poll says americans want to investigate actions of Obama’s DOJ

[Jim in CT]

not sure if this is accurate, but if it is, and this was a CNN poll? Not good for the democrats.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/cnn-pol...ArASy4wKk-e_5c

i think there’s a chance that some DOJ officials acted like hired hands for the Hilary campaign. IF that happened ( still
a big if), that means they put their thumbs on the scales for her. I can see Comey and Strzok doing the math, figuring there’s no way she could lose, so if they did her dirty work and she won, they’d get nice promotions within her administration.

Can you imagine the stress they felt, when they found out Trump won? Kind of like the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor, but missing the aircraft carriers.

Then the collusion hoax, where Trumps family was constantly called targets and likely to be charged, and then that also failed.

Now it’s Trumps turn. They tried to kill his campaign, they tried to go after his family, and they failed.

Imagine you are Michael Corleone in Godfather I, and during the baptism scene, all the assassins
you sent to kill Moe Greene and the heads of the 5 families, imagine every one of them texts you and says “I tried but i missed. He got away, and he knows it was you.”

When you’re going after a potus who is also a vindictive maniac and a billionaire, you better put him down.

Now it’s his turn. He’ll
probably tell Barr to time this investigation so that the findings are released just before the 2020 election.

IF they acted this way, I would
not want to be in their shoes.

[wdmso]

Got another email I see

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Got another email I see

Just my observations. I've asked you MANY times, let's see between the two of us, who is the blind lemming, who can think for himself. I disagree with conservatives on gay marriage, the death penalty, and to a certain extent, healthcare (I see it as a right) and gun control.

Kindly tell us, on what major policies, you disagree with liberals?

I'm all ears.

My comments on this topic are based on my own observations, and common sense. I think I'm probably right, and the terror that the democrats feel, explains their attacks on Barr.

Not one syllable about why my post is wrong, or makes no sense. Just a vague, unsubstantiated insult. Good for you.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Just my observations. I've asked you MANY times, let's see between the two of us, who is the blind lemming, who can think for himself. I disagree with conservatives on gay marriage, the death penalty, and to a certain extent, healthcare (I see it as a right) and gun control.

Kindly tell us, on what major policies, you disagree with liberals?

I'm all ears.

My comments on this topic are based on my own observations, and common sense. I think I'm probably right, and the terror that the democrats feel, explains their attacks on Barr.

Not one syllable about why my post is wrong, or makes no sense. Just a vague, unsubstantiated insult. Good for you.

Funny when I googled it I got all the usual suspects daily caller Breitbart on other right wing sites were running the same observation ..

Hence my observation
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Funny when I googled it I got all the usual suspects daily caller Breitbart on other right wing sites were running the same observation ..

Hence my observation
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so when i post something that agrees with right wing sites, i’m a lemming. when you post things that are right
out of the Daily Worker, that’s brilliant.

It’s possible that liberals resorted to really dirty tricks to defeat Trump, and then to try to take him down. They failed. It’s his turn.

Let’s see how they like being in the receiving end of a vendetta.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so when i post something that agrees with right wing sites, i’m a lemming. when you post things that are right
out of the Daily Worker, that’s brilliant.

It’s possible that liberals resorted to really dirty tricks to defeat Trump, and then to try to take him down. They failed. It’s his turn.

Let’s see how they like being in the receiving end of a vendetta.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso negates, disregards, pooh-poohs "right wing" sites and depends on "left wing" ones. Even though the "right wing" ones have been correct on lots of things (including Russian/Trump conspiracy). He, like other left leaning, Fox bashing, guys on this site are stuck in the left wing media outlet narratives and so have a distorted, often wrong, perspective on political reality.

wdmso and others think they prove something wrong merely by pointing out the source. Remaining solely in the left wing bubble very often makes them ignorant.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

not sure if this is accurate, but if it is, and this was a CNN poll? Not good for the democrats.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/cnn-pol...ArASy4wKk-e_5c

i think there’s a chance that some DOJ officials acted like hired hands for the Hilary campaign. IF that happened ( still
a big if), that means they put their thumbs on the scales for her. I can see Comey and Strzok doing the math, figuring there’s no way she could lose, so if they did her dirty work and she won, they’d get nice promotions within her administration.

Can you imagine the stress they felt, when they found out Trump won? Kind of like the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor, but missing the aircraft carriers.

They did an amazingly good job of making sure Hillary won, didn't they?

Then the collusion hoax, where Trumps family was constantly called targets and likely to be charged, and then that also failed.

The Mueller report reads that they looked for, asked for, and received, aid from the Russians in the election. Trump obstructed the investigation enough that they could not complete all parts of it. Because of OLC rulings tthey could not indict the sitting president for the crimes they would normally have, but instead gathered the evidence to insure that at such time he is no longer President he can be indicted.
Now, if you have not read it and only get your news from state aligned media and very good people...........

Now it’s Trumps turn. They tried to kill his campaign, they tried to go after his family, and they failed.

Imagine you are Michael Corleone in Godfather I, and during the baptism scene, all the assassins
you sent to kill Moe Greene and the heads of the 5 families, imagine every one of them texts you and says “I tried but i missed. He got away, and he knows it was you.”

When you’re going after a potus who is also a vindictive maniac and a billionaire, you better put him down.

So you clearly think Trump's actions are like those of a Mafia Don.
Is that good?

Now it’s his turn. He’ll
probably tell Barr to time this investigation so that the findings are released just before the 2020 election.

It would be acceptable to you to have the DOJ act politically?

IF they acted this way, I would
not want to be in their shoes.

He sounds like a man you would want as President apparently.
Hillary and Obama living rent free in his head.
After all the goal of Trumplicans is simple, to own the libs.

[spence]

Isn’t this a good thing?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Is it a good thing to keep making up fables to investigate? Kavanaugh, collusion... throw it all against the wall and see what sticks. Rally cry for stupidity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Is it a good thing to keep making up fables to investigate? Kavanaugh, collusion... throw it all against the wall and see what sticks. Rally cry for stupidity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

a rallying cry for being physically unable to accept the results of an election.

trump may have gotten help from the russians ( interesting since he has been very rough with them
at times). Hilary may have gotten help from Obama’s
Justice Department.

Let’s inveatigate both. Pete, Spence, WDMSO, do any of you support an investigation into whether or not the DOJ was working for Hilary’s campaign, and whether or
not they trampled
on Carter Page and the Pippadopolous guy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Is it a good thing to keep making up fables to investigate? Kavanaugh, collusion... throw it all against the wall and see what sticks. Rally cry for stupidity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I see, so when a member of a presidential campaign brags they know a foreign adversary has politically compromising material on their opponent the FBI should just ignore it. Right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I see, so when a member of a presidential campaign brags they know a foreign adversary has politically compromising material on their opponent the FBI should just ignore it. Right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i was glad they investigated, said so many times. especially since it was a disaster for the democrats.

and the issue to you isnt that hilary’s campaign did inappropriate things that were documented in emails, you only care that the emails were hacked.

in terms of how
much this will hurt the dems, this may be the tip of the iceberg.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

He sounds like a man you would want as President apparently.
Hillary and Obama living rent free in his head.
After all the goal of Trumplicans is simple, to own the libs.

Is the purpose of a prosecutorial investigation to determine if there is sufficient evidence to convict, or to exonerate? That's a rhetorical question. If there is not sufficient evidence to convict, then innocence is presumed. "Presumed" is the operative word, not proved.

So, given that evidence must be sufficient to prosecute, would, as you said "Because of OLC rulings they could not indict the sitting president for the crimes they would normally have," would then by that reasoning Mueller also not have charged Trump with consipiracy even if the evidence was sufficient to prove he was guilty?

If Mueller could have concluded that the evidence was sufficient to charge Trump with conspiracy, why could he not also conclude that the evidence was sufficient to charge Trump with obstruction?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

a rallying cry for being physically unable to accept the results of an election.

trump may have gotten help from the russians ( interesting since he has been very rough with them
at times). Hilary may have gotten help from Obama’s
Justice Department.

Let’s inveatigate both. Pete, Spence, WDMSO, do any of you support an investigation into whether or not the DOJ was working for Hilary’s campaign, and whether or
not they trampled
on Carter Page and the Pippadopolous guy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As I said before go ahead and investigate, it’s likely that trump has already screwed up any chance of a conviction with his lock them up speech as president
I showed you that carter page had been the subject of fisa warrants prior to his involvement with the trump campaign.
Trump’s political incompetence got him all the “great” people he has, quite a cast of characters.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Is the purpose of a prosecutorial investigation to determine if there is sufficient evidence to convict, or to exonerate? That's a rhetorical question. If there is not sufficient evidence to convict, then innocence is presumed. "Presumed" is the operative word, not proved.

So, given that evidence must be sufficient to prosecute, would, as you said "Because of OLC rulings they could not indict the sitting president for the crimes they would normally have," would then by that reasoning Mueller also not have charged Trump with consipiracy even if the evidence was sufficient to prove he was guilty?

If Mueller could have concluded that the evidence was sufficient to charge Trump with conspiracy, why could he not also conclude that the evidence was sufficient to charge Trump with obstruction?

He gathered the evidence for Congress to make a decision if they chose to do so or failing that so a prosecutor could indict trump when he is out of office.
He lays it out clearly in his report.
I expect he will explain it clearly to Congress and the American people if trump and his attorney cannot find a way to prevent him from testifying
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

As I said before go ahead and investigate, it’s likely that trump has already screwed up any chance of a conviction with his lock them up speech as president
I showed you that carter page had been the subject of fisa warrants prior to his involvement with the trump campaign.
Trump’s political incompetence got him all the “great” people he has, quite a cast of characters.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I showed you that carter page had been the subject of fisa warrants prior to his involvement with the trump campaign."

Well the FBI probably knows almost as much as you do, and they listed the Steele first among supporting documents for the latest FISA warrants.

"Trump’s political incompetence got him all the “great” people he has, quite a cast of characters."

He's got some weirdos. He also beat the most inevitable candidate, and the economy is soaring. Is that incompetent?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

He gathered the evidence for Congress to make a decision if they chose to do so or failing that so a prosecutor could indict trump when he is out of office.
He lays it out clearly in his report.

You didn't answer my question. The Special Counsel can bring criminal charges. He can conclude if the evidence supports an indictment for criminal activity. If Mueller could have concluded that the evidence showed that Trump conspired with Russia, why could he not conclude that Trump obstructed justice? Would the OLC have prevented him from bringing charges against Trump for conspiracy? If not, then it would not in the case of obstruction. Whether he can indict or not, he can conclude, whether the evidence supports an indictment. He made a conclusion re conspiracy. He could, and should, have done so re obstruction.

A conclusion that the evidence is not sufficient for indictment does not mean the defendant is without a doubt innocent. It means that the defendant, for purposes of trial and conviction, is presumed innocent, and no charges will be brought.

The Special Counsel gathers evidence fur the justice department, not for Congress. It is not for the Special Counsel to make a case for Congress. Congress is politicized, so targeting evidence toward Congress would be politicizing it.

He should have concluded whether or not the evidence was sufficient for indictment. That was his job and the reason for his appointment. If the evidence is not sufficient or it is, he should have expressly said so. In the event that he didn't make that conclusion, it was then left to the AG to do so. And he did. As a matter of law, then, Trump is presumed innocent. What Congress does is another matter. Using Mueller's report as evidence would be a political exercise. How that turns out will be seen. If Congress impeaches, but the Senate does not convict, then we will have a poitical decision on the matter.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

I see, so when a member of a presidential campaign brags they know a foreign adversary has politically compromising material on their opponent the FBI should just ignore it. Right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So Jeff, you are opposed to such dirty tricks and you believe that such an offense should be prosecuted?

I will humor you while you cherrry pick through the fables.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You didn't answer my question. The Special Counsel can bring criminal charges. He can conclude if the evidence supports an indictment for criminal activity. If Mueller could have concluded that the evidence showed that Trump conspired with Russia, why could he not conclude that Trump obstructed justice? Would the OLC have prevented him from bringing charges against Trump for conspiracy? If not, then it would not in the case of obstruction. Whether he can indict or not, he can conclude, whether the evidence supports an indictment. He made a conclusion re conspiracy. He could, and should, have done so re obstruction.

A conclusion that the evidence is not sufficient for indictment does not mean the defendant is without a doubt innocent. It means that the defendant, for purposes of trial and conviction, is presumed innocent, and no charges will be brought.

The Special Counsel gathers evidence fur the justice department, not for Congress. It is not for the Special Counsel to make a case for Congress. Congress is politicized, so targeting evidence toward Congress would be politicizing it.

He should have concluded whether or not the evidence was sufficient for indictment. That was his job and the reason for his appointment. If the evidence is not sufficient or it is, he should have expressly said so. In the event that he didn't make that conclusion, it was then left to the AG to do so. And he did. As a matter of law, then, Trump is presumed innocent. What Congress does is another matter. Using Mueller's report as evidence would be a political exercise. How that turns out will be seen. If Congress impeaches, but the Senate does not convict, then we will have a poitical decision on the matter.

The premise for your question is faulty
Mueller clearly states his reasons in the report
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The premise for your question is faulty
Mueller clearly states his reasons in the report
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You keep repeating the talking point but avoid answering my questions.

You said that the premise for Mueller not concluding whether to bring charges of obstruction or not was because of the OLC. By that reasoning, he could also not have recommended bringing charges against Trump for conspiracy. If that were the case, what was the point of his investigation? Are you saying that he would only be allowed by the OLC to conclude that their was not sufficient evidence to make a charge, but would not be allowed to conclude that there was sufficient evidence to do so? And that his purpose was not to make a prosecutorial investigation, but to gather evidence for Congress?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You keep repeating the talking point but avoid answering my questions.

You said that the premise for Mueller not concluding whether to bring charges of obstruction or not was because of the OLC. By that reasoning, he could also not have recommended bringing charges against Trump for conspiracy. If that were the case, what was the point of his investigation? Are you saying that he would only be allowed by the OLC to conclude that their was not sufficient evidence to make a charge, but would not be allowed to conclude that there was sufficient evidence to do so? And that his purpose was not to make a prosecutorial investigation, but to gather evidence for Congress?

That is all in the report and the order appointing the special counsel, feel free to read them. You apparently have not since you do not know the point of the investigation that resulted in the report, it's clearly called out.
I think perhaps you object to the obstruction section that results from Trump’s unfathomably stupid, impulsive, self-defeating efforts to wield executive power to control the Russia investigation. Those are certainly presidential qualities.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

That is all in the report and the order appointing the special counsel, feel free to read them. You apparently have not since you do not know the point of the investigation that resulted in the report, it's clearly called out.
I think perhaps you object to the obstruction section that results from Trump’s unfathomably stupid, impulsive, self-defeating efforts to wield executive power to control the Russia investigation. Those are certainly presidential qualities.

Rosenstein's letter appointing Mueller as Special Council tasked him, among other things, to "find any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Trump." So, if the investigation found coordination between Trump and the Russian government, would he have been prevented by OLC policy to conclude that there was coordination?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Rosenstein's letter appointing Mueller as Special Council tasked him, among other things, to "find any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Trump." So, if the investigation found coordination between Trump and the Russian government, would he have been prevented by OLC policy to conclude that there was coordination?

I don't know the answer, but perhaps the answer to your question is part of why Trump is trying so hard to prevent McGhan and Mueller from testifying. If he had nothing to worry about he'd be pushing for it.

Jennifer Rubin asked Lawrence Tribe if either could be prevented from testifying and he said: "Of course there is no way Trump can stop Bob Mueller from testifying, There is no executive privilege between them, and obviously no attorney-client privilege, and Mueller doesn't even work for Trump. Until he leaves [the Justice Department], he works for Barr. And Barr has no conceivable basis to stop Mueller from testifying. Mueller is free to leave [Justice] at any time and will then be simply a private citizen."
"Only a dictator can tell a private citizen not to testify in a duly constituted legislative or parliamentary inquiry into the head of state's conduct," Tribe concludes. "And though Trump might fancy himself a dictator, that's not the reality. Not yet, anyway."

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Well the FBI probably knows almost as much as you do, and they listed the Steele first among supporting documents for the latest FISA warrants.

Page was targeted because of his known Russian contacts and that Russia had tried to recruit him in the past. The Dossier just added fuel to the fire as Steele was a trusted source known by the FBI.

We know that Devin Nunes blatantly lied when he tried to claim the FISA application hide the fact that the Dossier could be political, in fact an entire page of the application made it crystal clear. We also know know with the Mueller report that much of the Dossier was either correct or close to correct.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Page was targeted because of his known Russian contacts and that Russia had tried to recruit him in the past. The Dossier just added fuel to the fire as Steele was a trusted source known by the FBI.

We know that Devin Nunes blatantly lied when he tried to claim the FISA application hide the fact that the Dossier could be political, in fact an entire page of the application made it crystal clear. We also know know with the Mueller report that much of the Dossier was either correct or close to correct.

The DOJ used fabricated political fodder to spy on him, and never told the judge where the dossier came from. Then they leaked his name to the media who were happy to call him a Russian agent. And he's never been charged with anything.

It's going to be investigated by people Trump assigns to the investigation. Hope you enjoy that as much as I will. I cannot wait. How about you?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The DOJ used fabricated political fodder to spy on him, and never told the judge where the dossier came from.

Jim, this isn't true.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Page was targeted because

and he's yet to get even a traffic ticket...weird

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

We also know know with the Mueller report

.

just can't admit that you were wrong huh?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The DOJ used fabricated political fodder to spy on him, and never told the judge where the dossier came from. Then they leaked his name to the media who were happy to call him a Russian agent. And he's never been charged with anything.

It's going to be investigated by people Trump assigns to the investigation. Hope you enjoy that as much as I will. I cannot wait. How about you?

Old fake news from the Trumplicans, brought back recently with a new spin.

You can read the footnotes yourself in the FISA app on pages 15 and 16, lawyers read footnotes.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...pplication.pdf

Here is an explanation of the circumstances regarding this FISA application
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-mak...a-applications

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, this isn't true.

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Old fake news from the Trumplicans, brought back recently with a new spin.

You can read the footnotes yourself in the FISA app on pages 15 and 16, lawyers read footnotes.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...pplication.pdf

Here is an explanation of the circumstances regarding this FISA application
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-mak...a-applications

Haven't you 2 answered the same question a few times already? Why don't you just put them in an external doc. that you can just cut and paste instead of typing them each time?