Congressional Democrats spent more than $35 million on the Mueller report. It took 675 days, included nearly 3,000 subpoenas, and required 500 witness accounts. Despite being conducted by a far-from-unbiased legal team—one that has collectively donated at least 20 times more to Democrat as Republican candidates over the years—it found zero evidence of collusion or obstruction of justice.
No charges were recommended by Mueller, who had a broad scope and resources.
A Special Prosecutors mission is to gather all of the relevant facts and determine whether a crime was committed and, if so, whether it can be proved in court beyond a reasonable doubt.
It's over and no matter how many people disagree with the findings, Bob Mueller did not provide any charges. The Democrats in Congress continue to demand he be impeached, but won't actually proceed with any impeachment articles - ask yourselves why Nancy Pelosi won't do this, if "he's guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors" - maybe because it's a losing strategy and she doesn't have the votes to make it happen.
How was Mueller supposed to bring charges against Trump, Ralph? The OLC prevents him from indicting a sitting POTUS. You should already know this. Mueller didn't go into Donnie's finances so congress is doing so.
The people anxious to "move on" seem to be a bit afraid at what they will find during the investigations. I'm one of those who believe we can't not impeach him. I don't want a POTUS of either party to have the power Trump's trying to gain. He isn't above the law....
Mueller by law could not bring charges, but he has the power to recommend charges. He also had the right to stipulate any crimes committed. Just stating facts. Maybe it is time to just stop all investigations. The Horowitz investigation is most likely going to not only embarrass the Country, but some will most likely be charged with crimes. It might be time to realize it's time to move on.
Sharlee01: That's just FACTUALLY Incorrect as much of the "nationalist" Fox Phony Channel speak is:
In reality, the ONLY thing protecting Donny from an Indictment is a FLIMSY little DOJ Memo, not a law: Moreover, the second he leaves our oval office is the second he'll be INDICTED if not sooner because the USA is in COLLAPSE Mode:
Stop all investigations with 37 indictments and 6 guilty pleas so far? I don't think so.
And there is no reason for Mueller to "recommend charges" if he can't prosecute a President while in office.
He did the smart thing instead: give plenty of evidence to indict Trump after he leaves office.
Odd that you feel Dem's would let Trump slide... If they had anything to impeach him on they would. Just common sense. If Trump were impeached for crimes once out of office he could be charged with those same crimes. Your theory just holds no water. They have nothing, and Mueller had a duty to report any crimes he discovered. My God, he would have loved to get Trump. Not only will he not be impeached, but he will also be reelected due to the fact Dem's are making fools of themselves.
Not at all. You misunderstand the Democratic strategy (and you're ignoring what's in the Mueller report). You also are ignoring what Pelosi keeps saying about impeachment.
Trump wants the Dems in the House to impeach him so he can use it to rally his base. He will scream "treason" and "coup" to the heavens, which he already has started doing.
Trump also knows the Republican-controlled Senate would not find him guilty in an impeachment trial. So impeachment is a worthless act by the Dems.
Instead, the Dem leadership is quite happy to leave him in office until the recession hits next year in the middle of the election.
If we have a recession next year, Trump will lose the election because most people vote with their wallets. He will then be indicted after leaving office and go to jail.
Funny how some forget Trump is already an unindicted co-conspirator in the Michael Cohen case. They don't seem to understand what that means.
Nor do they understand a sealed indictment.
Based on what Mueller wrote in his report, I wouldn't be surprised if he issued a sealed indictment against Trump that will be opened when he leaves office.
That's how he gets around the prohibition against indicting sitting Presidents.
I know what it means Randy: Donny is PROHIBITED from running for re-election: The state of DENIAL some are in about this short timer is nothing less than ASTONISHING: But then again, we need to remember there where a few gullible lost souls in DENIAL of Reality who followed Marshall Applewhite, Jim Jones and Charles Manson head first into the ABYSS:
So, am I to understand Nacy won't impeach the president because she thinks it will hurt the Dem's in the election? This is so funny, no really. She is willing to let Trump get away with all the crimes she claims he has committed? How generous of her. And you don't see how some could see this as crazy, and not to mention dishonest on her part? LOL
I wonder if Trump wouldn't and doesn't do whatever he thinks it will take to fire up his base and keep his voters so he can win in 2020? After all, winning is all he does right... it certainly seems by any means necessary Yet, Democrats are supposed to take the high road in the name of moral superiority? I thought that was one of the things people liked about Trump. He keeps it real.
Sigh. "So impeachment is a worthless act by the Dems."
Sigh again. "He will then be indicted after leaving office and go to jail."
None of this suggests that Pelosi is willing to let Trump get away with obstruction of justice or anything else. She is simply outsmarting him.
You give them too much credit, these radicals are not that smart, not that patient, not that wise. They are extremists, they want blood, and they want to eradicate the opposition, not compromise, not come to a middle-of-the-road resolution.
I agree with you, if left alone, Trump's less than gentlemanly demeanor, combined with a stagnant economy, would seal Trump's fate if the Democrats provided anyone remotely electable.
But the Democrats, and their supportive media, won't do that... they have doubled down, again, on the Russia rants... they are doubling down, again, on the need to impeach... they are in their own little echo chamber, and are ignorant of the fact that the rest of America isn't in there with them.
They very well may be setting up Trump to win re-election even if the economy is struggling, because they are setting themselves up to be equally to blame for causing any economic turmoil, and focusing incessantly on this tripe that the majority of America is sick of and wants nothing more to do with... proof of that can be seen in things like CNN's ratings, Congress' approval rating, everything points to the majority of Americans (especially those outside of the CA - NY regions) fed up with this BS.
Trump wants the Dems to impeach him to inflame his base. Pelosi has said repeatedly she won't do it unless the Republicans take part. She obviously is outsmarting Trump.
Trump supporters would rather believe that all Democrats are evil and stupid and all Republicans are good and brilliant. Their mistake.
The slight increase in his approval rating is simply a reflection of the low unemployment rate and the ignorance of his supporters.
It will vanish next year when the next big recession arrives. Then his approval rating will drop into the 20s. If he isn't impeached by then with Republican help, he will lose the election.
Yeah, I bet you Trump voters want to move on. You mean like the right has moved on re Hillary?
So, you disagree with the OP title "Enough is Enough - The Endless Investigations are Hurting America?"
The fact stated in the report did not clear him. On page 18 of the report, it says that the office learned that some individuals, INCLUDING SOME ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN deleted relevant communication or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that don't hold on to data long-term.
In his conclusion, the report and legal determinations he believes to be accurate to the greatest extent possible. But if they could fill in the gaps it would shed additional light or CAST NEW LIGHT to the events.
That doesn't sound like he cleared anyone of collusion. It reads that he could not come to a complete conclusion.
Not sure where you get the idea I claimed the president is clear of suspicion of any crimes? Please read my comment more carefully, I was responding to a comment Jake made reminding Jake of the fact Meuller could report crimes as well as recommend indictments. As he did throughout his investigation. You are deflecting, and I don't fall into traveling down another path. If crimes were committed I believe they will be uncovered by the various investigations. The Dem's are on the president's heels...Let's see what they can prove. Just my opinion, I think Mueller would have called a crime a crime if he found anything wrongdoing by the president. He did list discrepancies in how the president conducted himself with staff. However, none of what he listed consists of a crime.
I was not deflecting, it was a fact straight from the report. Mueller stated that the president as long as he's in office could not be held accountable. And as I said, In his conclusion, the report and legal determinations he believes to be accurate to the greatest extent possible. But if they could fill in the gaps it would shed additional light or CAST NEW LIGHT to the events.
And you are correct, his behavior was not a crime because no one followed through with what he wanted. Had they done as Trump asked, everybody would be signing a different tune.
Just because he didn't get "caught" doesn't make him any less guilty of amoral behavior.
"And you are correct, his behavior was not a crime because no one followed through with what he wanted. Had they done as Trump asked, everybody would be signing a different tune.
Just because he didn't get "caught" doesn't make him any less guilty of amoral behavior."
The resident had the power to fire Comey as well as Mueller. This is fact and pretty well covers why Mueller did not bother offering up a recommendation that the president broke any laws he did his job and did it well. He gathered facts and gave his report. His report offered up smoke to the Dem's to stir up the rhetoric that has resulted. Please give me an example from the Mueller report that shows the president broke any law
Congressional Democrats didn't spend a dime on the Mueller investigation.
The Mueller investigation was authorized by Trump's own Attorney General. The Department of Justice bore the cost.
Mueller has indicted 37 people and companies and received 7 guilty pleas so far.
Congressional Republicans spent a lot more on Hillary's 4-year Benghazi investigation than Democrats did on Trump.
Facts sure are helpful.
"A $12 Billion Program to Help Farmers Stung by Trump’s Trade War Has Aided Few"(1)
"Trump Gives Farmers $16 Billion in Aid Amid Prolonged China Trade War"(2)
Are you sure you want to raise the issue of expenditure in relation to the Trump administration?
(1) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/24/us/p … e-war.html
(2) https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/us/p … ckage.html
You are so right. What this is is subversion, the leftist overthrow of a freely elected government because they hate America, flat and simple.
I don't hate America, James. And neither do others who believe Trump isn't above the law. You confuse hate with integrity...
When I say I don't believe as you do, you say I hate Jesus.
When I say Trump isn't above the law, you claim I hate America.
You're not the sole arbiter of who hates what, James. Unless of course, your god appointed you as such. Did he?
Many who voted for Trump, saw him as an alternative to a corrupt and out of control government that no longer served the people.
I believe the efforts of Mueller, Comey, Brennan the Democrats in Congress and much of the media has gone a long way to proving many of the 'conspiracy theories' and 'deep state' talk true, rather than prove that Trump is a Russian puppet or sum-of-all-evils tyrant.
I believe if they had left Trump alone, and let him do his thing, people would have grown tired of his rants and tweets... it is only because the attacks on him are non stop, and ever more irrational, that he is gaining support rather than losing it.
Impeaching him only further ensures that he will be re-elected, and that the Republicans will retain control of the Senate.
And yet we got with Trump a "corrupt and out of control" President. Just ask 60% of the country and all of our allies.
But Russia and North Korea are happy with us.
Except that about 50% of America approves of Trump, some poles have been trashing Trump and his chances since long before his winning the election in 2016, but not the ones that are reporting the truth:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/249344/tru … -high.aspx
https://www.theepochtimes.com/polls-his … 70164.html
https://news.yahoo.com/poll-half-americ … 43259.html
Now, I'm sure your 'echo chamber' news sources like CNN and MSNBC and the WP are telling you that 70% of Americans can't stand Trump, believe him guilty, will not vote for him, etc. etc.
But its just not true.
What percentage of those who like Trump do not care if he's corrupt or not, Ken? Would that be important? Or beside the point?
Totally beside the point.
I am pointing out why Trump will be likely be re-elected, I am also pointing out what would need to happen for him to lose, but the Democrats will do the exact opposite, and actually help him in his re-election efforts.
The rest I have already said above, or can be read in those links.
Well, considering Trump's Gallup poll* average has been 40% since taking office, and with that being a whopping five percentage points lower than the worst score in the history of the Gallup Presidential Approval, I'm not sure that's something I'd be relying on. Are Trump supporters believing in polls again? It's hard to keep track.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St … val_rating
And Epoch Times slants way towards Trump. Not sure I'd buy into anything they put out. And that Yahoo link is nearly three months old at this point. I'd question its current accuracy.
No, 50% of America doesn't approve of Trump and none of the so-called "liberal media" is saying he has a 70% disapproval.
No need to make up numbers. Even your own link to one poll (which always has a margin of error) shows an approval for only one week at 46%.
Trump's current rating among all major polls is 43% approval and 54% disapproval.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll … -6179.html
You have no idea what I read or watch. That's like me saying you watch nothing but Alex Jones. Let's try to stay on the topic and not the posters.
Are poll takers "mathematically challenged" or something? 43+58=101 - just who makes up that final 1% or the population? Ghosts?
More to the point, your own link shows a 37% approval among independents. No one gets elected to the White House without the majority of independents.
His 43% overall approval is only that high because of a 91% approval among Republicans.
I think the real reason Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to impeach him is the same reason I don't want to see him impeached. For political reasons, she doesn't want to admit that. Vice President Pence would become president, then he would be the Republican incumbent. This would give him an advantage to being elected after Trump's term is up. Pence is a Trump in sheep's clothing, and we would just see a continuation of Trump's policies, regardless of Pence's gentlemanly nature. I want to see a middle-of-the-roader elected president, not a flaming liberal, socialist, or a rabid conservative. I believe that only a moderate can reunite this country, if it can be reunited at all.
One side must win.
The war must be fought.
(But, I agree, not one extreme side.)
So let me restate: One reasonable side must win.
That leaves out the people who have hijacked the Republican Party.
Yes. I'm not a Republican, but I hope it leaves out the people who are trying to hijack the Democrat Party, too. They seem to be doing a good job of it.
Promisem, do you think it is going to take these young liberal or socialist radicals to shout down the ultra conservatives? Why can't the moderates be heard? It seems like both sides are trying to shout down Biden even if he is the top Demo dog right now. Is it possible for us older cooler heads to quietly claim a victory?
MizBejabbers, thanks for your questions. I was a Republican until the radical right and Libertarians took control of the GOP and started forcing out the moderates.
If you look at research on the number of people who affiliate themselves with one party or another, the GOP has lost more members in the last decade. Both parties have lost members, but the GOP has lost more.
The good news is that independents are on the rise. So to your questions, I don't think it will take liberals and socialists to shout down the far right and Libertarians. Independents will become the dominant political force.
I hope we are seeing a growth in people who think for themselves and will vote to the best candidate of either party and ignore the BS.
"I hope we are seeing a growth in people who think for themselves and will vote to the best candidate of either party and ignore the BS."
Once more we are in full agreement. Cover your head - the sky will surely fall!
And the extremists who are steering the Democratic Party.
Were you equally outraged during Benghazi and all that crap about Obama's birth certificate?
If you want to mention outrage, I have two words for Ralph, "Kenneth Starr".
"...found zero evidence of collusion or obstruction of justice."
That isn't exactly true, is it? I read the entire report (except for the blacked-out parts, of course). There are 'concerns', and Trump & Co. do not come out smelling like roses. Plus, there was obviously a LOT of getting rid of evidence and the use of apps to prevent conversations from being recorded, etc. Add that to all the flat-out lying that has come out, and no... Trump was not even SORT of exonerated.
I also don't think we should impeach him. His supporters are too volatile; and many - and I do mean MANY - would not be able to handle it. Its better just to vote him out next year. Less expensive, too.
I think T-fans need to go back to chanting 'lock her up' at his rallies (wait, have they ever stopped? LoL!); and stop worrying about whether or not Trump has done anything illegal or is being mistreated. You won't believe anything other than that, anyway - whether he is actually guilty of anything, or not. And that old chant should help you all feel at least a little better in the moment for a while.
So far there are 37 indictments with 7 guilty pleas.
With more to come, no doubt. I wonder why Mike, Ralph, and other right wingers here haven't "moved on" from the Hillary investigations? Perhaps one of them would address this inequality? ………. Nah!
They haven't moved on because Sean Hannity keeps telling them that Hillary murdered 4 Americans in Benghazi.
And she stole all of our uranium. And she runs a child sex slavery ring out of a New York pizza parlor. Etcetera.
No One Mentions That The Russian Trail Leads To Democratic Lobbyists
“In pushing its Manchurian-candidate-Trump narrative, the media fail to mention the much deeper ties of Democratic lobbyists to Russia. Don’t worry, the media seems to say: Even though they are representing Russia, the lobbyists are good upstanding citizens, not like the Trump people. They can be trusted with such delicate matters.”
“The media’s focus on Trump’s Russian connections ignores the much more extensive and lucrative business relationships of top Democrats with Kremlin-associated oligarchs and companies.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderi … 5758d73991
Not even a good distraction subject, Mike! You sound like Rush and Sean...
In contrast, the evidence of Democratic collusion with Russia blazes on, even as Team Mueller ignores it
If Special Counsel Robert Mueller sincerely wishes to expose Russian collusion in general, rather than search in vain for the Republican strain of this virus, he should scrutinize the other side of the aisle. Democrats colluded with Russia from 2009 to at least 2016.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/ … democrats/
Tell Trump that. He's gearing up for a Putin-esque style 2020 campaign. If you can't beat em, jail em...or at least try to.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 … ni-ukraine
Or vote him in again... Not sure why some just don't see the writing on the wall?
I'm not sure how that relates to what I said:
"Tell Trump that. He's gearing up for a Putin-esque style 2020 campaign. If you can't beat em, jail em...or at least try to."
He was voted in, with the help of Russians, last time. Of course, someone can vote for Trump..or they cannot. What about Trump's tactics? He has a habit of wanting his political opponents investigated and jailed. He cheered on the investigation craze with the whole "lock her up" chants from the beginning of the last campaign against Hillary. Now, he's trying the same with Biden. This is what we want for our country? Nah, not me.
Where any of the American's indited worst than lying to the FISA court or spying on an American candidate that was running for the presidency? Do you not fear that some in the FBI, CIA, as well as Obama, could be indited for very serious crimes?
Where's the proof of the lying re the FISA courts, Shar? You do know if Fox sez it it's suspect and often complete BS, or do you?
Randy, you really need to read more.
"Steele offered Kavalec other wild information that easily could have been debunked before the FISA application — and eventually was, in many cases, after the media reported the allegations — including that:
Trump lawyer Michael Cohen traveled to Prague to meet with Russians;
Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort owed the Russians $100 million and was the “go-between” from Russian President Vladimir Putin to Trump;
Trump adviser Carter Page met with a senior Russian businessman tied to Putin;
The Russians secretly communicated with Trump through a computer system.
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, released last month, dispelled all those wild theories while hardly mentioning Steele, except for a passing reference to his dossier being “unverified.” That’s significant, because the FISA request from October 2016 that rested heavily on Steele’s information was marked “verified application” before the FBI submitted it to the court."
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house … re-flagged
Parts of the dossier have been verified, Mike, and Page was already under surveillance before the FISA warrants were issued. Eight judges approved the warrants using other evidence besides the dossier. Another Fox News conspiracy...
Proof? Not in the Mueller Report. You need to back up such an accusation with a source. Anybody can come and make claims. Sorry, NONE of the dossier was verified.
Why is it Trump supporters always have to throw out Obama's name. If somebody did something illegal. I don't care what party they belong to. Wrong is wrong. There you go using that "spying" line from Lying Trump. It was an investigation. When you are investigating someone, who don't go knock on their door and give them a heads up so they can destroy evidence. That's law enforcement 101.
Odd that Hillary had time to destroy her servers, isn't it? Guess no one took that 101 class.
That's funny coming from someone who jumps to defend Trump and his inner circle destroying evidence and using encryption devises. Haven't heard much from the right about all their private servers being used for government work, but boy were you all hootin' and hollerin' when it came to Hillary Clinton. I don't think she was right in doing it and I don't think Trump's people are either. 2 wrongs never make a right.
"When you are investigating someone, who don't go knock on their door and give them a heads up so they can destroy evidence. That's law enforcement 101." You also don't lie to one of our highest courts
"Why is it Trump supporters always have to throw out Obama's name.".I guess we have the same right as Dem's to point the finger, as they do at the president. You see it goes both ways... President Trump has been called every name in the book accused of every crime in the book without any form of proof. In fact, the facts show him to be keeping promises, and doing a pretty dam good job.
It well appears there is lots of smoke gathering around Obama and what he knew. Guess Trump supporters have the same rights to hear what went on that gave way to the Obama administration investigating the Trump campaign.
I think if you followed this thread you will see I felt it better to stop all investigations for the good of the country. I think the Horowitz investigation will stand to embrace the Obama administration, and most likely lead to indictments.
Almost word for word from the Fox talking heads. I'm sure it's a coincidence, Shar....
Randy, your response is almost word or word from CNN, MSNBC talking heads. I'm also sure it is also a coincidence.
I gathered my info from Bloomberg. Not sure why you feel I trust any News Jocks. Just don't.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … ying-probe
Because you use their talking points...duh!
Yes, Fox has clearly been chasing this story for a very long time, and that CNN or MSNBC has not made much mention of the Horowitz investigation. However, soon we will have the Horowitz report to see if there is truth to any of the scandal. Right now it is just that a scandal. I want to see the facts, and I trust Horowitz will shed light on facts. You presume too much to believe I get all my news from Fox. As I have pointed out several times, I am diverse when it comes to scouting out the news.
Indeed Shar, you're a paragon of diversity....
lol, smoke around Obama ???? Was that by Deep Purple? lol: So what did he do now? Aside from like being born in Kenya or wherever flop mouth Bozo said he was birthed and wearing a Tan Suit in the oval office while chompin' on a burger ???? I'm laughing so hard.......Smooooooke around Obaaaaaama, A fire in the skyeee da da da da de de
It is a shame those on the left are unable to see the reality of this situation.
Here are some things to help you see it clearly.
1. People on the left are not after truth or justice. They are only concerned with removing President Donald Trump from office. They don't have the mental or emotional strength to realize their candidate lost in a fair election.
2. If the left was after truth or justice, they would have moved to indict Hillary Clinton more than once. They are blinded by their double standards and hypocrisy.
3. The investigation is over. Now it will be time to show the illegal activities that took place to start it. The American public needs to know just how underhanded those in positions of power behaved to try and take down a duly elected president. Spying on his campaign is just the beginning.
4. In order to defeat President Donald Trump in 2020, the left will have to have people willing to crossover to join the Democrats. That isn't happening. The more talks of impeachment only makes the support of President Donald Trump's base stronger. It has also increased his approval ratings. Does anyone on the left have the ability to comprehend they are shooting themselves in the political foot going down this path?
5. The left needs to grasp the reality they are in very bad political shape. The front runner Joe Biden can't draw large crowds. None of those running for the Democrat nomination in 2020 have much of a following. They should be very worried.
6. It is time to realize most of the country doesn't think like those on the left. The left has no idea what they are talking about when it comes to either Republicans or conservatives. This ignorance only makes conservatives and the Republican party stronger. The interpretation of the investigation is proof of it.
What a bunch of drivel. That said, I don't disagree with some of your political conclusions actually. But still, drivel. I'll answer one by one.
1. Fair election? What about all that Russian interference? Pretty much every intelligence agency and person agrees the Russians worked to get Trump elected (heck, even Trump admitted as much). Kind of cause for concern, isn't it? I'm not sure Dems want Trump removed and Pence in power, but we do want crimes (obstruction of justice) to be pursued.
2. Sort of correct. That email erasing stuff was pretty bad. That said, why should Dems prosecute her? Why don't Republicans do it? Why doesn't Trump? This accusation makes absolutely no sense. I think a better tack is Dems support of Bill Clinton. Now, dude can sleep with whoever he wants, but a relationship with an intern is sexual harassment pure and simple. It's illegal in most jobs.
3. You spy on people when they're working with our enemies, like the Russians, and you know the Russians are working to get that guy elected. What don't Republicans understand about the seriousness of that relationship? And yes, the investigation is over. It proved that Trump very clearly obstructed justice, which is grounds for impeachment. Now, he won't be removed because of the Senate, but there are clear grounds for impeachment.
4. I tend to agree the Dems are having a hard time formulating a political strategy and I don't think pursuing impeachment rings true to me as a good political strategy. They're not going to convince the Right of anything, but they may lose the middle.
5. Biden can't draw large crowds. Wtf? Sounds like something Trump would say. Low IQ individuals tend not to draw large crowds, I guess.
6. This is probably true. Most Dems think Trump supporters are morons. It's hard for us to fathom how anyone could support somebody who so blatantly lies about everything. It's hard to fathom how anyone could support somebody who claims to be a stable genius. That said, sometimes we understand those who are sick of Washington and everything it stands for. The political doublespeak on both sides of the aisle. The inability to get anything done. The claim to help the people when only the rich get the help. To some degree, we all get it. Ultimately though, the Right seems to stand for white power, men's rights and against anyone who isn't traditional.
I don't care if impeachment is popular or not. It's the right thing to do because no POTUS is above the law. Where do you draw the line if this president gets away with so much illegality? Do you believe the right would put up with Obama obstructing justice?
I had to look outside to be sure, yes, there is a Blue Moon tonight. I agree with you bud.
By the Democrat's own words and charges an impeachment process is "the right thing to do," but they are fighting to choose self-serving politics over the right thing to do.
I have seen the change in Republican sentiment during the Nixon impeachment process posed as a scenario that would probably occur during a Trump impeachment process. I think that idea has merit.
Oh, wouldn't that fight be so much easier if the Republicans would come around and make the impeachment proceedings more than just a show? But, it's much better for the Republicans to play up to the Trump fans with self-serving politics. Blaming this on Democrats is ludicrous, and we all know it. The Republican Senators definitely know it, and their banking on it as it backs the Dems into a corner.
These are different times, and different accusations. The accusations made against Trump (being Russian puppet) have already been disproven, it is just that many die-hard Democrats fail to accept that.
So this falls more into a Clinton-ish type of Impeachment, where they are impeaching just to impeach, not really because there is any there, there... just what the meaning of is, is doesn't seem to matter.
And similarly Trump enjoys a high approval rating as did Clinton, meaning that for the Republicans to go along with that Impeachment in the Senate, would likely mean the end of their political careers as their voting block would hold them accountable... and we know this to be true, because we saw voters hold Democrats accountable when they passed the very unpopular ACA, in what became known as the Tea Party wave.
Of course, I believe the RNC/Party would like to be rid of Trump, and go back to just going along with the flow, and essentially the country moving in the same direction (downward) regardless of who had power in Congress or who sat in the White House...
What Trump always represented, and truly is, is not a 'Republican' so much as a disruptor of the 'establishment', an outsider to the D.C. norms who isn't playing by their rules.
So yes, it will be interesting to see if there are enough Republican-in-name-only politicians in the Senate to make an Impeachment stick.
Let's not ignore:
- The 800+ former federal prosecutors who said Trump committed obstruction.
- A Mueller report that said it couldn't prove his innocence because of damning evidence.
- An enormous amount of Russian money flowing into Trump businesses.
- The 37+ indictments and 6 guilty pleas so far.
- The dozen other investigations related to Mueller's evidence.
Trump is much more like Nixon than Clinton just based on indisputable truth.
Mueller just stated that they could not charge a sitting President and that's the only reason no determination was made about whether Trump omitted a crime...if the report could have cleared Trump by stating he did not commit a crime, it would have.
It says a lot about where we are headed as a nation. The President is above the law if the Congress will not hold him or her accountable to that law. Mueller just invited impeachment and reminded us that there were "multiple, systematic, attempt to interfere with our election"
Well, you said a mouth full. It is up to Congress to bring impeachment procedures. It would appear if the Congress feels they can prove a case, they should step up and do so. It's up to the Dems? So, will they just keep spouting off their mouths or bring it on? It will be very interesting to see.
It's not up to the Dems. There needs to be irrefutable proof so that McConnell and other Trump loyalists in the Senate have no choice but to remove him from office. Something no Democrat currently believes will happen as he just cares about keeping his party in control, regardless of the laws Trump violates.
When 800 former federal prosecutors from both political parties agree that there is sufficient material in the Mueller report to have charged and gained a conviction for obstruction of justice, it absolutely amazes that reasonable people still think he's innocent.
And unlike Nixon, who worked to obstruct the Watergate investigation, Trump clearly obstructed an investigation into the interference by a hostile foreign government in our elections. Why that does not outrage his supporters is also amazing, that they are siding with the guy who broke the law to protect Russia. Borderline treason.
Because they do not care if the POTUS thinks he's above the law, Val! Trump told the truth when he said his fans wouldn't care if he shot someone on the streets. Kinda reminds me of Germany in the late 30's...
"It's not up to the Dems. There needs to be irrefutable proof so that McConnell and other Trump loyalists in the Senate have no choice but to remove him from office."
You are absolutely 100 percent correct.
I suppose we can infer there is no irrefutable proof available. The Democrats have been trying to impeach President Donald Trump even before he took office. It is really getting ho hum.
"When 800 former federal prosecutors from both political parties agree that there is sufficient material in the Mueller report to have charged and gained a conviction for obstruction of justice, it absolutely amazes that reasonable people still think he's innocent."
Yes, 800 former federal prosecutors, as well as what you call " sufficient material in the Mueller report to have charged and gained a conviction for obstruction of justice. Yet the Congress claims they need more time to further investigate the president. Do you see the lack of common sense you have applied in your opinion?
Millions of dollars, the best legal minds in America have investigated over two years, and the Congress has the audacity to tell the American public "we need to do further investigations. Maybe, it's time for Congress to step up with their flimsy case to proceed with impeachment. It is my hope they do. It would be wonderful for the 2020 election. Pus will cut off the food to the sheep, and this would be very satisfying. We the people have a right to see all of this BS go before an impeachment court.
Got news all the Dems will do is continue to claim they are investigating Trump, and continue to feed their sheep, hoping it will bring them a 2020 win. Unfortunatly, American's are smarter than they think...
'Unfortunately*, Americans* are exactly as smart as thought.
It's not more time, it's the vague nature of Mueller's report, his lack of declaring conclusions because he was not permitted to by DOJ policy. What he did, was laid out much of the evidence, but left it to Congress to formulate conclusions pertaining to guilt. Federal prosecutors and much of the Democratic party sees guilt in that evidence.
By holding impeachment hearings, where the House presents the case and the Senate gets to hear from those witnesses to eventually determine whether Trump committed crimes worthy of being removed from office. As with Nixon, more information will be available through impeachment proceedings. The White House tapes where Nixon talks about obstructing the investigation were not accessible until that process began, as an example.
So, yes, we are in agreement. Let's begin the process. Let's hear from the witnesses and get all the information to the public directly.
"The White House tapes where Nixon talks about obstructing the investigation were not accessible until that process began, as an example."
1. Can we agree there was NO two year investigation done on Nixon that found him not guilty of the accusations made against him? I don't think so and that is a big difference.
2. It would be very difficult to get past the findings of the Mueller Report. It is evidence. That combined with a majority of Republican Senators make President Donald Trump being removed from office using the impeachment process almost impossible.
3. When Bill Clinton was impeached, his approval ratings were high like President Donald Trump's approval ratings are high. Bill Clinton easily won reelection. Politics plays a major role in the impeachment process. This will come back to the Democrat party is a very bad way.
Mueller implied there was not enough evidence to prove obstruction. Do you feel an impeachment trial would lead to the president being convicted without sufficient evidence? Have you actually read the 10 points Mueller listed that could mount to obstruction? The evidence only promote smoke lacks evidence. In my opinion, it would serve all the people to have an impeachment trial. It's the only way to put this to rest. As it stands the Mueller report is only standing to promote more division. It's being used as a political tool by the Congress. I m with you let's start an impeachment process, and see where the chips fall.
Where did he imply that? It wasn't his job to say there was obstruction or not, but what he certainly did not do was say Trump wasn't guilty. He specifically said, if Trump had NOT committed a crime, he would have said so.
Trump ordered Don McGahn to fire Mueller. That's obstruction. Do you think if McGahn had followed through, we'd be having a different conversation?
"Trump ordered Don McGahn to fire Mueller. That's obstruction. Do you think if McGahn had followed through, we'd be having a different conversation?"
Actually, president Trump had the power and legal right to order Mueller to be fired. It was McGahn that was not willing to carry out the order and chose to leave his position. Which he was well in his rights to do so. It would seem at that point the president did not wish to pursue it further.
Yes, actually it was his job to find any crimes that were committed. That's what he was hired to do. No, he could not indict the president as he stated. He was well within his power to point out any crimes (which he did throughout the investigation). He was well in his rights to ask for indictments if he thought there was wrongdoing. And yes he could have asked the president be indited, and procedures to take place after the president left office. His statement was that he would not give an opinion on obstruction. In my opinion, after the lengthy investigation, we deserved an opinion.
I do stand corrected on my statement in regards to Mueller's not feeling there was evidence of a crime. he clearly explained " Robert Mueller" - "If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller said Wednesday morning. However, he went on to explain, Justice Department policy prevents the indictment of a sitting president. So, he said, “charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.”
That statement goes to show his suspicion that crimes may have been committed. Although he did not explain or go into any crimes? he laid the groundwork for impeachment. Which at this point is the best way to finding the truth or at best putting this to rest? We do not need any further investigations. Mueller had every resource, the best legal minds as well as the investigators at the FBI. Time to bring all of these findings to an impeachment court. At this point, the investigation is being used as a political tool. Shame on our Congress....
Again, in order for someone to be found guilty of obstruction, something must have been obstructed. If you tell an employee to hit someone and they refuse to do it, you are not guilty of assault.
"If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,”
Someone needs to explain to Robert Mueller and the left the job of an investigator is to establish guilt. It is not to prove innocence. If he can't establish guilt...guess what that makes the subject of the investigation? I think the word is innocent.
Why don't you explain to Mueller what his job is, Mike? I'm sure he'd jump at the chance to hear your advice. What are your qualifications now?
Again, in order for someone to be found guilty of obstruction, something must have been obstructed.
United States v. Willie Greer
"Obstruction of a criminal investigation is punishable even if the prosecution is ultimately unsuccessful or even if the investigation ultimately reveals no underlying crime."
"Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong."
This a good rebuttal.
I like to engage in an intellectual debate with someone who seems capable.
United States v. Willie Greer, 16-5701 (6th Cir. 2017)
This is a long stretch at best. Have you read it?
Here is the judge's opinion in the case.
“ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. In this appeal from his criminal conviction for lying to an investigator, the defendant argues that the district court erred in calculating his
No. 16-5701 United States v. Greer Page 2 sentence by improperly applying a cross-reference to the Accessory After the Fact provision, USSG § 2X3.1, by relying on unproven factual allegations, and by denying him two requested downward departures. Finding no merit to any of these claims, we AFFIRM.
It really has nothing to do with obstruction. It deals more with lying to investigators.
Here is a link to the case if you want to read it.”
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4 … lie-greer/
The rest of what you have provided is Mueller's legal opinion. Many people disagree with that opinion.
Here is the federal statute.
18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."
There have been many arguments as to what defines a threatening letter or communication.
So, people who hate President Donald Trump will see it one way. Those who support President Donald Trump will see it another way.
Now, keep in mind, if there is an attempt to say that firing Comey was obstruction of justice, the FBI Director serves at the discretion of the President and can be fired by the president at any time.
I think you may have provided the most intelligent response I've see on any of the threads concerning this topic.
"We find it unlikely that the Guidelines intended that a defendant should avoid or minimize punishment for obstruction of a criminal investigation just because that obstruction was so successful that he prevented a conviction on the underlying crime, or because the obstruction was of an investigation for which, as it might turn out, there actually was no underlying crime. More likely, the Guidelines intended that the obstruction of a criminal investigation is punishable even if the prosecution is ultimately unsuccessful or even if the investigation ultimately reveals no underlying crime."
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4 … lie-greer/
Obstruction of justice is defined by federal statute as any "interference with the orderly administration of law and justice" and governed by 18 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1521. Federal code identifies more than 20 specific types of obstruction, including "Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees" (18 U.S.C. § 1505), the specific code section cited in the Nixon and Clinton articles of impeachment.
18 U.S.C. § 1505
Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress--
Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331 ), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
(Btw, thank you! )
Perhaps you're too intellectual for Mike to debate, IB?
Trump cannot fire someone for any reason though, not if it's to prevent himself from being investigated for criminal activity, Mike.
I agree what you provided is the legal opinion from the judge presiding over the United States v. Willie Greer, 16-5701 (6th Cir. 2017) case.
But the case is very different from the Mueller investigation.
"The county prosecutor charged Greer with aggravated rape and official misconduct under
state law, but dismissed those charges following a federal indictment for aggravated sexual
abuse, witness tampering (i.e., making false statements to the detective), and possession of a gun
during a crime of violence. Eventually the parties entered a plea agreement in which Greer admitted the foregoing facts and pleaded guilty to witness tampering in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1512(b)(3), in exchange for the federal prosecutor’s dismissing the other two charges.
So, this is case law. It is still only a legal opinion.
Again...this IS the statute. This is what someone would have to try and prove if they tried to prosecute.
18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."
I read the entire 400 pages of the Mueller Report. There is really no strong case that could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that obstruction of justice occurred. A conviction would have to meet the highest legal standard.
If you don't believe a sitting president can remove an FBI director at his discretion, I suggest you read about the other time it happened. 1993: President Clinton Fires William Sessions. This established the legal precedent that is in place today.
I did read about it, Mike. A completely different matter being Sessions was not investigating Clinton. Perhaps I'm too intellectual for you to discuss things with either.
Hey, Rob, uhm, this is John again. Uh, maybe, I-I-I'm-I'm sympathetic; I understand your situation, but let me see if I can't ... state it in ... starker terms. If you have ... and it wouldn't surprise me if you've gone on to make a deal with, and, uh, work with the government, uh ... I understand that you can't join the joint defense; so that's one thing. If, on the other hand, we have, there's information that. .. implicates the President, then we've got a national security issue, or maybe a national security issue, I don't know ... some issue, we got to-we got to deal with, not only for the President, but for the country. So ... uh ... you know, then-then, you know, we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of ... protecting all our interests, if we can, without you having to give up any ... confidential information. So, uhm, and if it's the former, then, you know, remember what we've always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains, but-Well, in any event, uhm, let me know, and, uh, I appreciate your listening and taking the time. Thanks, Pal.
Transcript of a voicemail from Donald Trump's attorney John Dowd to Rob Kelner, Flynn's lawyer
Mike and Islandbites, I hope you won't mind if I interject an apparently overlooked aspect in your exchange of legal citations.
First, there are six primary Obstruction of Justice Federal statute codes, and in each, a point is made that intent is all that is needed. An effort need not be successful to be a crime.
That point primarily directed at one of your assertions Mike; that obstruction must actually occur for a crime to have been committed. In all six codes the qualification of Intent is clearly noted to be as valid as a crime as a successful obstruction act is.
The Congressional Research Service has a good paper on Obstruction of Justice: An Overview of Some of the Federal Statutes That Prohibit Interference with Judicial, Executive, or Legislative Activities
*The stuff pertinent to this discussion starts with 18 U.S.C. 1503 on page 20, through to 18 U.S.C. 1505 on page 23--25
Throughout this work, in all of the statute codes, you will see this:
"III. with the intent to " (18 U.S.C. 1512(a))
"III. with the intent to " (18 U.S.C. 1512(b))
"C. attempts to do so," (18 U.S.C. 1512(c))
"D. endeavors to (18 U.S.C. 1503)
2. obstruct, or
3. impede, "
"III. A. influences, (18 U.S.C. 1505)
B. obstructs, or
C. impedes or
D. endeavors to
2. obstruct, or
3. impede "
etc. etc. etc.
As you can see, by the inclusion of the words; "intent," "intentions," "attempts to do so," and "endeavors," all of these Federal statute codes declare that just the intent or effort to obstruct is as much a crime as an actual successful obstruction effort is.
You should give that paper a look. It supports all of its determinations with both the actual text of the statute codes and the Supreme Court cases that have validated them.
Of course, all that is just my non-legal expert layman's reading, but I found this source to be much easier and more thorough than either Findlaw or Law.Cornell.
I think you would struggle to find a public official who was brought up on charges or convicted solely for intent. Legal theory is great, then there is the practical application.
Isn't it interesting that James Comey overstepped his authority as FBI Director and exonerated Hillary because she didn't have the "intent."
So, we could argue all day, but practical application that would involve a charge and conviction would require a higher legal standard than just intent.
Now, if something had been obstructed and an action taken to prevent a legal investigation, then, charges of intent will be added to it.
Thanks for the comments.
It is always good to discuss things with people who can make an intelligent argument rather than only make snarky comments.
I think you are right Mike; it would be hard to find a public official charged solely on intent in the absence of other charges. But I don't think that negates the validity of intent also qualifying as a criminal action.
That may be the thought of the Democrats; the evidence of intent and effort without the support of provable effect may not be enough for an impeachment conviction. But that thought does not alter the "fact," (loosely used), that their declarations of the certainty of their charges mandate that the right thing to do is start the impeachment process.
Simply put, they should stand behind what they say ... or don't say it. I think their current actions smack of political shenanigans and cowardice.
Regarding Comey, I think he was off-base in his "exoneration." It wasn't his call to make.
You are right. I don't think a prosecutor actually seeking a conviction will go forward with something so open to interpretation. The impeachment process is not about the law as it is about politics. If this is done, President Donald Trump will be elected again in 2020. I'm sure the Democrats don't want all the information that could be released during such a process released to the public. It would be a bad political move on their part.
Reading all the responses. Those of us who believe that Trump is guilty of obstruction and those of us that don't will never agree, but my question is, as a moral individual reading all the times that Trump "tried" to obstruct. And the eagerness of Trump and his team, including his son-in-law to work with Russia to get dirt on anyone is a moral issue at best.
What has happened to America? How can anyone defend and support someone who lacked the moral fortitude to tell Russia, we aren't interested?
Because they care not for ethics, Abe. What do we expect from a known con man who is power hungry and admires tyrants?
Abe, Just a thought... Did you support Hillary Clinton for president? I will assume you did not. "How can anyone defend and support someone who lacked the moral fortitude to tell Russia, we aren't interested?"
The Russian Dossier complied with information obtained from Russians. It is a fact her campaign worked to undermine the 2016 campaign with Russians. Again, I just hoped to make a point, and I assume you are of the good moral individual and did not support Hillary's working with the Russians to obtain dirt on Trump.
Please read the 10 points presented in the Mueller report that the Dem's are claiming he obstructed the law. perhaps if you read them you will not find them as disgusting as you seem to.
Really, back to but Hillary? It's very clear that Trump has taken us to new -found moral lows, and the fact that all his supporters can offer in his defense are "what abouts" is revealing of just how clear it is, even to those that support him. Trump, and his supporters, attacks on science, and education in general, are direct from the dictators handbook. But, we all know these things. They've been debated here umpteen times. I 100% agree with Randy...it comes down to those who care and those who don't. Of course, those who don't all have their justifications. But, nothing justifies supporting a President who continually attacks the institutions of a nation in a Machiavellian attempt to put more power in his hands. America needed change, but it didn't need Trump.
That's all I have to say about that as I know anyone reading this has read it before. I just have to bring it up now and then as we watch Trump drive the left off the cliff, the right into a ditch and our country into a nation one or two crises away from falling apart as did the Soviet Union. Russia loves this.
Where's Jake? lol.
Hard Sun - I stated a well-proven fact in regards to Hillary Clintons conspiring with Russians. I do not need to dance around with words. Facts speak loudly. She conspired with Russians Trump did not... Was this, not the subject that was being discussed? I was responding to Abe's comment in regards to "moral fortitude".
"Reading all the responses. Those of us who believe that Trump is guilty of obstruction and those of us that don't will never agree, but my question is, as a moral individual reading all the times that Trump "tried" to obstruct. And the eagerness of Trump and his team, including his son-in-law to work with Russia to get dirt on anyone is a moral issue at best.
What has happened to America? How can anyone defend and support someone who lacked the moral fortitude to tell Russia, we aren't interested?"
I was not in any respect deflecting or seeking to insult anyone as you vaguely attempted to do. I was standing an ugly fact that many seem to want to ignore.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na … 55e7577e47
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions … dcaf254db3
Your claim and your links don't match at all. The first article says that the Clinton campaign helped fund research on the well-known Trump connection with the Russians.
So what? All campaigns fund research to find dirt on opponents.
The second link is clearly labeled OPINION and is written by the Post's regular right-wing columnist, Marc Thiessen.
Neither link has anything to do with the false allegation that Clinton was "conspiring with Russians".
Sharlee, As a matter of fact I did not. But I am not going to justify the amoral, childish behavior of the President by justifying it with some else's behavior. My dad always say, two wrongs don't make a right.
Saying the DNC paid for the Russian dossier, doesn't make it true. And that wasn't the reason the investigation started in the first place.
In an interview about the special counsel’s report, Rep. John Ratcliffe said that what “started all of this” was “a fake, phony dossier.” But a House Republican intelligence committee memo said it was information about a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser that sparked the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference in the election.
Ratcliffe, a Texas Republican who is a member of the House intelligence committee, said in the interview on Fox Business Network that “I had seen every classified document that any member of Congress was allowed to see. So I wasn’t surprised at all at the findings” of the special counsel investigation, as revealed in a four-page memo on March 24 by Attorney General William P. Barr.
Just so that we understand and don't point fingers towards incorrect information, because FACTS are FACTS
Well said Abe, but don't expect a Trump voter to believe a word of it. They're conditioned to listen to the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity because they excuse Trump's unethical behavior and conceive conspiracy theories to blame the other side. Ergo, Shar's repetition of the "Russian" Dossier as being the main impetus of the investigation into the Mueller Investigation.
No, I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy when it comes to some on the left. I think the Clinton bought and paid for dossier gives a perfect example of said hypocrisy. In fact, I don't think there is a better example.
Only if you believe the Fox conspiracy theory. What happened to the "Deep State" mantra, Shar? Now it's all "Russian Dossier" bs. Are they one and the same?
Never discussed the deep state. Only to say I was waiting for facts to emerge on FISA irregularities. There are several investigations as we speak winding down. I will save my thoughts on the deep state. It may just be Hillary will be knee deep in it once again. I do feel comfortable with my comment in regards to her paying for the Russian dossier. No one even CNN is not hiding that fact.
" Saying the DNC paid for the Russian dossier, doesn't make it true" This statement shows me you believe what you please. It has been well reported and well documented the DNC paid for the Russian dossier. I have PROVIDED several resources links perhaps you did not read them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions … 067abe56e1
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-cour … le-n897506
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/dossi … l-of-this/
"So what? All campaigns fund research to find dirt on opponents."
Why even comment on something so well public knowledge?
Then why the fuss over the meeting Donald Trump Jr had with a Russian attorney in Trump Tower, in his office? Trump tower is monitored by cameras as well as security. This meeting was in full view... You're being hypocritical. Not conspiring with Russians? As I said it has been proven the DNC paid for the Russian Dossier. Facts are facts, the DNC conspired with Russians citizens. No matter what you tell yourself, the facts stand to prove you wrong. Clinton and the DNC paid for the dossier and that information was composed of Russian information. It's very clear the Mueller report shows there was no collusion with Russia perpetrated by Trump or his campaign. There was one American that conspired to try and slander trump with Russians information, and that was Hillary Clinton. Tell yourself whatever you like. Facts are facts. It seems odd you would even make such a comment? It seems almost silly to jump in with such a glib statement?
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/24/politics … index.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-cour … le-n897506
https://www.thedailybeast.com/report-hi … mp-dossier
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/us/p … ssier.html
More irrelevant links that have absolutely nothing to do with Democrats "conspiring with Russians".
More denial and deflection about what the Mueller report and hundreds of federal prosecutors have actually said.
Silly and glib, eh? No, it's shameful that corrupt and immoral people would embrace Russian help to get Trump elected and then try to blame it on Clinton.
Nothing but denial and deflection, party over country and Constitution.
Not sure I can reply, seems you just don't respect facts or perhaps can't decipher the situation clearly. I would believe most would see the hypocrisy of your comments in regard to this subject. Hillary clearly committed collusion, Trump did not.
Hillary and the DNC embarrassed the Russians to try to smear Trump with anything they could, true or not. As I stated the Mueller report clearly states Trump or his campaign did not collude with Russia. Perhaps you did not read the report ? I am sure at best you tuned into CNN..
So why did Mueller state he could not exonerate Trump? Didn't you hear him say this? Simply because there wasn't enough evidence to say Trump wasn't guilty isn't the same as being exonerated as Trump claims.
And by the way, there was obstruction by the Trump players in the Trump Tower meeting as well. Mueller couldn't get all the evidence he asked for from Trumps team. So there's that...
The Dossier is not the "Russian Dossier" despite your describing it as such, but I know Limbaugh and Hannity calls it that so I know where you get it from.
If Trump and Sean Hannity said the sky is green with yellow polka dots, their supporters would nod their heads and insist the sky is green with yellow polka dots.
I was commenting on collision. I have made no mention of obstruction, you are defecting. And Mueller clearly claimed he found no evidence that Trump or any American concluded with Russia. If you are referring to an obstruction charge, the report did not recommend any charges on obstruction. Only stated h could not exonerate the president from crimes of obstruction. This should be up to Congress to weed through the report and see if there is enough actual evidence to make a charge stick. I am for an impeachment to end this crazy once and for all. I predict the Dems will not impeach, and just make an attempt to muddy the next election with their ongoing investigations.
"the Trump players in the Trump Tower meeting as well. Mueller couldn't get all the evidence he asked for from Trump's team. So there's that..." Was just that a meeting held in the USA with a woman that was here legally and offered information on Trumps Opponent.
You know the type of info that when Hillary does it is called opposition research. Although the DNC collected a vast amount of this "research from Russian citizens and paid for it, and used it along with the FBI, CIA, to obtain FISA warrants. Hillary and the DNC committed collusion. Not sure how anyone could defend her acts????
Hillary didn't meet with the Russians as Jr, son-in-law, and other Trump campaign members did and were offered dirt on her. You can deny this was bad all you want, but the truth remains. And you'll get your impeachment wish...
I am very sure the Dems won't impeach Trump. They are using this feed to keep sheep fed. You know like "And I am going to give you 40 acres and a mule". Oh, you must mean the meeting Jr had in Trump tower in the USA, in a building that has wonderful footage of any and all that enter? Do you mean when they were collecting opposition research? You know like the op - research the DNC collected from Russians to put together the dossier. Mind baffling how one can't see the difference?
Denial and deflection, party over country and Constitution.
I think the problem with the left is they don't seem to realize it is painfully obvious they are not after truth or justice. They are after President Donald Trump. If they were after truth and justice, they would have wanted Hillary Clinton locked up many times.
Since it is very obvious they are not interested in truth or justice, they simply look like shallow individuals who are bathed in hypocrisy and live a life of double standards.
The left ONLY pursues their version of truth and justice when it meets their agenda and ONLY if they believe it helps their agenda.
I don't expect many on the left to be able to comprehend this much reality.
Wanted her locked up? Based on which investigation? Whitewater? Benghazi? The E-mails? How many times will the GOP investigate her and not bring charges of any kind?
What the left has is experts on the law confirming that Trump would have already been indicted had he not been president. What we have is a convicted criminal testifying that Trump was a co-conspirator to the crime that led to his conviction.
I'm sorry that your Trump Denial Syndrome does not allow you to see the truth that he needs to face justice because it fits your agenda, and that's the sad statement you refuse to face.
Yes Mike, we don't care about liberty and justice or patriotism on the left. You and the other Trumpsters have a lock on all of these important qualities of being an American. If people don't believe that, they can ask you, the self proclaimed HP intellectual.
it's funny how you talk of the left going after Trump and not the truth. Those on the Right are so enamored with this coward in office that you can't see the forest for the trees.
Trump is going after Hillary and if they should find proof, then so be it. Wrong is Wrong. But to constantly throw her out there, Trump supporters sound like Matty from True Grit throwing out the name of J. Noble Dagget.
No matter what FACTS come out, Trump supporters will continue to support a man who has lied over 10,000 times, and yes there is FACT/Video of it. He's a coward who puts down war heroes, when he didn't have the spine to go. Instead he lied and got out of it.
And no matter what comes of this investigation, he will NEVER be an upstanding, moral individual that we should look up to.
I think I have clearly stated my case as of who committed collusion. No denial on my part. Anyone reading my comments with any form of common sense can see who committed collusion with the Russians. Never was discussing obstruction. You seem to ignore the subject I am commenting on. It is not me deflecting, but you sure are dancing overly fast to do so... LOL
Empty Rhetoric about Clinton and the Russians is all I see. A Fact is not a fact if it comes from a Left or Right leaning site.
2 + 2 + = 4
Hillary and the DNC all demacrates
Purchasing a dossier that all the claims were provided by Russians. = Collusion with a foreign country to sway an election.
Just the way it is as all of my resources have reported.
As I said not sure why you would continue to not face facts? Does this make you look a bit silly at best? Yeah, it does.
Please read the Mueller report for his opinion on collision. I need not quote what has been repeatedly mentioned in this thread but also by every media outlet.
I am not blaming Trumps win on anything Clinton did in her long career of corruption. Simply pointing out it was not Trump that colluded with Russia, but your gal Hillary. By the way, she lost due to being a horrendous human being. Just my opinion.
Hillary should be in prison over the murder of Ambassador and the 3 others in Libya
Did she use a gun, knife or bomb? I can't remember.
LMAO. Good one. Where do they come up with these things?
The usual list: Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones and Breitbart.
All fair and balanced right-wing media.
Major Social Media Sites are beginning to BAN nationalist propagandists like the dregs you've mentioned and it's about time, I just hope Hubpages is taking note:
Here's a suggestion: If Bozo Trump is anxious for all the investigations to cease, maybe he should STOP committing crimes the likes of which we've NEVER ever witnessed before: When you commit a CRIME on top of another CRIME in an effort to COVER-Up or knock the last CRIME you committed off the front pages, here in the USA you can expect to be INVESTIGATED and Indicted:
If Donny Boy truly gave a crap about the USA which of course we all know by now he doesn't and that's really no surprise to those who have followed him, he'd RESIGN Immediately and face the severe consequences of his insane reckless actions which includes so many different crimes so we could salvage what's remaining of our once great democracy
No, she just could not be reached, and then just reverted to lying. She is very good at that. Sad you can make light of these Americans deaths.
What a ridiculous and shameless comment. How very Sean Hannity of you.
I quite clearly was making light of the silly post about Clinton "murdering" the Americans in Benghazi and not about their deaths.
Really? "PROMISEM WROTE:
Did she use a gun, knife or bomb? I can't remember."
This statement could be taken as glib, taking the opportunity to take such a tragic so lightly is sad to me, and most likely to others. The investigation into Benghazi showed Hillary showed poor judgment in handling a very tragic event. Did her poor judgment lead to four citizens being killed? That is left to the eye of the beholder.
When Jake can't back up his comments with any form of facts, he always comes up with the best photos... One has to give him credit for searching the internet so diligently for these pic's.
You cannot deny the facts, Shar! Yes you can!
And yet, we have you here making a baseless claim that Hillary conspired with Russians when an American company (Fusion GPS) subcontracted work out to Christopher Steele, without notifying anyone who hired them of that fact. Where's your proof Hillary, or anyone in her campaign, authorized this or even knew about it? You have none but come on here and spew your falsehoods as absolutes because your sources tell you so. Obviously your sources don't include the actual testimony in front of Congress of Glenn Simpson, founder of Fusion GPS.
This article summed things up well on the current state of the political landscape: https://www.yahoo.com/news/mueller-scre … 55312.html
According to Hillary Clinton and the DNC they paid for the dossier. The Fox news article is much better, but, here is an article from CNN.
“Washington (CNN)The law firm for the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee has acknowledged its clients' role in paying for opposition research on Donald Trump that helped fund the now-infamous dossier of allegations about the now-President and Russia.”
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/24/politics … index.html
Yes, they paid Fusion GPS, an American company. That's the link you and Sharlee keep ignoring with your claims. You falsely assume either the DNC or Clinton campaign had knowledge that Fusion GPS subcontracted Steele to do the research, a full two months after that law firm hired them initially. It'd be like us saying Donald J. Trump colluded in the Trump Tower meeting even though he wasn't there.
And it's interesting to note that the Mueller Report includes the details of suppressed videos in Russia pertaining to Trump, that Cohen discussed with a contact there. It's not a far leap to think that could have been something the dossier mentions. Either way, knowing recordings of the person elected to run the country are out there should worry every American.
You need to read this again. Pay close attention to the words law firm, client's role, paying, fund dossier. You are in a state of denial. I didn't make this up. This is an actual news story from a liberal news outlet that hates President Donald Trump.
Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid for the fake dossier. The law firm acknowledging their role in it makes this very clear.
Also, "videos Cohen discussed" This does not prove such videos exist, only that a person claims they exist.
It's easy to make claims and far more difficult to provide proof.
Those are the facts.
Yes, and if you actually read the Congressional testimony of Glenn Simpson instead of relying on the media for your facts, you might have been correct in your claim. That's a fact. In this Times article, they confirm what Simpson told Congress, that Clinton had zero knowledge of Steele's involvement until after the dossier's publishing by Buzzfeed:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/p … ained.html
Cohen testifying under oath that his source in Russia suppressed videos does not prove they exist, but it sure should warrant further investigation to see if Trump can be blackmailed in any way.
Okay, From the article you provided
"After Mr. Trump secured the nomination, Fusion GPS was hired on behalf of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and the D.N.C. by their law firm, Perkins Coie, to compile research about Mr. Trump, his businesses and associates — including possible connections with Russia. It was at that point that Fusion GPS hired Mr. Steele, who has deep sourcing in Russia, to gather information."
I think trying to make the case that H. Clinton had zero knowledge would be a difficult claim to make. If a law firm acted without the permission of their clients, it is a very serious ethics violation. They have a legal duty to make certain Hillary Clinton and the DNC knew what they were doing. If not, the attorneys involved could be brought up on ethic charges by the American Bar Association.
Here are the rules from the American Bar Association.
American Bar Association rules
3] Paragraph (a)(2) requires the lawyer to reasonably consult with the client about the means to be used to accomplish the client's objectives. In some situations — depending on both the importance of the action under consideration and the feasibility of consulting with the client — this duty will require consultation prior to taking action. In other circumstances, such as during a trial when an immediate decision must be made, the exigency of the situation may require the lawyer to act without prior consultation. In such cases the lawyer must nonetheless act reasonably to inform the client of actions the lawyer has taken on the client's behalf. Additionally, paragraph (a)(3) requires that the lawyer keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter, such as significant developments affecting the timing or the substance of the representation.
Anybody can say anything. There is no way to actually prove she knew. There is no way to prove she actually didn't know.
If she and the DNC hired this law firm, they have, at the very least, an ethical duty to the campaign and the people who donated to it to know how the money raised was being spent.
Didn't know Fusion GPS was a law firm. Uhm...
Thank you for making the case that Trump knew about the Stormy Daniels payments for us. That would certainly implicate him if what you say is true about lawyers needing to brief clients on where their money goes.
Fusion GPS was a private company, and not restricted by the same rules as campaigns. It was not illegal for them to use Steele as they were not a campaign or candidate
Who paid for it? If the law firm Perkins Coie paid Fusion GPS, they had an ethical requirement to tell HIllary Clinton and the DNC how Fusion GPS was paid and what they were paid to do.
Now how is this different from the situation with Storm Daniels and President Donald Trump?
His law firm had been under retainer form him for years. He paid them a monthly amount of money to do many things for him. The law firm Perkins Coie was hired by the DNC and Hillary Clinton for one specific thing, to get opposition research on future president Donald Trump.
I don't know if you realize in the business world, but paying a law firm a monthly retainer for a variety of services is quite common.
I could go on about law firm billing, but that is enough for now.
Paying a private company, and listing it in the expenses, to do opposition research is legal. Using funds to pay a porn star to remain quiet during a campaign, while not reporting it, and being recorded by your attorney that proves you authorized the payments, is a felony. Big difference.
And that is not true about Perkins Coie, they were also on retainer for various tasks. Here is a more in-depth article on Elias and who knew what:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … 93818e34a0
They are ignorant of these facts because they both rely on Fox for their info. You hear the same arguments Shar and Mike give here by Hannity and Limbaugh.
1. The Law firm did pay for the opposition research.
2. The Law firm had an ethical duty to keep the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign informed of their work.
3. Therefore, Hillary Clinton and the DNC knew of the Dossier.
4. Please show me the legal statute where it is a felony for a man to use his own money to pay someone who is blackmailing him. You do know the judge threw out this case and Stormy Daniels had to pay for President Donald Trump's legal fees.
1 - correct.
2/3 - It is noted that Elias had access to a discretionary fund in the article. Perhaps you need to look up what that word means since it invalidates both 2 & 3.
4. He was more than just a man, he was a candidate that used money on a campaign issue. His action fell under a different set of laws then. That's like saying, show me the law that says a woman cannot own a private server in her home. It's an idiotic statement by you. And the law certainly applied as Cohen was convicted by that law.
"Fusion GPS was a private company, and not restricted by the same rules as campaigns. It was not illegal for them to use Steele as they were not a campaign or candidate"
Really, please give a resource for this opinion. Because it is not in any respect based in fact. Again please supply a resource.
Since when is Fusion GPS not a private company? Since when do private companies have to follow the exact same laws as a campaign or candidate?
It's not like you are going to believe the actual facts any way, but here is a source, taken from the former chief counsel for the FEC.
“Paying a foreign national fair market value for opposition research is generally not illegal,” Noble wrote. “It is considered a commercial transaction, which is not a contribution.” Clinton’s campaign had paid Fusion GPS directly; it’s a campaign expenditure, not a campaign contribution. Since it’s not a contribution, the FEC allows it."
Here is the link to the whole article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pol … 6e4f2c028f
And of course, you'll rebut it with some fake news claim, or they must hate Trump claim.
I have a question.
Is it ethical to use an unverified dossier against an opponent and also use it as a basis for an investigation?
A dossier once vetted was proven to be FALSE.
Sorry, you feel that way. It is common knowledge the DNC and Hillary's campaign paid for the Russian dossier. I have multiple resources. Not sure why you continue to argue the fact? Fusion GPS was hired by the DNC... They certainly knew the Steel contacts, and where every bit of the info came from, and so did the FBI as well as the CIA.
Your are trying to change the subject from your original claims.
Did you or did you not accuse Clinton of "collusion" and "conspiring" with Russia?
Yes, I believe Hillary Clinton committed collusion. I also feel the 3 investigations into the entire mess will show she technically colluded with Russia. Guess it once again a waiting game. As it was with the Mueller report. Let me remind you there was, and as of yet no proof Trump Colluded with Russia. There was no there, there. Please let me pre-warn you I am not referring to the obstruction clime that the Dem's in Congress are pursuing. I am clearly stating my opinion on who colluded with Russians. Call it op-research when it comes to the Russian dossier and collusion when Trump Jr has a meeting with a Russian attorney in his office that is located in the good old USA. It is all so hypocritical... Shows so little insight.
Let's try reality instead. Your words: "I believe", "I feel", "stating my opinion". Where are facts instead of wishful thinking?
The actual facts:
- 37 indictments including 6 Trump officials.
- Numerous proven contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives.
- A Trump administration that admits Russian interference in our elections.
- A massive flow of Russian money into Trump businesses.
- Mueller: "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
It's not a feeling, it's sworn testimony that Clinton was unaware of Steele's involvement. You saying she colluded and conspired with Russians is completely false since she had no knowledge of Steele until after the dossier was published by Buzzfeed. I'm not debating a law firm representing the DNC or her campaign hired a private company, one not restricted by the rules that govern campaigns and candidates, to do research. What I'm debating is your claim she conspired and colluded when she had zero knowledge of Steele's involvement. That's the falsehood I believe you are spewing.
Haven't we gone down this path before? I've already posted the official record of his testimony. I've already shown he was not sworn in by Congress. How many times does this stuff have to be posted? This is unreal to me.
Yes, you showed he was not under oath, then you left off the second half of the statement that, and I quote, says...
"...by law your are required to answer questions from Congress truthfully."
So your point was moot. Simpson could have been charged had he lied, which is basically the same as being under oath since lying to Congress is a crime. Apparently we have to keep posting it since you believe he could have lied and I proved that he had the threat of being charged with a crime had he done so.
Page 9, line 17: https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/docum … mony/2700/
We could argue the legal minutia all day long.
His statement does not prove that Hillary didn't know about the payment to Fusion GPS.
There is a term in the law called The Hearsay Rule. To break it down, he can not accurately testify to what Hillary Clinton did or did not know. Nobody knows what Hillary Clinton did or did not know except for Hillary Clinton. He can only state he isn't aware she knew. He can't accurately state to the best of HIS knowledge she wasn't made aware by another source.
Again, his statement is proof of nothing except his belief she didn't know.
I think an investigation is necessary involving documents, emails etc. to see who was aware of what took place in the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Of course, with her track record, she has probably destroyed all the e-mails and devices used during her campaign. If it was shown this was done, it wouldn't surprise me.
No, his interview only shows he did not inform Clinton. Her public statement was that she didn't know. But you and Sharlee come on here and spread conspiracy theories of Hillary collusion with zero factual basis behind them that she was in the know. That's the point of my argument, that her being unaware makes that statement false.
Let me get this straight...you believe Hillary Clinton when she said she didn't know? THAT is what you base your claim she didn't know? This is a woman who lied to UN and the American people claiming Benghazi was started by a YouTube video, later e-mail communication proved that was a blatant lie. This is a woman who said she had no idea of her husbands affairs but had former staffer say Hillary was in charge of the "Bimbo Eruption Unit." I could go on...but if YOU believe Hillary Clinton is...GASP...telling the truth. Seriously? I'll be Bob Mueller and say If I could believe she was capable of telling the truth...I would might it.
I base my claim on the fact that there is zero evidence to the contrary and yet that doesn't stop conspiracy theorists like you and Sharlee spouting your falsehoods. Falsehoods that aim to justify the treason Trump committed when he obstructed justice to protect a hostile foreign nation that engaged in crimes during the 2016 election, perhaps because that those crimes aided him in being elected and he will likely need that help again in 2020.
And when you are someone who believes and defends all the lies that Trump tells, I don't think you're someone who should be trusted to determine what constitutes an honest person.
Not only is he mad, he's also the biggest whiny, crying, complaining fool the world has ever seen: He's fragile in every way possible and our enemies know it:
Thank You abecedarian and it's a pretty simple concept, if Donald Trump wants all the investigations into his past and present to end he'll stop committing CRIMES, Resign and face the consequences of his unlawful unholy actions:
He can only escape justice for so long but sooner or later and hopefully sooner, he will pay a severe legal and political price for his blatant unprecedented lawlessness: Unlike Russia, here in the USA nobody and I mean nobody can commit CRIME on top of CRIME on top of CRIME and get away with it forever, it just doesn't work that way:
The investigations will conclude when Donald Trump stops committing CRIMES and Atrocious Abominable Immoralities and not a second sooner:
lol, Sorry, but I don't see any LIBERALS leaving the USA just for a numbskulled soon to be INDICTED 72 year old whiny little circus clown who LOST over a Billion Dollars in about 10 or so years but don't worry, right now he's doing about the same thing for our farmers and economy: CATASTROPHIC:
ALL I see is a beat up, strange looking weak and corrupt elderly bum who has secret meetings with our arch enemy for what purpose? To prepare for a place to flee when the REAL Hammer comes down and will they even take him once the oval office is no longer his illegitimate home? I kinda doubt it:
I think the thing that bothers me the most is the partisan circling of wagons. This whole episode, from the DNC action which began it to the end of the Mueller investigation is rife with corruption.
But, the only corruption that seems to matter to either side is the corruption within the other.
No one seems to care that our democracy may have been assaulted by a sitting president. Corrupt politicians may have attempted to undermine a free election. They used domestic and foreign resources in what may have been an illegal move to attempt to advance party goals.
I want the truth. I don't expect Washington to even slap the hand of any participant but I want the truth exposed.
The DNC hired and paid for the dossier? They certainly did obtain the final result, the Russian dossier. Not sure where you got the idea they did not know that Fusion GPS had contracted steel, and Steel dug up the dirt. At any rate, Steel is going to be questioned by US officials in the coming week. It is also a well-known fact Steel admitted he did not verify the information in the dossier.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/16/politics … index.html
Actually, it is a proven undisputed fact that the DNC paid for the Steel dossier. Not sure why you continue to argue the fact? Please supply the source for your belief they did not pay for the dossier. listed resource after resource, just not sure you are reading them?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-cour … le-n897506
No one is questioning the hiring of Fusion GPS. The firm that hired them was listed in Clinton's campaign expenses. Not sure why you cannot understand this. Listing campaign expenses is something that Trump was required to do by law (and failed to do) when he paid off Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. So while one candidate is following the law, the one you elected is not in this regard.
What I keep wanting you to provide is the proof that Clinton or even the DNC was aware of Fusion GPS contracting out to Steele. Not that it actually matters, as I've shown you in the link above that it's perfectly legal to pay for opposition research, even from foreign sources, this according to a Federal Election Commission Counsel.
Where the guy you elected's campaign differed, is that they were willing to accept a campaign contribution from a foreign government. That is not legal. The fact they were willing to break the law was made clear when Trump Jr. admitted they were willing to accept information from the Russian government. Friendly reminder, the Russian government is not a US ally. So they were willing to collude with an enemy of our country. These are the people you elected.
"Where the guy you elected's campaign differed, is that they were willing to accept a campaign contribution from a foreign government. That is not legal. " I find it odd you actually seem to believe the above statement? I think I will opt out of discussing this subject with you. You appear to make it up as you go?
Please supply a resource for the name of the government the Trump campaign accepted money from. This statement is beyond ridiculous. It appears you are unable to recognize the fact that you rely on no facts... LOL
Please supply a resource for the name of the government the Trump campaign accepted money from.
All campaign contributions ≠ money
A contribution is anything of value given, loaned or advanced to influence a federal election.
*Direct monetary contributions and loans
*In-kind contributions: Goods and services, Advances of personal funds, Coordinated communications
... and more
https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and … ributions/
This statement is beyond ridiculous. It appears you are unable to recognize the fact that you rely on no facts... LOL
Yup, I agree.
I supplied plenty of sources for my arguments, including a statement from a former General Counsel of the FEC. What's sad is that you cannot comprehend them, which I figured would happen.
Val - I am not going away so easily. I have well discussed with how easy it is for you to just post anything that comes into your head. Please supply the name of the country the Trump campaign accepted money from. And would this not have come out in the Mueller report?
You are wishful thinking. Trump would be in very hot water if he took any cash from not only a foreign country but even a foreign citizen. All campaign contributions are closely reported by law. I will await a response so interested in what country gave money to the Trump campaign.
Fact - "Who can't contribute
Campaigns are prohibited from accepting contributions from certain types of organizations and individuals. These prohibited sources are:
Corporations, including nonprofit corporations (although funds from a corporate separate segregated fund are permissible)
Labor organizations (although funds from a separate segregated fund are permissible)
Federal government contractors
Contributions in the name of another"
Campaigns may not solicit or accept contributions from foreign nationals. Federal law prohibits contributions, donations, expenditures, and disbursements solicited, directed, received or made directly or indirectly by or from foreign nationals in connection with any election — federal, state or local. This prohibition includes contributions or donations made to political committees and building funds and to make electioneering communications. Furthermore, it is a violation of federal law to knowingly provide substantial assistance in the making, acceptance or receipt of contributions or donations in connection with federal and nonfederal elections to a political committee, or for the purchase or construction of an office building. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, acting as a conduit or intermediary for foreign national contributions and donations."
You should have read a bit further...
https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and … ontribute/
A campaign contribution does not need to be monetary. And if you go back and actually read my statement, slowing down to read each word carefully, I stated the Trump campaign was willing to accept a campaign contribution from a foreign government. I said they were willing to break the law. I never stated they actually accepted anything. And this is who you are proud to have elected.
But, the case can be made that an in-kind contribution was made when the Russians spent money to meet Trump, Jr. in Trump Tower. This from the FEC - 'An expenditure made by any person in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate’s campaign is also considered an in-kind contribution to the candidate.'
The difference with Steele, is he was hired by Fusion GPS, who was hired by Coie. The Russians, they were willing to give a campaign contribution by covering the expenses to give the Trump Campaign information damaging to Clinton.
https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and … ributions/
I have to say it... You make no sense at all. You fly by the seat of your pants. I think most that post here can see how ridiculous this conversation is? The fact is the DNC paid for information from Russia. Another fact, the Mueller report clears the Trump campaign of any collusion with Russia. Only one candidate collude with Russia, and her name is Hillary.
Yes Shar, most people understand what Val's saying. It doesn't have to be a monetary tit for tat. Why can't you get that?
I would have understood it differently if he would have stated it more clearly. I don't agree that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election. That is just my opinion. I saw no evidence of it during the campaign, and the Mueller report came to the same conclusion in regards to "no collusion".
I find it very odd some people do not see the irony of the DNC paying for information from Russian's and not realizing it is collusion? Guess it is only fair to respect different views. I am hopeful the Horowitz report will one way or another put an end to speculation. unlike the Mueller report. I will take the report as factual, I mean Horowitz has been on the case for over a year. You see that's the difference between someone that excepts facts and someone that just won't. Conspiracies are ugly, and most often not based on any facts, only blown up conjecture and selective unproven information.
The Mueller Report could not prove conspiracy. There was plenty of colluding.
And this article goes into the various ways that assistance likely swung the election to Trump: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018 … -for-trump
The New Yorker? Please, why go there... I don't have any respect for the rag.
You seem to be the only one who cannot follow the logic of what I've proved. Paying for opposition research, even from foreigners is legal, according the FEC. Accepting a campaign contribution from a foreign government, illegal, according to the FEC.
The Mueller report could not prove conspiracy, but there are multiple instances of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia are listed. As well as double-digit instances of Trump obstructing the investigation to protect Russia.
It has become clear to me that, if a person is still a Trump supporter, it is because they either ignore the Mueller report (by denying or distorting its contents) or they don't care. These same people will, of course, deny, distort, or ignore anything else that is damming of Trump. They are a lost cause and will never admit they were taken in by a lying con man. Never. There really is no point to discussing anything with them that has anything to do with Trump, even peripherally.
Val, this conversation has nothing as of yet to do with Obama? Although, I guess it's necessary for you to jump in with a comment? I mean it would be smart for some here to stick together, and fair. Hard to continue to dodge eggs being thrown your way.
In no way have distorted any facts, and I have given ample resources to back my opinion. I have read the Mueller report word for boring word. Have you? The keyboard certainly gives you a platform for glib remarks... I don't back down due to a few unfounded insults. I just add a few more facts. I realize it's hard to take, but very necessary, and actually fun.
I gave you reference to the law in regards to opposition research. READ IT IN FULL.
Just want to point out your hypocrisy in regards to your "belief in opposition research. Please read both links, and I believe it will explain the verdict is still out on Hillary colluding with Russia. Let me remind you there are three other pending investigations into her possible campaign violations.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalnewsl … b24e373d99
https://ijr.com/fec-faces-suit-failure- … paign-dnc/
If I am to follow your train of thought you are certainly being hypocritical when you stated the Trump Jr meeting in Trump tower was a form of collusion with Russians. This meeting was in the USA in his Trump tower office, clearly, Trump Jr wanted dirt (opposition research) on Hillary... LOL
No hiding behind law firms and crooked a
British former intelligence agent that actually compiled a dossier from Russian's. that he said himself that he could not confirm the info.
As I said, you are being hypocritical, and I think I have well proven my point... Over and over and over...
It is also illegal to take in foreign donations for Inauguration.
Cyrus Vandervala of India donated $25,000 through a Shell Company created in Delaware. A couple of days after the inauguration, his father-in-law, President of an influential real estate lobbying group in India all but threatened Trump in an interview: He said he hoped the President (Trump) would not hinder their industry by restricting their Visa's to the U.S. He also went on to say that it would be unlikely that Trump would do that because it could have a negative impact on his ongoing projects in India, as Trump owns several luxury towers in India.
A company created in Georgia by lobbyist with Taiwanese Government ties. When investigated, the wife reported that it was funded by Chinese interests. Their daughter now works at the White House as an intern.
How droll, Mike! But you are reduced to such as this to defend your idol..
Aw, come on Randy. It's just fun. I enjoy Jake's memes. I don't take them serious. You can't take this stuff too serious. You'll forget we're just people behind keyboards.
Just people behind keyboards can cause all sorts of problems, Mike. Ask the Russians...
I don't support anybody who acts like a traitor, because he probably is one.
Soory Val, the FEC has not handed down its opinion on crooked Hillary and the DNC broke campaign laws. Not sure where you get your info? The outcome is still pending. However, I have given up trying to convince you. Sooner or later the FEC will have to give an opinion. Hopefully, Hillary will be taken to task for once again breaking the law.
May 22, 2019
"Conservative Group Files Suit to Force FEC to Rule on Whether Clinton Campaign, DNC Broke Law to Get Dossier. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is facing a lawsuit for its inaction on a complaint filed against Hillary Clinton‘s campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC)."
https://ijr.com/fec-faces-suit-failure- … paign-dnc/
Not sure where I get my info? I included a link to where I got it in my post and the person who gave their opinion, the former General Counsel for the FEC. You know, the people who are there to interpret what's legal and illegal under the law for the FEC.
It's clear that you choose not to listen to anything but your own right wing propaganda sources, while I get my information from the people who are actually specialists in the area we are discussing.
What? You're not listening to Hannity and Limbaugh? No wonder we can't agree much with Shar's opinion?
Do you listen to AG Barr? He has opened an investigation into the investigators... Do I take the investigation being conducted by IG Horowitz serious? I do. I take Judicial Watch seriously? Yeah to all three... No need for Hannity or Limbaugh, I am interested in the ongoing investigations into why the Government started an investigated a presidential candidate. The truth and nothing but the truth. Hopefully, those investigating the investigators will answer my questions. I certainly am not relying on talk jocks for facts.
Yes, it is true the FEC will detriment if the DNC and Hillary committed the crime of collusion. I pointed out the decision has not been made as of May 22, 2019, and that the FEC is now being sued. Not sure why the confusion?
And yes I read your link in full, did you? It's against the Law for a campaign to conspire with a foreign entity. It's called collusion...
https://ijr.com/fec-faces-suit-failure- … paign-dnc/
Yet this meeting was not listed in the Mueller report as one of the 10 points that could be construed as obstruction? Maybe time to realize this meeting was a research meeting, which is legal. Unless Mueller forgot the meeting? LOL
Because Jr. obstructed Mueller's investigation as to this episode. Didn't Jr. first claim the meeting was about adoption? And only later changed his claims after being caught? And you expect Jr. to come clean with Mueller? He's as honest as his old man....
Yes, all you have stated is true. But I was making the point Mueller did not list the Trump Jr meeting as a form of collusion or was it in the list of 10 possible obstruction points in the Meuler report. So, do you think Trump Jr committed the crime of obstruction or collusion by meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya? Do you feel Mueller did not do his job in regards to the meeting? If so why?
As I already stated, the reason Mueller could not charge Jr. for colluding with the Russians was because Jr. and others were not forthcoming about the documents nor with the truth.
We'll find out more when the underlying documents and deleted parts of the report are revealed. And apparently Mueller wasn't allowed to get into Trump's financial dealings with foreign entities, so we'll get a look at that as well.
"As I already stated, the reason Mueller could not charge Jr. for colluding with the Russians was because Jr. and others were not forthcoming about the documents nor with the truth.
Good to know you know Mueller so well... LOL
Actually, it was Mueller's job to investigate and ask for indictments on anyone he found had broken any laws. And he certainly did his job when necessary. I need not list the names of the persons indited due to his investigation. I will assume this man did his job and would have brought charges against Trump Jr. if he had broken any laws. You should lay off CNN for a bit.
"We'll find out more when the underlying documents and deleted parts of the report are revealed." I obtained the Mueller report on Amazon. It has very little redacted, and you would know this if you read it. It is long, boring, and we did not get our money worth. There is no there-there...Not even a bit of smoke!
by Randy Godwin 22 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 Jack Lee 2 years ago
It begs the question why the media reported Director Comey as a “straight shooter” all along...?Why did they lie to the people and defend the indefensible? What is so damaging is the credibility of the people we are suppose to trust to do the right thing...The requirement to pass the test to become...
by crankalicious 17 months ago
Here's a recent tweet from President Trump:"Remember, Michael Cohen only became a RAT after the FBI did something that was absolutely unthinkable and unheard of until the witch hunt was illegally started. They BROKE INTO AN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE!"So, none of that is true. The investigation is...
by Scott Belford 14 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 Jack Lee 2 years ago
In light of recent events, here is my advice for President Trump moving forward.1. Focus like a laser beam on the economy.2. Start building the wall.3. Reframe from tweets and attacking the media.4. Act Presidential in all foreign affairs.5. Speak directly to the American people like Reagan did and...
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter 16 months ago
I have heard that Barr told Mueller that unless he could indict the president, he cannot use funds to investigate. That would be a reason for the abrupt closing of the investigation. Can any president stop any investigation against himself if he believe the investigation is fake? ...
Copyright © 2020 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.|