Guessed you missed the whole part that laptop hard drives can be removed and replaced :huh:

And it was known by those who wrote the memo

Did that conclusion come with a roll of tinfoil ? Because we know it’s not based on evidence

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that it was tampered with?

You desperately hope it was tampered with. That doesn’t mean it was.

Jim you don’t need to prove it was tampered with all they need to prove is Rudy had possession of the laptop.. game over inadmissible in court

House hearings won’t change that . They have no law enforcement authority

If chain of custody principles were trampled to prevent a prosecution, i’d still like to know what happened, so would many others

Still don’t get it. Do you? chain of custody principles were trampled by Rudy and the gop operatives who thought they could influence the election with what they thought was a smoking gun ..

Only the MAGA horde want to know what happened hell their still waiting on the Durham report to save them. You still waiting With them?


And your expecting a party who allowed Greene 9/11 truther who has history of embracing far-right conspiracies on the homeland security committee

To be trusted by the American people . You’re crazy

and democrats out Eric Swalwell, he who sleeps with Chinese spies, on the house i telling everyone committee. that’s more trustworthy?

You’re in a glass house wayne.

the republicans won’t be testifying. just calling witnesses and asking questions.

Because the Computer Forensic Professionals always get stymied by that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

right, the FBI, who had the laptop, would have no way of knowing if that had happened.

Mueller did what he was told to do, within parameters set by others.
He was not told to let the evidence lead the investigation and DOJ regulations also restricted his investigation.
That’s a lot different than what you think should happen with this citizens laptop.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The evidence that the FBI knew in advance that the NYP post story on the Hunter lap top was going to be reported is revealed in the Twitter Files that have been released. Perhaps, most likely, you didn't watch the video I posted. But you do want me to read what you post.

We were told that he did a thorough investigation and he said that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Trump conspired with Russ to influence the election--in contrasts to your vague, insufficient verbiage.

And I have not said what I think should happen with the laptop. I absorb information, and spread it when appropriate.

No, your statement about Mueller is incorrect.

Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III Makes Statement on Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election
Washington, DC ~ Wednesday, May 29, 2019
Two years ago, the Acting Attorney General asked me to serve as Special Counsel, and he created the Special Counsel’s Office.



The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.



I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I am speaking today because our investigation is complete. The Attorney General has made the report on our investigation largely public. And we are formally closing the Special Counsel’s Office. As well, I am resigning from the Department of Justice and returning to private life.



I’ll make a few remarks about the results of our work. But beyond these few remarks, it is important that the office’s written work speak for itself.



Let me begin where the appointment order begins: and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election.



As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system.



The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information, and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.



And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to interfere in the election.



These indictments contain allegations. And we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.



The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood. That is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office.



That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.



Let me say a word about the report. The report has two parts addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate.



The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.



And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President.



The order appointing me Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work.



As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.



We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.



It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.



The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.



The Department’s written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report. And I will describe two of them:



First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.



And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.



And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.



So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office’s final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President.



We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the Attorney General—as required by Department regulations.



The Attorney General then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and the American people.



At one point in time I requested that certain portions of the report be released. The Attorney General preferred to make the entire report public all at once. We appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public. I do not question the Attorney General’s good faith in that decision.



I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak about this matter. I am making that decision myself—no one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.



There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself.



The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.



In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.



So beyond what I have said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress.



It is for that reason that I will not take questions here today.



Before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts, and the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These individuals, who spent nearly two years with the Special Counsel’s Office, were of the highest integrity.



I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments—that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.



That allegation deserves the attention of every American.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim moving the goal post again how predictable

with an alleged Chinese spy, Christine Fang Jim still figuring out what alleged means

And Swalwell cut all his ties to Fang after he was alerted by the FBI to the investigation, according to Axios, and there is no publicly available evidence Swalwell knew or suspected Fang was working for Beijing, nor is there evidence Fang broke any laws through her fundraising.

Jim being his usual Intellectually, dishonest, Self

I said that "he said that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Trump conspired with Russia to influence the election"

Mueller said that "The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy."

And the second volume is the evidence of obstruction to the investigation that prevented them from obtaining that evidence.
Hence the pardons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mueller said, about vol. 2 "we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime" because of Dept. policy. If that were the case, then why did he reach a determination in vol. 1?

And it was not the purpose of his investigation to formally charge, but to gather evidence and make a conclusion, "one way or the other" and submit his findings to the DOJ. Which he did (except for a conclusion in vol. II), and the DOJ submitted its conclusion on the Mueller report to the AG in a memorandum

(MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL - THROUGH: THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY amend FROM: Steven A. Engel C5 Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel Edward C. O'Callaghan Principal Associate Deputy Attomey General SUBJECT: Review of the Special Counsel's Report)

in which they made the decision that "the evidence described in vol II of the report is not, in our judgment, sufficient to support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the President violated the obstruction-of-justice statutes."

Hence the pardons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hence? No indictment requires pardons?

Why were Manafort, Stone and Flynn pardoned?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your response (to the DOJ review of Mueller's 10 instances of possible Trump obstruction found, in their judgment, that they were not sufficient to support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the President violated the obstruction-of-justice statutes) "hence the pardons" makes no sense.

I don't think it was because the DOJ review of Mueller's 10 instances of possible Trump obstruction found, in their judgment, that they were not sufficient to support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the President violated the obstruction-of-justice statutes.

Back in 1787, when the Constitutional Convention was drafting the part of the Constitution that would soon become the presidential pardon power, Mason unequivocally opposed the provision. The president, he said, “ought not to have the power of pardoning, because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself. It may happen, at some future day, that he will establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic. If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection?”
But that’s about it. Everything else about these pardons, including the incentive they give the president’s allies to withhold evidence of criminality, is, unfortunately, within the anticipated scope of the pardon power. Indeed, the Constitutional Convention, having heard and rejected Mason’s prediction, can reasonably be said to have accepted the possibility of pardon abuse as the collateral cost of having a pardon power in the first place.

And why exactly would the delegates have done that? Why did they disregard Mason’s prediction? In the end, his concerns were rejected by his fellow convention delegates because, in their judgment, there were adequate remedies for that type of presidential misbehavior. As James Madison put it: “There is one security in this case [of misused pardons] to which the gentlemen [i.e., Mason and his supporters] not have adverted: If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him [with a pardon], the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty.”


And there you have it. George Mason was prescient. James Madison—tragically, it turns out—was naive. The most insidious damage to American norms from Trump’s pardon extravaganza stems not from the extravaganza itself, though that is bad enough. Rather the damage to our democracy comes, most clearly, from the supine, almost sycophantic nature of Congress’s response to the Trump presidency since the start, both with regard to his abuse of the pardon power and his excesses more generally. Madison saw Congress as a powerful guard dog capable of preventing executive misconduct. Instead, in terms of pardon abuse, as with so many other instances of Trump’s overreach, it has proved little more than a lapdog.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-start/617397/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here we go with Pete's every now and then nod to the Constitution when he thinks it suits his purpose. What a crock. He advocates censorship of speech, getting rid of the electoral college, prefers federal policies that usurp the constitutional power of the states, prefers centralized government over localized government, is in favor of ideologies such as Progressivism, CRT, various Postmodernist concepts, that are antithetical to the Constitution.

He is not really a friend of the Constitution, unless he thinks he can squeeze something out of it that can put some narrative of his in a favorable light.

Progressivism has been the real and constant force that has gutted much of the Constitution, and has transformed much of the rest by its Progressive notions on how it is to be interpreted. And the Progressives have openly stated that it is not a functioning guide for our modern society, and, indeed, should entirely, or mostly be scrapped.

This all has been going on well before Trump. It may be convenient to vilify and destroy him as the villain that has destroyed the Constitution and the Congress. But that is absurd. The Progressve Congresses, and Presidents, and Judges were responsible for that, not Trump, regardless of what you think of him as a person.

And your response that "hence," the fact that the DOJ did not find that Mueller's 10 points of possible Trump obstruction were sufficient to violate obstruction statutes, was not the reason why Trump pardoned Manafort and Flynn. There were actually strong cases, especially for Flynn, to be made for the pardons. Not the least of which that they, especially Flynn, were implicated by a wrongful attempt to bring down the President.

And those attempts to bring down the President were as harmful to "our democracy" as what you want to blame Trump for.

So Trump’s a Stable Genius and a constitutionalist…

Now tell me why Manafort was pardoned.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because, as you say, Trump is a Stable Genius. If that's not good enough for you, some would say that google is your friend. You might want to try a variety of right leaning sources as well as the lefties.

And I'm not your puppet dancing to the tune of your every demand.

But Putin had puppets

Senior FBI official who led 2016 investigation finding no link between Trump and Russia, Charles McGonigal, has now been arrested for taking and laundering money for Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Deripaska was indicted last year and is being tried for a number of federal crimes.

Paul Manafort, Trump's 2016 campaign manager, also worked for Deripaska and then laundered the money, getting convicted -- before Trump pardoned him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Look out! Pete is now on a roll. He has totally taken over the thread, totally hijacked it. Expect more and more and more and more . . . He's flooding the zone with his prized little bits of one-sided old news . . . he can't be stopped . . . He's like a high speed train run amuck . . . no! he is like a John the Baptist in the desert and in the wilderness of the ignorant . . . educating us about Putin's puppets . . . about Deripaska . . . about Russian oligarchs . . . and Trump and Russia . . . in case we haven't heard the good news . . . we will be cleansed . . . and saved . . . in the baptismal waters of Pete the political baptist . . . get on your knees and thank the leftist heaven that he will not stop until Trump is crucified!

He has been promising us this for years

DOJ: 4 Oath Keepers Convicted of Seditious Conspiracy for Jan. 6

Nothing happens overnight your hero might still get his jump suit
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

with his prized little bits of one-sided old news . .

Spoken like a true cult member
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not my hero....I just like seeing justice applied equally.....keep making assumptions ....it is fitting.

Florida man is #^&#^&#^&#^&ting his pants about Special Counsel Jack Smith's work.

At 1 am, Trump ranted on "Truth social": "My Special Counsel (“PROSECUTOR”) is viciously harassing and bullying anyone and everyone in sight."
Trump’s scared, as he should be.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What do you mean by "applied equally"?

He already has been fined $Ms for his crimes.

My "cult"?? is better than yours.

Propaganda Pete tells us that Trump is scared. The cult of Propaganda Pete is scary.

Right out of Goebbels Nazi's propaganda playbook.

Accuse the other of that which you are guilty.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's what you just did. (I back up my claim, as in post #110 in the Rons at it again thread.) And then you did it again in post #111 of that same thread.

Sure, as long as guns are unlimited, history is defined how you want, you define voting, they make books criminal, the only relationship that’s allowed to be read about is between a man and a woman and you’re not woke because reading, science and empathy are bad.
It’s easier to figure out once you realize that woke is a stand-in for the N word.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not sure what you've figured out, but the way you express it sure sounds like the vagueness of propaganda.

Justice being applied equally is another right wing talking point.

Justice has never been applied equally because all cases aren’t equal..

Ya ok he’s not your hero. :wavey:

A teacher giving a child a book determined by the state to be inappropriate is a class 3 felony in Floriduh under DeFascist.
You think any lawyer would recommend that teachers provide any books to children?
Classroom libraries have been one of the effective aids developed to increase literacy.

But I spout propaganda
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device