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

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?

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'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.

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 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.

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...

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.

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.

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?

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'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 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.

FBI needs to prove it, not NYT.


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.

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.

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.

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."

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...

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..

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

Change the subject frequently?

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....

"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.

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.

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.

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

better see a doctor if that lasts more than 5 hours

Or call your mom :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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.

Such as?

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

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

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