Will Trump plead the fifth when interviewed by Mueller?

Jump to Last Post 1-21 of 21 discussions (99 posts)
  1. Randy Godwin profile image93
    Randy Godwinposted 5 months ago

    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?

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      "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?"

      1. Randy Godwin profile image93
        Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        The same can be said of Obama and HRC and is being said by the right. Do you have an opinion or are simply taking up for the Don as usual?

    2. GA Anderson profile image81
      GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      "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'?

      GA

      1. Randy Godwin profile image93
        Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        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. smile And what is your opinion by the way?

        1. GA Anderson profile image81
          GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          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?

          GA

          1. Randy Godwin profile image93
            Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Not that I'm aware of, GA. Are you related to Jackclee?

            1. GA Anderson profile image81
              GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              2nd cousins. Maybe. I'm not sure his papers were legit.

              GA

              1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                Ooooh, Jack may not agree with you, GA! tongue

          2. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image93
              Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              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!

              1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                  Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Yes, if they voted for a name caller, they have no leg to stand on disliking the same in the other direction.

                  As for GA, he may be a professional fence rider. tongue

              2. GA Anderson profile image81
                GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                Hypocrisy?

                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.

                GA

                1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                  Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  No, you ride the fence well, GA.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image81
                    GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                    GA

            2. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              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...

              1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                "....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.

                1. wilderness profile image98
                  wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  "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.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                    Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    Are you referring to Stormy Daniels? P***y grabbing, lying, racist remarks,and other such innocent actions? Or what?

              2. Randy Godwin profile image93
                Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                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. yikes

                1. wilderness profile image98
                  wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  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. smile

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                    Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

            3. GA Anderson profile image81
              GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Sooo.... if your best friend farted at the dinner table - you would too?

              GA

              1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. wilderness profile image98
                  wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  "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.

                  Got it. big_smile

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                    PrettyPantherposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    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?

    3. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      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?

      1. Randy Godwin profile image93
        Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        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.

    4. Onusonus profile image78
      Onusonusposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      Benghazi...

      1. Randy Godwin profile image93
        Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        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. cool

  2. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 5 months ago

    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."

    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Then it's truly amazing how many people are interviewed by the FBI but manage to escape being charged with lying.  Truly amazing!

  3. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 5 months ago

    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.

  4. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 5 months ago

    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.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      What crimes are you referring to, Heron? Or are you talking about Trump?

      1. Valeant profile image96
        Valeantposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13888420.jpg

  5. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 5 months ago

    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

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      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. tongue

  6. Valeant profile image96
    Valeantposted 5 months ago

    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.

  7. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 5 months ago

    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.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      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.

  8. Valeant profile image96
    Valeantposted 5 months ago

    Call us when Trump answers 11 hours of public questioning at hearings on Russian interference of the 2016 election.

  9. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 5 months ago

    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.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      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!! lol

  10. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 5 months ago

    Randy, I'm not seeing a link to substantiate your comment.

  11. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 5 months ago

    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.”

  12. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 5 months ago

    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."

  13. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 5 months ago

    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.

    1. crankalicious profile image94
      crankaliciousposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      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.

    2. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      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.

  14. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 5 months ago

    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?

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      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. lol Are you opposed to the investigations into criminal conduct by Trump and his already criminally charged cronies? Why would that be?  tongue

  15. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 5 months ago

    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.

  16. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 5 months ago

    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.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      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.

  17. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 5 months ago

    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.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Fox talking points and nothing more as usual.

  18. Valeant profile image96
    Valeantposted 5 months ago

    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.

  19. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 5 months ago

    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.

  20. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 5 months ago

    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.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      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!!

  21. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 5 months ago

    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.

    1. Valeant profile image96
      Valeantposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13891173.jpg

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis 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.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe 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 PixelsWe 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.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)