After many times stating he looked forward to being interviewed by Mueller, Trump's lawyers are now looking intently at the possibility of it being a perjury trap and are pulling back on his testifying at all. After chastising others who plead the fifth it, now looks as if the Bozo-In-Chief is considering doing the same.
No big shock of course as we're now accustomed to Trump lying on a daily basis about anything and everything. I can see why he doesn't want to testify under oath, can you?
"considering doing the same"
Imagination is a wonderful thing, isn't it? We can just make up anything we want about Trump and then innocently ask "will he do what he's thinking of doing?"
"Bozo-in-Chief" Geez Randy, that places you right with the "sheople" folks.
Did you intend that to be a display of your wit? As a capstone to the credibility of your comment? Did you look around for any waiting 'High-5s'?
Am I not entitled to my opinion, GA? I though I was being unusually kind to a pathological liar! Feel free to take up for him as usual though. And what is your opinion by the way?
Of course you are entitled to your opinion Randy. Just as the "Obozo the Clown" folks were to theirs.
Do you remember what you thought of the comments that followed their descriptions like that?
Are you related to Tim Tuzy 4 info?
Not that I'm aware of, GA. Are you related to Jackclee?
Just piping in to say that Obama didn't make a habit of calling people names like Little Marco, Crooked Hillary, Pocahontas, Sleepy Ben Carson, and Sloppy Steve.
So, one could argue that our President and his supporters would be hypocritical to criticize those who assign a derogatory moniker to the Bully-in-Chief. Trump voters cast a vote of acceptance for that behavior when they put a check mark next to Trump's name. Similarly, current defenders can't say much, either, if they think his policies make tolerance of his behavior an acceptable compromise.
Supporting the Liar-in-Chief is tantamount to lowering the standards for presidental conduct to groundbreaking depths of destructive and embarrasing behavior.
True, as Trump supporters have no problem with his name calling and lying, but seem to dislike others doing the same to him. Hypocrisy? Of course!
Yep. Now, I will say that GA at least has a leg to stand on, since he didn't vote for the guy and continues to claim he is not a supporter. ;-)
Others, though? Not at all. And I will never let them forget it. They inflicted this guy upon us and I will take every opportunity I can to decry their hypocrisy when they criticize someone for similar behavior.
Grab your hat Randy. Let's take a ride in my time machine to see how many times you can find me making supporting statements for Pres. Trump's behavior, (good or bad), and while we're looking, we will see how many times we find me offering the same criticism, (as I did to you), to the Conservatives that did the same name-calling stuff during Pres. Obama's years.
I prefer to think of it as knowing which ring I want to toss my hat into. Or maybe looking before I leap. Or being sure of where I put my foot down. Or, yeah, sometimes the fence is the smartest place to be.
Are you sure you just don't want to be on the losing side, GA? Atop the fence is not really the smartest place to be, just the safest.
Ha! I have been on the losing/wrong side of things enough times not to be afraid of it Randy. Of course I don't want to be on the losing side, but that hasn't stopped me from frequent appearances there. It is just that those experiences have taught me to be sure of what I commit to, before committing.
And when it comes to Donald Trump - the are very few things I am sure of.
But wait! Before you go off on those personal characteristics you are so fond of attacking, (and are exasperated that I won't participate in, you know - fence riding and all...) - personal attacks and character assassination are poor form, whether you are right or wrong. I don't want to be on either side of that - hence the fence.
Please take in consideration I truly believe Trump is corrupting our government in a way we may not recover from. Have you heard about the memo Nunes is presenting to Trump to release? What a bunch of horse hockey!!
And that is where we disagree Randy. I do not know that Pres. Trump is doing what you claim. And I think that if you consider deeds rather than words, there might be some grounds to dispute your claim - although it would be an ideological argument. However, even if he is doing what you think, I truly believe something also - that we can survive it. We have survived worse, albeit in different forms.
I have heard both the for and against points of the memo. We don't know enough about what is in the memo to decide whether it is a partisan ploy or the Real McCoy, but I am with Lindsey Graham on this one. I don't think it should be released without DOJ and FBI review, and the fact that they, the Nunes partisans, won't release it for that, and, that they also won't release the Democrat's counter memo, makes me skeptical of the Nunes memo's factual foundation.
Hang in there bud, sooner or later, (probably sooner), we will know which one of us is right. ;-)
My point about the memo is the dems have a memo as well, but the cons are going to release theirs instead of waiting for the rebuttal memo. Sadly, only 3 people have seen the underlying classified info and Nunes isn't one of them. Adam Shiff--the minority leader of the intel committee--was one of the 3 while the other two were Nunes staffers.
Shiff reported the cons memo is very misleading and he should know. Ryan refused to give a clear answer why the two opposing memos will not be released at the same time and no other Rep. has either. They want their memo out for at least a week until the Dems memo is released. And then Trump has the say so to prevent it from being released. Yeah, sounds fair and balanced....
It is just more sleazy politics Randy. If the memo can stand on its own, then review, and the release of a counter memo shouldn't be a problem.
But look at the bright side... we will soon get to know what is in the memo for ourselves, rather than having spun versions of its contents dribbled out for us to speculate on.
Not simply sleazy politics this time, GA. Our law enforcement agencies are being attacked to simply throw mud on the Russian investigation. The cons say they want the investigation to continue but stake their political futures on stopping the very important Russia ties.
And Trump did not extend the Russia sanctions congress passed and he signed. That should tell everyone what shill he is. Yes, shill is a name fitting him well. Don't like it? Don't care..
You need a new smiley Randy. Maybe one that is a *shrug*
Do they have one that says; "Just guessin'"
Maybe I'm just not smart enough to understand, but is it that if a president does anything objectionable at all that no support should ever be given him? Or that if one supports Trumps actions in, say, protecting America from terrorism that one must also support his name calling?
I have yet to see anyone, let alone someone on the Hill, that I could completely, 100%, support - not a single person I have ever been aware of has led a perfect life. Or even exhibits perfection in every attribute they have.
But that does not mean that because one person calls names sometimes, it's all right for another to do it on a constant basis. Or even a single time, for that matter. Consider that even Jesus Christ is reported to have lost his temper, stormed onto private property owned by someone else and began a rampage of destruction of what they'd built but we still don't classify such behavior as acceptable. Although a great many will concoct excuses for it when done by Jesus...
"....but is it that if a president does anything objectionable at all that no support should ever be given him? "
That is not at all what I am saying. Trump displayed his name calling and bullying behavior, repeatedly and without remorse (in fact, with great glee and enthusiasm) prior to the election. Trump voters knew exactly what they were voting for, and had no reasonable evidence that he would not continue his childish, mean, and embarrassing behavior after elected.
For them to now be offended when his detractors refer to the president in derogatory terms is the height of hypocrisy. They voted for that behavior. They considered that behavior to be acceptable enough for a president.
"Trump voters knew exactly what they were voting for, and had no reasonable evidence that he would not continue his childish, mean, and embarrassing behavior after elected."
Yep! Sure did! And preferred it to the illegal, unethical, mean and completely self serving tactics of the only other viable choice. (Odd how that "minor" observation is not mentioned.)
But yes. I'm offended by his language at times. Just as I'm offended by the childish name calling of detractors - detractors that lie and use abusive language at least as much as Trump does while decrying how awful it is. (You want to talk hypocrisy, there it is for you). We've got a few on here than can't make a post without calling names or spinning innocent actions into some dark, evil event that will end the world.
Mentioning JC in a discussion about Trump's failures seems to be a bit overboard, Dan. I'm quite sure JC didn't hang around with porn stars.
Then you haven't read the bible, have you? Regardless of how superior you might consider yourself to those lesser or offensive people, regardless of how much you might look down on them or denigrate them, Jesus is reported to have welcomed all people with his love. Even the one that betrayed, and effectively killed him.
Believer or not, you might consider taking a lesson from His (reported) actions. Or, if it offends you to think there is good in the bible, from Gandhi, Sister Theresa, Buddha or even Martin Luther King. Although I'm as sure as I can be that fault can be found with all of them...just as it can be with Trump. It's just a little easier with him, that's all.
Not easier for Trump, just natural and please point out the porn star hanging out with Jesus if you know the Bible so much better than I.
" uh oh..." Is this where Magdalene, the repentant prostitute comes in? I'm only guessing here because I am not that familiar with the Bible - but it does ring a bell.
Magdalene was painted as a prostitute by the church to allay any reference to her being Jesus's wife. At any rate, she wasn't a porn star as I think Dan was hoping to imply in some manner.
I seem to recall some of that too Randy. I think I also remember that, besides your points, she was also denigrated because the males of the Church didn't want a female to have any significance in the story of Christ.
ps. I think I like your allusion, and Dan Brown's story line, that she was the wife of Christ. Seems logical to me. And you know how I do like logical things. ;-)
While I don't necessarily disagree, such a statement (the church changed history) would be all the better for proof, don't you think?
Yes, I thought you would figure out that as there were no cameras in Jesus' time that prostitution would be an acceptable substitute. Same action, just without the camera, after all.
Sooo.... if your best friend farted at the dinner table - you would too?
Of course not. I wouldn't mock a disabled reporter or accuse a judge of bias because of his heritage , either. I will, however, call a bully and a liar by exactly what he is, a bully and a liar.
Edited to add: it would be perfectly acceptable for me to call my friend a rude dinner guest. That is what we are doing with Trump, flicking it back at the bully and liar.
"That is what we are doing with Trump, flicking it back at the bully and liar."
By using the same tactics, thus thoroughly and unequivocally proving your moral superiority to him.
No, if you notice, I only refer to Trump in a derogatory manner. I don't bully disabled people or pick fights with parents of fallen soldiers, or lie several times a day, or brag about grabbing men's crotches. I direct my disdain to the !ying, bullying self-described sexual predator so many Americans judged to be of acceptable character to occupy the highest office in the land. Yet, those same people are quick to take me or Randy to task for flicking it back at the original perpetrator. Suddenly, they have standards! It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Where were these standards when it teally mattered?
Trump proves something that Nixon and Bill Clinton also proved. Character matters when you occupy the highest office in the nation.
Some Republicans condemn Clintons for their character and then hypocritically defend Trump for his.
Some Democrats condemn Trump and Nixon for their character but defend the Clintons for the flaws in theirs.
It sounds like you are saying that because you are selective in your name-calling, it's okay?
Would it be okay for Pres. Trump to do it if he only did it to folks you think deserved it?
And that part about you and Randy seems to be trying to justify your lowering of your own standards - just because someone else has lower standards???
Standards, or just guidelines? I think my previous comments have been to address standards.
Remember that Mark Twain quote about arguing with idiots? Wait, wait... I am not referring to the idiots part, I am thinking of the "...they will bring you down to their level, and beat you with experience." part.
You're starting to sound like my mama, a sweet souhern lady who never swore or spoke badly of others. She once overheard me say I was "pissed off" and told me that "isn't very ladylike to speak that way." She was a very proper southern lady.
She also, three days before she died, told me "sometimes you have to call a snake a snake." It was after she told me the story of catching her uncle in a compromising position with her 11-year-old sister. I had never heard that story before. Mom told on my uncle and no one did anything. She said every time she saw him at a family function, she would call him a snake, as in "I don't talk to snakes" or "Get away from me, you snake." Her stepmother, after the third time, slapped her her across the face. My mom told her she didn't care what she thought; she knew the truth and would not stop saying it. Over 40 years later, her uncle was arrested for child molestation. It took that long. Who knows how many girls could have been protected had more people had been willing to call a snake a snake.
I don't care how you judge my behavior with regard to Trump. In this case, I have absolutely no qualms calling a snake a snake.
Excellent post, Pretty. There comes a time when one has to cast aside one's normal reaction to bullies and assholes and label them with their true monikers. I don't normally resort to name calling in my everyday life, but Trump fits the criteria for an exception in every way.
Your "mama" sounds like one of my grandfathers, PrettyPanther. He lived by the credo that "If you can't say something nice about someone, then don't say anything at all." However, also like your "mama," he would "call a snake a snake" when needed.
But... he would not have called that snake a "bozo-in-the-grass," or a beady-eyed-slithering-bugger." He may have called Pres. Trump a liar, (if that is what he thought), or a bully, or crude, or, he might have deemed him to not be worthy of even talking about, but he would not have called him the "Bozo-in-chief," or "Orange Baby man."
I like your "mama" story. I bet she would have seen the difference I am talking about.
Is that because "liar", "bully" or "crude" are descriptive adjectives (true or not) while "bozo-in-the-grass", "beady-eyed-slithering-bugger", bozo-in-chief" and "orange baby man" are simply derogatory without any real meaning? Racial epithets, used simply as derogatory terms to insult, come to mind as something similar.
Well, I can only speak for myself, but every name I've ever called Trump has been an accurate descriptor, to me. I have referred to him as "Little Donnie" to highlight the childishness of his behavior and "Honest Don" to highlight his rampant lying. I've called him "Liar-in-Chief" and "Bully-in-Chief" for obvious reasons. During the campaign, I called him a clown, because he was engaging in unprecedented clown-like behavior, like calling another candidate "Little Marco" during a debate and bragging about the size of his appendage.
If you don't judge my derogatory monikers to be accurate, that's fine. I rarely use a derogatory moniker without a calculated reason. I say "rarely" because I am human and could have screwed up somewhere.
Anyway, my general point is that, if anyone in the history of politics can ever legitimately be referred to in a derogatory manner, it is Honest Don.
I think my mom would agree.
I think I understand PrettyPanther. Calling him a liar isn't enough for you, you need to add the cuteness of Liar-in-Chief. Calling him childish doesn't give you the satisfaction that "Little Donnie" does. etc.
It is completely irrational for me to argue this point with you, but ... based on your story - I don't think your mama would have agreed with you.
Okay, I see your point. But, and this is a big "but," the reason I do so is to highlight Trump's unacceptable behavior to the people who voted for him. Those voters explicitly stated, with their vote, that this behavior is acceptable in a president. If, to them, it is acceptable in a president, then it should be acceptable in a lowly poster on Hubpages forums.
You are not one of those people, so your calling me out is, at least, not hypocritical. Others who have voted for Trump want to hold me to a higher standard than they do their president. That is my point! They lowered the standards of POTUS so low, that they apparently can't stand that same behavior in their fellow forum posters. Yet, our president engages in it practically daily, and he fully demonstrated that behavior BEFORE he was elected, so their vote, and continued support, is a signal that they are okay with that behavior.
We've been over this before, and I know you think I am. with my own conduct, lowering standards of behavior to the lowest common denominator. The truth is, our president, the man we trust to govern and protect our country, has already lowered the standard of conduct for a president so low that I am afraid we will not recover. My only hope is to show those who voted for him what they have done. There is method to my madness. I know you think it should be beneath me. If it's beneath me, why isn't it beneath the man who sits in the White House?
"Those voters explicitly stated, with their vote, that this behavior is acceptable in a president."
I keep seeing this, but it has yet to have any truth in it. Now, if you would change it to "this behavior, while unacceptable, is more acceptable than that exhibited by the only other choice. A matter of the lesser of two evils, then, not that it is or was acceptable" it would be far close to the truth. (Of course, it doesn't insult those voters, either, so if that was the intent then speaking the whole truth won't produce the desired result.)
"My only hope is to show those who voted for him what they have done."
Exhibiting poor behavior is very seldom useful in preventing such behavior. We don't teach children to never smoke cigarettes by smoking in front of them, we don't teach them to show kindness to others by beating or insulting them. It is a tactic almost surely doomed to failure. Yes?
You know, it really depends on the circumstances, doesn't it? I once threw myself on the floor in a fit of temper exactly like my four-year-old was doing, and it stopped him cold. He peeked out from between his hands that were covering his crying eyes, looked at me in disbelief, said "Mommy" with a little giggle, then stood up and asked nicely for what he wanted. But, that's just a silly anecdote to share for fun. ;-)
Really, I think what GA is missing, is that I believe Trump's behavior to be unprecedented, with the potential to forever damage our concept of what is acceptable conduct for a president. Clinton was impeached for his behavior. Nixon was forced to resign. Trump needs to go. He shouldn't have been elected in the first place, and if he stays in office, I fear that we will never recover our dignity as a nation.
I've done the same thing, and occasionally with the same results. But never had any success with repeating the action over and over, and never with using it to show a third party how bad it was.
But come on now. Trump's behavior is unprecedented only in your experience. We've had presidents in the past that exhibited their genitals, that beat bar patrons with a cane, that participated in formal gun duels, that owned slaves, etc. We even had berate cops on national TV for doing their job, and before he ever knew what had gone down! Trump is actually pretty tame to some that we've had.
You also have to know that Clinton wasn't impeached because of non-PC behavior; he was impeached for lying under oath to Congress. And Nixon wasn't virtually forced to leave for talking mean - he was forced into it over watergate. Neither has any similarity at all to saying mean things.
I'm far more interested in the welfare of our nation, in the needs and requirements of the country and it's people, than I am in a perceived "need" for dignity. Those needs absolutely take priority, IMO, over your need for a dignified, politically correct, statesman-like, president. It would absolutely be nice to have both, but if I have to choose (and we all did) I choose the needs. Others disagreed, choosing those statesmanlike qualities (at least when in public) of Clinton. So far, I'm satisfied with the choice. Had we chosen the alternate I don't believe we'd be looking at true immigration reform, I don't think we would have seen the stock market climb, I don't think we'd be seeing business giving bonuses or investing. I don't think we would have seen anything but further decay and decline.
You know, I'm kind of with GA on this, that we're just beating a dead horse. Trump's behavior was on full display, repeatedly and over a long period of time, with no remorse or apology from him, before and during his campaign, before he was elected. What you describe here is different.
We're never going to agree on this. All I can say is, if you voted for Trump, you knowingly voted for a childish, mean bully who is a liar of unprecedented proportions and a self-described sexual predator. I voted for Hillary, a woman who carelessly exposed classified documents to possible damaging disclosure. I admit it. Just because I thought she was the lesser of two evils does not excuse me voting for someone who has done that, just as Trump voters are not excused for voting for a mean bully who is a liar of unprecedented proportions and a self-described sexual predator.
If I were, for example, to jump all over Trump for conducting government email on a private server, I would be a hypocrite, wouldn't I? Just as you all jumping on Randy or me for name calling are being hypocritical, holding us to a higher standard than the president.
Edited to add: I care about the welfare of our nation, too. Where do you think the recent talk of Oprah running for president came from? We elected a reality TV star to the highest office in the land. The standards have been forever changed. Tom Hanks for President! I'm sure he can do just as good a job as Trump and be gracious, diplomatic, and kind in the process. But is he qualified? Yes, according to the new standards we now have. That is what bothers me.
"But, and this is a big "but," the reason I do so <call names like Trump does> is to highlight Trump's unacceptable behavior to the people who voted for him."
And now it's:
"Trump's behavior was on full display, repeatedly and over a long period of time, with no remorse or apology from him, before and during his campaign, before he was elected."
Your own bad behavior is intended to show people that already know how bad his is? I don't think so...
But I think you're right - we disagree over the amount of harm his mouth will cause. You see it as pretty severe, I see it as something minor that will disappear within months of his exit. Neither of us has much more than an opinion, though I will point out that we got over Jackson and we got over Johnson with their bad behavior problems. And all the others that were not up to snuff, which was probably most of them.
Tom or Oprah? I haven't the faintest if they have any qualifications outside of acting. Certainly no more political qualifications than Trump did, but then I'm not convinced those are necessary. They may cause more harm than good for that matter which is a part of why we see so many calls for term limits; a constitutional amendment to limit the experience in congress because we're finding that too much is harmful.
But Trump - Trump has massive qualifications in the business field, something that maybe we should see more of up on the Hill. It takes understanding more than how to present a false but very PC front to the public to run the country. Either Oprah or Tom may have it (Oprah probably does), but I don't really know. Isn't Oprah one of, if not the single, richest woman in the country?
Oprah openly contemplated running for president. Since she has built an empire from nothing (no million dollars in seed money from daddy) and without filing multiple bankruptcies and stiffing small businesses, one could argue she is a much better business person than Trump. But, the only reason I brought her up is that she is a reality TV star (like Trump) who was seriously considering a presidential bid. Why? Because people just elected a reality TV star. The standard has been lowered and we're already seeing the effects.
As for the rest....as you all repeatedly tell us, look at what Trump does, not what he says. So, don't look at what I say. If it's irrelevant for Trump then it's irrelevant for me. Then, at least you would be consistent.
I don't know if any of her business interests have gone bankrupt (if she has any), and doubt that you do either. Don't know if she "stiffed" any small businesses, and doubt you do either. Any more than I know of any that Trump "stiffed" (although I've heard there were some he claims they didn't do the work they were hired to do and I HAVE had that problem) and again doubt that you do either. That you haven't heard of any certainly doesn't mean they aren't there (Oprah) any more than it guarantees there were (Trump).
But she was a reality TV star? All I ever heard of was a talk show host - a vastly different thing. Nor did I ever hear her say she was seriously contemplating running, though many other people rambled on about it and, I think, pushed her to say "Yes".
Why is it you keep saying I think it (nasty talk) is irrelevant? I personally find it annoying and yes, destructive, to society in general and I've repeatedly said I wish Trump would muffle his mouth better. IMO insulting people is a good way to stop any productive discussion. When manners goes downhill in a society so does that society. It just isn't a major force like following the road of excessive wealth re-distribution and socialism is.
I think I recall you noting you had a bit of the flu recently, I hope you are feeling better, and the effort you have put into your defense in the last couple responses hasn't sapped your energy. Let's let this one go, there will be other opportunities.
Here is a thought Randy convinced me might be useful now and then:
(*errrgh, using emoticons just doesn't feel right, but your effort deserves my effort - in this case)
As I have previously stated, Trump lies like he breathes. His lawyers know that. They will do everything in their power to keep him from testifying because they know he will lie. They are attempting to protect their client.
And, talking with Mueller is only a bad thing if you lie, or if telling the truth implicates you or your family, friends, or coworkers in something nefarious.
If Trump or any of his family or minions have done nothing wrong, what's the problem?
Trump's defenders know Trump cannot tell the truth even if it puts him in harms way. After all, they know he tells lies on a whim and sometimes for no reason at all. It's like Fox brainwashes people in some manner. All of a sudden their family values and sense of honesty doesn't mean anything. I just watched a group of Evangelical women in Texas claim they couldn't be any happier the way Trump's run things.
Of course, that's where they print many anti-Evolution textbooks as the bible doesn't exactly jive with the sciences. I do know some great Texans though.
Selective outrage; Trump pleading the fifth makes you upset, but not when all those Democrats were dropping the fifth like a baseline over the last couple of years.
I'm not outraged, Onus. I expected him to do so as he cannot be honest for even a few minutes. He stated he was looking forward to the interview with Mueller. Therefore according to his record of honesty, we can almost certainly believe otherwise. Easy peasy.
The "perjury trap" is a very real issue. For example, Mike Flynn was found guilty of lying to the FBI. At the time he was questioned, FBI agents had transcripts of Flynn's calls, intercepted by the National Security Agency. In effect, Flynn was being quizzed on his precise recollection of the conversations and nailed for lying when his recollections deviated from the transcripts.
Few of us can recollect, with precision, the contents of our phonecalls and text messages of weeks or months later. If we were asked to recount what we said or texted, there would likely be many inconsistencies. If you fail to correctly recall stuff accurately when giving testimony, you could be charged and found guilty of lying.
About the only way a person could avoid being charged with lying in such an interview would be to bring a bunch of attorneys with you, along with very complete records of everything you ever said. Then you could respond to questions by saying, "My attorneys have brought transcripts of all my communications and I will be happy to read what I said from the transcript, so that there can be no mistake."
The expected release of "the memo" seems to have caused quite a stir! Let's see what's in there before we call it "horse hockey."
I should also remind liberals that, should they attempt to deny the veracity of "the memo," the public will demand the release of the underlying FISA documents
So my guess--and at this point I am still guessing--attempting to discredit "the memo" would be a very poor strategy for liberals to pursue. They will wind up letting ALL the cats out of the bag. "The memo" is likely a way of offering libs an opportunity to somewhat limit just how many cats come out of the bag. You could even call it an olive branch of sorts. But we know from experience that they will overplay their hand.
Well, I suppose a person could object to "our law enforcement agencies being attacked," if one were in favor of corruption, lies, sedition, and various other crimes. I guess some people go in for that kind of thing.
Randy, there is quite a bit of evidence that the FBI was engaged in throwing the election in Hillary's favor and subsequently engaged in actively working to overthrow a sitting president. I think there is an expectation that "the memo" to some degree confirms this. (My guess is that, if anything, "the memo" soft-pedals the criminality revealed by the underlying FISA documentation.)
The reason the FISA warrant and related documents were subpoenaed is because there is a very strong appearance that the FBI's actions to obtain a warrant to spy on Trump were based on partisan politics. What the FISA documents are expected to show is that the "Trump dossier," consisting of unverified opposition-funded "research," was used to obtain the FISA warrant.
What this would mean (if true) is that the FBI and DOJ colluded against Trump and in favor of Hillary. (There is much other evidence that they did so, BTW.)
Such actions are unlawful.
So, in reply to your question, "What crimes?"
§ 2381 - Treason
§ 2382 - Misprision of treason
§ 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
§ 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
§ 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government
§ 2386 - Registration of certain organizations
Please show the factual evidence you claim exists. The cons memo is based on cherry picked parts of the actual underlying classified material which Nunes has not even read himself. Adam Shiff is only one of 3 people --the other two being Nunes staffers who actually wrote the memo.
The dossier was only one of many reasons the FISA warrant was issued , but the memo makes it sound as if it was the only reason. According to Shiff and the DOJ among others, the memo contains false and misleading statements. So what crimes have you actually seen evidence of?
Your response could have come straight from Limbaugh's show yesterday.
I can see how you can make your case that this was a partisan effort based on the dossier's use.
Three rebuttals to that.
One - Steele didn't approach the FBI at the behest of the client. He felt compelled to go independently based upon what he discovered and felt national security issues were in play.
Two - Manafort, Page, and Flynn were all fairly known to the FBI previously as people in contact with Russian interests. Page and Manafort had previously been under FBI surveillance since as recent as 2014. So if you see no cause for concern there in having them involved in the highest echelons of our government, I would wonder why not? Charges that include failure to register as a foreign agent were included in both cases of Manafort and Flynn. The fact that you're dogging the FBI for catching two guys in violation of the law, or in other words, successfully doing their job in protecting the US from the threat of espionage, is extraordinarily concerning to those of us who are behind the FBI in this instance.
Three - In London in May of 2016, Papadopoulus, already a foreign policy adviser with the Trump campaign, bragged to Australia's top diplomat that Russia had political dirt on Clinton in the form of hacked e-mails. This would put the Trump campaign in communication with Russian interests as early as May 2016.
Combine the May 2016 events with the independent Steele findings and it would have been criminal not to open an investigation based on the threat of foreign espionage.
Perhaps the lesson that should be learned here is that if you don't want our intelligence services to surveil you, don't hire campaign staff with known ties to foreign governments.
Well, to address you "cherry picking" claim, Chairman Nunes personally took FBI Director Christopher Wray to view the “Intel Memo” on Sunday night, and prior to the House Intel Committee vote to release the memo. Those officials could not point to any factual inaccuracies. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 … ttee-vote/
The reason that the FISA documents were subpoenaed was because, as the "Russiagate" story unravelled along with the "dossier" story, there was a very strong appearance that the FBI had relied on the "dossier"--which they knew or should have known was opposition-financed "research" (which Comey himself stated was unverified--and appears to be a pure fabrication) to obtain the FISA warrant to spy on Trump. Hence, if true, there is almost no way to get around concluding that the FBI and DOJ colluded the throw the election in favor of Hillary and later colluded to overthrow a sitting president. These actions embrace a whole range of criminal activity.
We don't actually know yet what reasons were used to obtain the FISA warrant. Perhaps you could list what you believe to be some of these other reasons.
As I see it, it doesn't matter one iota where you think I may have gained knowledge of the relevant facts. You may dislike hearing them, but they are still the facts.
So why did Nunes refuse the committee being addressed by both the DOJ and FBI heads before releasing the memo to Trump? The conservative site you linked didn't mention this of course. Both instructed Nunes it would be reckless and dangerous to release the misleading memo. Wray refused to edit the memo because it's not the proper procedure to do so and not because it was factual. Stop getting your facts from pro Trump sites and you'll know what you're talking about.
" A strong appearance to whom" the FBI had relied on the dossier? Nunes--who you well know has already been involved in working with Trump to undermine the Russia investigation--refuses to answer whether Trump had a hand in writing the tainted memo. What does that tell you.
Okay, Carter Page had already been under investigation long before the dossier was created. Another dossier compiled completely separate from the Steele work was also used as a reason because it corroborated the Steele dossier. As I understand the method of obtaining a FISA warrant, there may be many pages of reasons for the warrant and the dossier is simply one of them. To conclude it was the only reason is simply ignoring the way FISA works and is simply grasping at straws.
The above info I provided indicates why it matters where you get your "facts", Heron. If you didn't already know my answers to your questions, that is.
Call us when Trump answers 11 hours of public questioning at hearings on Russian interference of the 2016 election.
You asked, "So why did Nunes refuse the committee being addressed by both the DOJ and FBI heads before releasing the memo to Trump?" Why should he? All protocols for the release of the memo have been scrupulously followed--to a T. There is no requirement to allow the FBI and DOJ to apply pressure to prevent the release of the memo.
Nunes's response to this was, "Having stonewalled Congress’ demands for information for nearly a year, it’s no surprise to see the FBI and DOJ issue spurious objections to allowing the American people to see information related to surveillance abuses at these agencies. The FBI is intimately familiar with ‘material omissions’ with respect to their presentations to both Congress and the courts, and they are welcome to make public, to the greatest extent possible, all the information they have on these abuses. Regardless, it’s clear that top officials used unverified information in a court document to fuel a counter-intelligence investigation during an American political campaign. Once the truth gets out, we can begin taking steps to ensure our intelligence agencies and courts are never misused like this again.”
The strong appearance of FBI and DOJ interference in the election is evident from multiple sources. I rather doubt that Nunes would make a statement like the above, on the eve (or thereabouts) of the release of the memo unless he were quite certain he could back it up.
The insistence on the part of the FBI and DOJ that the release of the memo would be "reckless and dangerous" means, yup, "reckless and dangerous" to THEM, in that their crimes will be revealed. It is the FBI that has obstructed the "Russiagate" investigation by refusing to provide material evidence (the FISA documents), "Having stonewalled Congress’ demands for information for nearly a year." These documents were only provided after being subpoenaed, when FBI officials were threatened with contempt of Congress if they didn't ante up the docs.
There is no reason to believe that the "other dossier" that has surfaced has no more substance than the discredited Steele dossier. Two guys saying the same thing does not amount to "corroboration."
Neither of us knows what is in the memo, let alone the FISA documents, so, while "there may be many pages of reasons for the warrant and the dossier is simply one of them," it may also be true that the dossier was the only documentation provided the court, or that other documentation was equally unconvincing, irrelevant, unverified, or unverifiable. Neither of us knows. But the mere inclusion of the dossier in the request for the FISA warrant is absolutely damning, even if other materials were provided to the court.
It is my hope that, if the Dems continue to insist that the memo is untruthful, the underlying FISA documents will be released.
Breaking news, Heron. The memo submitted for Trump's approval and release is not the same one voted for by the republican committee members. Nunes had the wording changed after the vote and told no one about it. He also doesn't want to answer if he worked with the WH on the wording of the memo.
Nunes campaigned for Trump and has already been caught deceiving the committee by getting classified info from Trump and acting as if he discovered it on his own. Nunes hasn't even read the underlying reasons for the FISA warrant--sources say pages of corroborating evidence--and has the nerve to have a so-called fact based opinion on the entire file. He then changed the wording of the memo approved by the other cons on the committee without telling them. Spin that for me if you dare, Blue!!
Randy, I'm not seeing a link to substantiate your comment.
Okay, I found links on this. They proofreading edits.
"“In its increasingly strange attempt to thwart publication of the memo, the Committee Minority is now complaining about minor edits to the memo, including grammatical fixes and two edits requested by the FBI and by the Minority themselves,” Nunes spokesman Jack Langer said. “The vote to release the memo was absolutely procedurally sound, and in accordance with House and Committee rules. To suggest otherwise is a bizarre distraction from the abuses detailed in the memo, which the public will hopefully soon be able to read for themselves.”
If, as Wray claims, there are "material omissions" to the memo, Nunes has pointed out that the FBI is perfectly free to fill us in on any omissions.
"The FBI is intimately familiar with ‘material omissions’ with respect to their presentations to both Congress and the courts, and they are welcome to make public, to the greatest extent possible, all the information they have on these abuses. Regardless, it’s clear that top officials used unverified information in a court document to fuel a counter-intelligence investigation during an American political campaign."
Randy, in my opinion, you are going to find further down the road that the people you are trying to defend are criminals of a very deep dye. Deeper than you can imagine.
"The memo" is just the beginning.
This is pretty amazing. Devin Nunes has already been exposed as a partisan hack who can't be trusted and who will pervert any sort of information for political gain. Again, this has already been proven with his exposed surveillance fiasco.
Then there's the issue of President Trump himself, who has demonstrated that he's willing to expose the intelligence community and classified information for political gain. Go ask the Israeli intelligence community, who will no longer give the U.S. any classified information because Trump turned around and gave their information to the Russians who, in turn, gave it to the Iranians.
Wray, Trump's own man, even opposes releasing this partisan hit job. When have we ever had a President attack his own justice department, attack his own intelligence service, and expose classified information to our enemies? What happened to the party of law and order? What happened to the party that supposedly supports law enforcement?
Not to put too fine a political point on it, but shoot a black guy in the back and we support you. Investigate white collar crime and potential major political crimes, and we throw you under the bus.
Nunes hasn't even read the classified material the memo was allegedly written from, Heron. You believe him anyway despite the antics he's already been involved with Trump before. He shouldn't even be on the committee as he campaigned for Trump before the election. Of course he's biased, something you guys claim about the FBI and Mueller, but don't seem to care when your side does it.
This entire thing is pushed by Fox News. I'm guessing you believe their BS as well.
If the "intelligence community" has committed crimes against the American people, it is essential that these crimes be exposed.
If the Dems argue that "the memo" is untruthful and misrepresents the contents of the underlying FISA documents, then these underlying documents need to be declassified and released to the public.
It kind of appears that some here oppose the exposure (and probably the investigation) of monumental criminal conduct by the FBI and DOJ.
This rather creates the impression that those of you who oppose the exposure and investigation of crimes are in favor of criminal conduct and don't want it exposed or investigated. Why would that be?
List the crimes you claim that have been proven to be true if you can. I'll be waiting for this so don't get off somewhere.
Do you even know how a FISA warrant is compiled, Heron? The risk of exposing methods and operatives makes it almost impossible to release the underlying classified materials. You need to study up on this procedure as you apparently are ignorant of the process.
Actually it kind of appears that some here don't care about the facts and simply want to cast doubt on the investigations as they are getting too close to Trump's wrongdoing. These are those who listen to the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh for their "facts" about "monumental criminal conduct." I'm waiting for proof of this as well.
Pot....kettle. Are you opposed to the investigations into criminal conduct by Trump and his already criminally charged cronies? Why would that be?
While there is doubtless "political gain" to be garnered by the exposure of corruption, the exposure of corruption is 1) not a crime, 2) deserving of praise.
Corruption, on the other hand, is a crime--probably a bunch of crimes against black-letter law.
So, really, Crank, you are criticizing Trump et al for exposing corruption, on the grounds that the American people will rejoice and praise him for it, and that the merit of such actions will likely benefit him politically.
Proving a crime requires evidence.
The FBI withheld evidence for a year, until the was subpoenaed under threat of prosecution for contempt of Congress.
What I and others are demanding is that the FBI and DOJ not be allowed to withhold evidence, and not be able to withhold evidence from public view.
Release the evidence. Then we go to court and prove the wrongdoing.
You failed to list the many crimes and "monumental criminal conduct" you claimed in your previous post, Heron. Did you forget or do you intentionally ignore questions you don't want to answer. You noticed I quoted your claims and made an effort to address them separately. The same would be helpful from you.
Trump's supposed Russian collusion for a year or so, and the investigation has produced nothing on Trump.
I understand that Mueller is about to wind up the "Russiagate" investigation--which was horseshit from the beginning, and based on "evidence" such as the "dossier" and allegations of collusion every time one diplomat spoke to another diplomat, or if Ivanka said "Good morning" to a Russian when getting off an elevator. I wonder if Melania ordered some of those Russian cake-frosting piping tips? This is how flimsy the "evidence" is. There simply never was any "there" there.
I think that the release of "the memo" will be quite a bit more persuasive with regard to real black-letter crimes.
I loved this quote from Heron....'If the Dems argue that "the memo" is untruthful and misrepresents the contents of the underlying FISA documents, then these underlying documents need to be declassified and released to the public.'
Well, they tried that and the GOP majority voted them down. The same party that claims they want transparency. That's how you know this is a partisan hack job aimed at undermining Rosenstein and Mueller. With the intent of removing Rosenstein next, so that some other Trump lacky can fire Mueller before he calls for Trump's impeachment or worse.
Well, if you think it's a partisan hack job, and the memo indicates that Rosenstein and Mueller committed crimes, we can always have a fair trial.
If the memo indicates that Rosenstein and Mueller should have recused themselves, we can always look into that matter to determine whether that is correct.
I think it very likely that the underlying FISA documents will ultimately have to be released, because so many doubts have been cast on the veracity of "the memo."
I think it is within Trump's power as president to unilaterally declassify and release all the FISA documents. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if there are any constraints on the president's power to declassify information. There may be some constraints. There are likely also procedures for doing so.
From a political standpoint, Trump's power to release classified information is a "trump card," but it's also a card you don't play lightly. I think he'll do it, if it becomes necessary--but he'll do it at the time of his own choosing.
It's obvious you're not a lawyer or even partially knowledgeable about the law. Do you not care if lives are put at risk by releasing the classified info on FISA warrants? Or do you even care as long as the erroneous memo is put out to save Trump's ass from being indicted?
With Mueller wanting to question Donnie, this is simply a transparent partisan attempt to cast doubt on the forthcoming decision on his guilt. Yes, he will indeed take the 5th to keep from incriminating himself with his own words. What did he say about others taking the 5th? What a buffoon!!
Looking at "the memo" from a strategic standpoint, since the midterm elections are still pretty far off, I would guess that Trump would not play the memo card at this time unless he had some bigger fish to fry at a more strategically valuable time. Better hold onto your hats.
by Sharlee 4 months ago
Although the special counsel' Robert Mueller's report on Russian interference does not come to any concrete conclusion as to whether President Trump sought to obstructed justice, Robert Mueller's team did find and examine 10 "discrete acts" in which Mueller infers President Trump may have...
by Jack Lee 2 years ago
He made a profound statement which is one of his strong suit being the success he is on talk tadio.He said of the establishment Politicians in Washington - that they cannot afford to have President Trump succeed in his agenda. They cannot have an outsider come to Washington with zero experience and...
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter 2 years ago
Right now it looks like Putin/Trump are in agreement about the hacking. Can this issue be addressed without being partisan? Is the future of US democracy at stake? What are Trump's advisors telling him?
by Scott Belford 4 months ago
Trump's hand-picked attorney general summarized the Mueller Report by saying two things.1) Trump or his campaign did not legally conspire with Russia to fix the 2016 election2) Trump is NOT exonerated from the charge of Obstruction of Justice.IF Barr properly reported Mueller's...
by Randy Godwin 12 months ago
For many of us on the left, DT's putting a known anti-Mueller person in the AG's position is simply an attempt to quash the investigation into himself. Legal scholars are already saying the act is unconstitutional at best, and may be illegal at worst. Not to mention Whitaker's being involved in an...
by Scott Belford 6 months ago
Donald Trump's supporters frequently point to all that he has accomplished to make up for his other bad characteristics (false statements and lying being the most frequent). But the question is, what has he really done?I define "accomplish" as some significant action or policy that...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|