Flynn

[Jim in CT]

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/2017/12/0...constitutional

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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/2017/12/0...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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

sounds like a bargain by DC standards

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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...

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

.

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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/2017/12/0...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)

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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.