in the wikileaks dump that wasn't true?

Out of curiosity...isn't it true that if the democrats hadn't done so many unethical things during the campaign, that there would have been nothing for Wikileaks to reveal?

If the democrats' actions were so underhanded, that it cost them the election when the public found out...why is the whole story centered around how it was revealed? Is anyone asking why the democrats behaved this way?
Honestly...I'd like you, off the top of your head, to tell me one thing revealed by Wikileaks that was unethical.

No cheating.

Honestly...I'd like you, off the top of your head, to tell me one thing revealed by Wikileaks that was unethical.

No cheating.

First, I'd answer that with a question...if there was nothing unethical in there, why are liberals saying that the release of the emails, tilted the election for Trump?

Anyway, to answer your question, I believe the emails revealed the following...thids is going off memory from a year ago, so give me some leeway, OK?

that the Hilary campaign thought Obama was lying when he outrageously said he found out about Hilary's email server by watching the news, just like everyone else.

Huma Abedin had some criticism of Hilary's political skills, can't recall what it was (I am not cheating at your request).

team Clinton had some choice terms for Bernie Sanders

my favorite, that Catholics adhere to backwards gender relations

that CNN fed debate questions (maybe just 1) to Hilary. That's a very very big deal. Not surprising that the DNC would elect as its leader, someone who would think this is acceptable.

if team Hilary (Podesta and others) had not done these things, there would have been no "scandal". Has anyone claim that the hacked emails were not authentic?

I answered your question. Now please answer mine. If the leaked emails revealed unethical actions that turned many voters off Hilary, why is the only concern, how those emails came to be released? Shouldn't SOME attention be given to what's in those emails? Because only Foxnews cared about the content of the emails. Everyone else was obsessed with figuring out how they came to be released.

I answered your question. Now please answer mine. If the leaked emails revealed unethical actions that turned many voters off Hilary, why is the only concern, how those emails came to be released? Shouldn't SOME attention be given to what's in those emails? Because only Foxnews cared about the content of the emails. Everyone else was obsessed with figuring out how they came to be released.
I'm not sure how any of that is unethical. You have to believe in a campaign people will be discussing all sorts of things regarding messaging and strategy. Quite a contrast to how to use illegally gained information from an enemy of the USA to undermine our democratic process.

But with the news cycles anything related to a "hack" will grab the headlines regardless of what it contains. Oh wait, and the people leaking might just be in cahoots with the trolls flooding facebook and twitter with storied about said hack to stir the pot.

Clinton + hack = bad. It didn't even really matter what the content was.

At this point I don't think it's the point of the Mueller investigation to provide proof for anything beyond what they have indicted. Certainly these plea agreements are not given as get out of jail free cards. They are evidence that further indictments are justified for more severe crimes.


At this point Mueller needs to accurately and swiftly prove and indict those that may have colluded with Russia prior to the election. If that collusion does not exist or is not provable Mueller needs to conclude his investigations.

So I would suspect that the flying to FBI is an armtwist to get Flynn to cooperate more but if nothing substantial develops soon or if it is only low level stuff between lower level people time to move on. There is as many stories of Clinton / Dems paling around with the Russians (it's what they do). Sheee it or get off the pot.

There's also plenty of evidence that does indicate pre-election collusion did occur. Even if it wasn't substantial we do know for a fact there were attempts to collude with Russia and Wikileaks (i.e. Russia) to influence the election.

FBI needs to prove it, not NYT.

Roll this together with the Turkey connection to kidnap a dissident, attempts to influence US policy at the UN and lest we not forget Manefort's earlier efforts to set GOP policy relative to his cash payments...there's a lot to go on. Even if it's not 100%. And there's no Russian trickery in that calculation.


Concur on Turkey WRT Gulen. If that is proven that is a gross violation on Flynn's part, time resulting. By many accounts Flynn thinks he is smarter than he is. What he is, my understanding, is a fine boots type General, but not a Mahan or von Clausewitz.

At this point Mueller needs to accurately and swiftly prove and indict those that may have colluded with Russia prior to the election. If that collusion does not exist or is not provable Mueller needs to conclude his investigations.

So I would suspect that the flying to FBI is an armtwist to get Flynn to cooperate more but if nothing substantial develops soon or if it is only low level stuff between lower level people time to move on. There is as many stories of Clinton / Dems paling around with the Russians (it's what they do). Sheee it or get off the pot.
You don't offer a plea deal on a lesser charge to see if you can get something better. You already have (or think you have) the others in the bag and will swap for a bigger fish. My understanding is that if Flynn doesn't give up the goods the other charges will come forth.

Concur on Turkey WRT Gulen. If that is proven that is a gross violation on Flynn's part, time resulting. By many accounts Flynn thinks he is smarter than he is. What he is, my understanding, is a fine boots type General, but not a Mahan or von Clausewitz.
I think Flynn was very respected and has served his country well. Something changed though and he took a darker path. Looks now that Trump did know he lied when Trump defended him and fired Comey which just backs up the obstruction case even more.

I'm not sure how any of that is unethical. You have to believe in a campaign people will be discussing all sorts of things regarding messaging and strategy. Quite a contrast to how to use illegally gained information from an enemy of the USA to undermine our democratic process.

But with the news cycles anything related to a "hack" will grab the headlines regardless of what it contains. Oh wait, and the people leaking might just be in cahoots with the trolls flooding facebook and twitter with storied about said hack to stir the pot.

Clinton + hack = bad. It didn't even really matter what the content was.

Getting debate questions ahead of time, isnt unethical? My god you are indoctrinated.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence View Post

At this point I don't think it's the point of the Mueller investigation to provide proof for anything beyond what they have indicted.:fishin: Certainly these plea agreements are not given as get out of jail free cards. They are evidence that further indictments are justified for more severe crimes.





I was just reading an article by a guy who was a federal prosecutor who said the exact opposite....how many cases have you tried?


"Justice Department policy calls for prosecutors to indict a defendant on the most serious readily provable charge, not to plead out a case on minor charges to obtain cooperation. The federal sentencing guidelines also encourage this. They allow a judge to sentence the defendant below the often harsh guidelines calculation. This can mean a cooperator gets as little as zero jail time or time-served, no matter how serious the charges. This sentencing leniency happens only if the defendant pleads guilty and provides substantial assistance to the government’s investigation. That is what enables the prosecutor to entice an accomplice to cooperate; the prosecutor does not need to entice cooperation by pleading the case out for a song. The practice of pressuring a guilty plea to the major charges makes the accomplice a formidable witness at trial. The jury will know that he is facing a potential sentence of perhaps decades in prison unless he discloses everything he knows and tells the truth in his testimony. That is what triggers the prosecutor’s obligation to file the motion that allows the court to sentence under the guidelines-recommended sentence. Trading a plea on minor charges for cooperation is a foolish gambit that badly damages the prosecutor’s case. It suggests that the cooperator must not have disclosed details about the major scheme. Otherwise the prosecutor would have charged him with it. It implies that the prosecutor is so desperate to make a case on a major target that he gave bad actors a pass on serious charges — something experienced prosecutors know that juries hate. It is even worse to plead accomplices out on false-statements counts. This establishes that the main thing the jury should know about the accomplice is that he is not to be trusted. That is not how you make someone a strong witness. And unlike the accomplice who pleads guilty to the major scheme, an accomplice who pleads guilty to false statements is looking at a maximum sentence of just five years and a more likely sentence of no time even before he has cooperated — not much of an incentive to disclose everything and tell the truth. A good prosecutor does not front-load the benefits of cooperation; he makes the accomplice earn sentencing leniency by full disclosure and testimony."

I think Flynn was very respected and has served his country well. Something changed though and he took a darker path. Looks now that Trump did know he lied when Trump defended him and fired Comey which just backs up the obstruction case even more.


considering all of the miscreants you've defended over the years this is absolutely hilarious

you are more desperate than the NY Giants for a win...

"If we knew who and for what purpose the collusion investigation would be over?. "

Nope. I was just asking what is alleged here.

"Why do you demand answers that can only come after the investigation is complete "

I didn't demand any answers, I asked a simple question. One that you could not answer.

possible collusion is whats alleged (secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose )

we have seen guilty pleas on the deceitful part lying to the FBI or is that a nothing burger


how do you ask a question to some one (me) looking for an answers that you know i cant answer .. 1 because I am not involved in the investigation and #2 the whole thing is currently under investigation and a conclusion has not been made..

we have seen guilty pleas on the deceitful part lying to the FBI or is that a nothing burger



in one case...with Flynn...one of the "lies" was saying he didn't recall or couldn't remember something...it that's a crime Hillary should be doing consecutive life sentences

Getting debate questions ahead of time, isnt unethical? My god you are indoctrinated.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Change the subject frequently?

I was just reading an article by a guy who was a federal prosecutor who said the exact opposite....how many cases have you tried?
Prosecutors don't try cases and I'm confident the Special Prosecutor understands the law.

Prosecutors don't try cases and I'm confident the Special Prosecutor understands the law.

huh?......didn't suggest he doesn't understand the law but that your zeal is misguided....

possible collusion is whats alleged (secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose )

we have seen guilty pleas on the deceitful part lying to the FBI or is that a nothing burger


how do you ask a question to some one (me) looking for an answers that you know i cant answer .. 1 because I am not involved in the investigation and #2 the whole thing is currently under investigation and a conclusion has not been made..

"we have seen guilty pleas on the deceitful part lying to the FBI or is that a nothing burger "

For Flynn, it is not a nohtingburger. As regards to Trump, as of now, is there evidence he did anything wrong? Alan Dershowitz says no.

Change the subject frequently?

How is that changing the subject? The subject, was whether or not anything in the email leak, revealed unethical behavior?

Jim: the leaked emails revealed unethical actions by team Hilary

Spence: name one thing that was unethical.

Jim: the emails revealed that she got debate questions ahead of time, which is unethical.

Spence: why are you changing the subject?


Spence, if the leaked emails revealed no unethical actions, than the leak couldn't have cost Hilary the election. if the emails only revealed (again) her yoga schedule and Chelsea's wedding plans, then there was no harm.

If, however, the leaked email shed light on actions that turned the public off, then most of the blame lies with Hilary for behaving that way, not with the person who broke the true story.

Spence, if the leaked emails revealed no unethical actions, than the leak couldn't have cost Hilary the election. if the emails only revealed (again) her yoga schedule and Chelsea's wedding plans, then there was no harm.

If, however, the leaked email shed light on actions that turned the public off, then most of the blame lies with Hilary for behaving that way, not with the person who broke the true story.
I think the debate question was one or two things about her debate with Sanders. Wrong but big whoop.

Trump then lies and claims it was hurting him...it just stirs the pot and nobody knows what's for dinner.

For Flynn, it is not a nohtingburger. As regards to Trump, as of now, is there evidence he did anything wrong? Alan Dershowitz says no.
There's a lot of evidence he did something very serious. Have to rely on the Special Prosecutor to see how clear the picture is.

And while everyone is focused on this bull#^&#^&#^&#^& the billionaires push through a massive tax cut that will defund so many social services that the poor depend on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There's a lot of evidence he did something very serious. Have to rely on the Special Prosecutor to see how clear the picture is.

better see a doctor if that lasts more than 5 hours

better see a doctor if that lasts more than 5 hours
Or call your mom :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the debate question was one or two things about her debate with Sanders. Wrong but big whoop.

Trump then lies and claims it was hurting him...it just stirs the pot and nobody knows what's for dinner.

Wrong, it was a debate with Trump.

So the media conspiring to influence the outcome of a presidential election, is no big deal to you. But the public learning the truth about what team Hilary did during the campaign, THAT concerns you. Well that makes all kinds of sense.

Everyone who thinks Spence would still think it was no big deal if they gave debate questions ahead of time to the republican candidate, raise your hand? Anyone?

"Trump then lies and claims it was hurting him"

The media is serially unfair to him.

There's a lot of evidence he did something very serious. .

Such as?

Alan Dershowitz, as liberal as you can be, disagrees with you. Completely.

And while everyone is focused on this bull#^&#^&#^&#^& the billionaires push through a massive tax cut that will defund so many social services that the poor depend on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If that's true ( a huge, huge if), you can take your increased tax refund, and donate it all.

If that's true ( a huge, huge if), you can take your increased tax refund, and donate it all.

What do you mean “if”??? Are you joking?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What do you mean “if”??? Are you joking?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes I mean if. Nothing has been passed by both houses of Congress yet. If the gop cuts vital services, shame on them, and they deserve to get creamed. They are saying they aren’t doing that. The liberals are saying they are doing that. It’s not established whatbisbtrue. I heard they were hurting Medicare, Mitch McConnell said it’s not true, and he’s not a hard-right liar.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes I mean if. Nothing has been passed by both houses of Congress yet. If the gop cuts vital services, shame on them, and they deserve to get creamed. They are saying they aren’t doing that. The liberals are saying they are doing that. It’s not established whatbisbtrue. I heard they were hurting Medicare, Mitch McConnell said it’s not true, and he’s not a hard-right liar.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Medicaid won’t be cut? Yeah right!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How is that changing the subject? The subject, was whether or not anything in the email leak, revealed unethical behavior?



There was a study done that showed that excessive consumption of Kool-Aid, coupled with over exposure to tinfoil, lead to increased instances of Early onset Dementia in laboratory rats and liberals

There was a study done that showed that excessive consumption of Kool-Aid, coupled with over exposure to tinfoil, lead to increased instances of Early onset Dementia in laboratory rats and liberals

I mean, I can't claim that I don't root for one side (sorry, side is now hate speech), party...but to claim that it's not a big deal when a TV station that calls itself a source for "news", is taking active steps to cheat for one candidate...it's amazing.

The reason we guarantee freedom of the press, is so that they can give us ACCURATE information. For the press to use those freedoms to tilt the scales in favor of a presidential candidate? THAT is a direct threat to our democracy. Because the people who run networks would control the elections, rather than the voters. It's unbelievable.

Whatever is in that Kool-Aid, I could use some, I'm taking the family to Disneyworld next week...

Medicaid won’t be cut? Yeah right!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mitch McConell says no.

Different strokes for different folks. Clinton aides lied to FBI--no punishment:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-aides-went-unpunished-after-making-false-statements-to-anti-trump-fbi-supervisor/ar-BBGeQjd?li=AA5a8k&ocid=spartandhp

this is just remarkable...seems what we really need is a special prosecutor to investigate the hyper-partisanship, obstruction and collusion that is rampant within the "justice" department and FBI:kewl:

Different strokes for different folks. Clinton aides lied to FBI--no punishment:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-aides-went-unpunished-after-making-false-statements-to-anti-trump-fbi-supervisor/ar-BBGeQjd?li=AA5a8k&ocid=spartandhp



Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.

I see what you did there..the russians again...what is the definition of "justice"?

Wrong, it was a debate with Trump.

So the media conspiring to influence the outcome of a presidential election, is no big deal to you. But the public learning the truth about what team Hilary did during the campaign, THAT concerns you. Well that makes all kinds of sense.

Everyone who thinks Spence would still think it was no big deal if they gave debate questions ahead of time to the republican candidate, raise your hand? Anyone?

"Trump then lies and claims it was hurting him"

The media is serially unfair to him.

Please for once fact check yourself.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/06/michael-flynn-texted-nuclear-plans-whistleblower-282070?lo=ap_a1

This doesn't look good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Please for once fact check yourself.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So Donna Brazile, as an employee of CNN, didn't sneak a debate question to her preferred presidential candidate, in the hopes of helping her win? Yes or no?

So Donna Brazile, as an employee of CNN, didn't sneak a debate question to her preferred presidential candidate, in the hopes of helping her win? Yes or no?
Not against Trump.

did the democrats just vote to impeach trump for
"high misdemeanors" ?

Not against Trump.

You are correct, it was against Bernie. How is it not an act that undermines the democratic process? I guess your side doesn’t give a fig about that, or they wouldn’t have superdelegates used theyvway you use them, the sole purpose of which is to reverse the democratic process if the DNC leaders don’t happen to like the way it turned out.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are correct, it was against Bernie. How is it not an act that undermines the democratic process? I guess your side doesn’t give a fig about that, or they wouldn’t have superdelegates used theyvway you use them, the sole purpose of which is to reverse the democratic process if the DNC leaders don’t happen to like the way it turned out.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I don't see how a democratic operative telling a democratic candidate about a single town hall debate topic is "undermining our democratic process." It's a bit of foul play on Brazile's part but statistically insignificant as far as the debates were concerned.

you know Jim, the RNC would have done similar to keep Trump out if they could have

I don't see how a democratic operative telling a democratic candidate about a single town hall debate topic is "undermining our democratic process." It's a bit of foul play on Brazile's part but statistically insignificant as far as the debates were concerned.

insignificant in your mind maybe, the fix was in admit it

I don't see how a democratic operative telling a democratic candidate about a single town hall debate topic is "undermining our democratic process." It's a bit of foul play on Brazile's part but statistically insignificant as far as the debates were concerned.

"I don't see how a democratic operative"

She also worked for CNN, are you conceding that CNN is part of the Democratic party?

"It's a bit of foul play on Brazile's part"

Which she denied, then admitted doing it and said she was proud...

"statistically insignificant as far as the debates were concerned"

As opposed to the Wikileaks email dumps, which merely told the truth about what the Democrats were doing. Is there evidence that the email dumps had a statistically significant effect on the election?

you know Jim, the RNC would have done similar to keep Trump out if they could have

A great point to bring up.

They could have if they chose to. Foxnews hosted a debate. People there could have sabotaged Trump's performance if they wanted to. They did not. And THAT tells you a lot about the 2 parties. The GOP establishment hated Trump, were praying he would not be the candidate. But they let the process play out as it's supposed to.

The GOP doesn't have superdelegates whose sole purpose is to undermine the democratic process if desired.

insignificant in your mind maybe, the fix was in admit it

Until people like Jeff understand that is a bad look for the dems,they will run into stiff resistance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/06/michael-flynn-texted-nuclear-plans-whistleblower-282070?lo=ap_a1

This doesn't look good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

how about this....aaannnd...what happened to that?


Judge(Rudolph Contreras) recuses in Michael Flynn case

By JOSH GERSTEIN 12/07/2017

.......

Judge Rudolph Contreras is one of a very small group of FISA Court Judges.

Judge Contreras may be the judge who signed off on the FISA warrant that led to the surveillance of Donald Trump’s campaign officials, that included National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn.

Those FBI FISA warrants are now coming under scrutiny.

It would be EXPLOSIVE if it turned out that the FISA warrants were gained by deception, misleading information, manipulated information, or fraud:huh:…. and that warrant led to the wiretapping and surveillance of General Michael Flynn was authorized by Contreras…. who would now be the judge in Flynn’s case.


the plot thickens :cool:

this whole Russia, collusion etc. thing is coming back on the democrats like a boomerang....Trump Effect

and the media...fake news all week......Three stories in the past seven days have crumbled under greater scrutiny.

The misses

Flynn's testimony: Last Friday, ABC News reported that former national security advisor Michael Flynn was prepared to testify that President Trump, while still a candidate, directed him to contact Russian officials. But later in the day, the network issued a "clarification" that the direction came when Trump was president-elect. That changed the impact of the story entirely as it's a common occurrence for presidential transition teams to reach out to foreign governments.

Deutsche Bank subpoena: Reuters and Bloomberg both reported on Tuesday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation had subpoenaed Deutsche Bank for information on accounts relating to President Trump and his family members — seemingly confirming that Mueller had expanded his probe to investigate the president's financial dealings. The WSJ defused that bombshell in a follow-up report stating that the subpoenas actually dealt with "people or entities close to Mr. Trump."

WikiLeaks emails: CNN reported this morning that senior Trump campaign officials, including Trump himself, received an email from an unknown sender on September 4, 2016 that linked them to what could have been unreleased WikiLeaks documents. WaPo issued their own report later in the afternoon that the email was actually sent on September 14 — and linked to a trove of documents that WikiLeaks had publicly released a day earlier.

this whole Russia, collusion etc. thing is coming back on the democrats like a boomerang....Trump Effect

and the media...fake news all week......Three stories in the past seven days have crumbled under greater scrutiny.

The misses

Flynn's testimony: Last Friday, ABC News reported that former national security advisor Michael Flynn was prepared to testify that President Trump, while still a candidate, directed him to contact Russian officials. But later in the day, the network issued a "clarification" that the direction came when Trump was president-elect. That changed the impact of the story entirely as it's a common occurrence for presidential transition teams to reach out to foreign governments.

Deutsche Bank subpoena: Reuters and Bloomberg both reported on Tuesday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation had subpoenaed Deutsche Bank for information on accounts relating to President Trump and his family members — seemingly confirming that Mueller had expanded his probe to investigate the president's financial dealings. The WSJ defused that bombshell in a follow-up report stating that the subpoenas actually dealt with "people or entities close to Mr. Trump."

WikiLeaks emails: CNN reported this morning that senior Trump campaign officials, including Trump himself, received an email from an unknown sender on September 4, 2016 that linked them to what could have been unreleased WikiLeaks documents. WaPo issued their own report later in the afternoon that the email was actually sent on September 14 — and linked to a trove of documents that WikiLeaks had publicly released a day earlier.
Actually the investigation appears to be charging along. You're just caught up in the turbulence of those trying to spin it away.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device