|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 24, 2018 17:27:42 GMT -6
www.cnn.com/2018/07/24/politics/richard-burr-devin-nunes-sound-reasons-for-judges-to-approve-fisa-warrant/index.html(CNN)Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr told CNN Tuesday he believed there were "sound reasons" for judges to approve the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant on former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page, in yet another break between the Republican leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees. "I don't think I ever expressed that I thought the FISA application came up short," Burr said when asked about House Republican memo alleging FBI and Justice Department abuses of the FISA process. "There (were) sound reasons as to why judges issued the FISA."
|
|
|
Post by sooner98 on Jul 24, 2018 18:08:31 GMT -6
www.cnn.com/2018/07/24/politics/richard-burr-devin-nunes-sound-reasons-for-judges-to-approve-fisa-warrant/index.html(CNN)Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr told CNN Tuesday he believed there were "sound reasons" for judges to approve the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant on former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page, in yet another break between the Republican leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees. "I don't think I ever expressed that I thought the FISA application came up short," Burr said when asked about House Republican memo alleging FBI and Justice Department abuses of the FISA process. "There (were) sound reasons as to why judges issued the FISA." At this point, I think I am more angry with GOP Senators for being the gigantic douches that they are, than I am with anything that Rosenstein, Comey, Brennan, etc. did through all of this.
|
|
|
Post by sooner98 on Jul 24, 2018 19:04:57 GMT -6
If there were SOOO many "sound reasons" to obtain a warrant to spy on Carter Page (FOUR TIMES!!!!), then he must certainly be a clandestine agent of Russia, and a danger to our country....so why isn't he in jail right now, you dipshit?!?
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 24, 2018 21:01:00 GMT -6
So, the FBI has the taped conversations between Trump & his lawyer. This just happened: www.cnn.com/2018/07/24/politics/michael-cohen-donald-trump-tape/index.htmlCohen told Trump about his plans to set up a company and finance the purchase of the rights from American Media, which publishes the National Enquirer. “I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend David,” Cohen said in the recording, likely a reference to American Media head David Pecker. Trump interrupts Cohen asking, “What financing?” according to the recording. When Cohen tells Trump, “We’ll have to pay.” Trump is heard saying “pay with cash” but the audio is muddled and it’s unclear whether he suggests paying with cash or not paying. Cohen says, “no, no” but it is not clear what is said next. ...... So, if the authorities are in possession of the tapes, then how did CNN obtain this one?
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 24, 2018 21:52:14 GMT -6
So, the FBI has the taped conversations between Trump & his lawyer. This just happened: www.cnn.com/2018/07/24/politics/michael-cohen-donald-trump-tape/index.htmlCohen told Trump about his plans to set up a company and finance the purchase of the rights from American Media, which publishes the National Enquirer. “I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend David,” Cohen said in the recording, likely a reference to American Media head David Pecker. Trump interrupts Cohen asking, “What financing?” according to the recording. When Cohen tells Trump, “We’ll have to pay.” Trump is heard saying “pay with cash” but the audio is muddled and it’s unclear whether he suggests paying with cash or not paying. Cohen says, “no, no” but it is not clear what is said next. ...... So, if the authorities are in possession of the tapes, then how did CNN obtain this one? And this has what to do with the Russia probe?
|
|
|
Post by NN on Jul 24, 2018 21:57:21 GMT -6
So, the FBI has the taped conversations between Trump & his lawyer. This just happened: www.cnn.com/2018/07/24/politics/michael-cohen-donald-trump-tape/index.htmlCohen told Trump about his plans to set up a company and finance the purchase of the rights from American Media, which publishes the National Enquirer. “I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend David,” Cohen said in the recording, likely a reference to American Media head David Pecker. Trump interrupts Cohen asking, “What financing?” according to the recording. When Cohen tells Trump, “We’ll have to pay.” Trump is heard saying “pay with cash” but the audio is muddled and it’s unclear whether he suggests paying with cash or not paying. Cohen says, “no, no” but it is not clear what is said next. ...... So, if the authorities are in possession of the tapes, then how did CNN obtain this one? Rudy said it was ok to share.
|
|
|
Post by Hermit on Jul 25, 2018 5:31:18 GMT -6
You can't spell Barney Fife without FBI
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 25, 2018 6:02:12 GMT -6
So, the FBI has the taped conversations between Trump & his lawyer. This just happened: www.cnn.com/2018/07/24/politics/michael-cohen-donald-trump-tape/index.htmlCohen told Trump about his plans to set up a company and finance the purchase of the rights from American Media, which publishes the National Enquirer. “I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend David,” Cohen said in the recording, likely a reference to American Media head David Pecker. Trump interrupts Cohen asking, “What financing?” according to the recording. When Cohen tells Trump, “We’ll have to pay.” Trump is heard saying “pay with cash” but the audio is muddled and it’s unclear whether he suggests paying with cash or not paying. Cohen says, “no, no” but it is not clear what is said next. ...... So, if the authorities are in possession of the tapes, then how did CNN obtain this one? And this has what to do with the Russia probe? Absolutely nothing. They have moved on from Russia,(two years, spies embedded in the campaign, tapped wire lines, etc and still no proof of collusion) & obstruction of justice,(as the OIG report clearly showed that both Comey & McCabe deserved to be fired), to trying to prove President Trump used campaign money to pay off the playboy bunny. After listening to the audio several times, it’s turned into another nothing burger.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 25, 2018 6:03:46 GMT -6
So, the FBI has the taped conversations between Trump & his lawyer. This just happened: www.cnn.com/2018/07/24/politics/michael-cohen-donald-trump-tape/index.htmlCohen told Trump about his plans to set up a company and finance the purchase of the rights from American Media, which publishes the National Enquirer. “I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend David,” Cohen said in the recording, likely a reference to American Media head David Pecker. Trump interrupts Cohen asking, “What financing?” according to the recording. When Cohen tells Trump, “We’ll have to pay.” Trump is heard saying “pay with cash” but the audio is muddled and it’s unclear whether he suggests paying with cash or not paying. Cohen says, “no, no” but it is not clear what is said next. ...... So, if the authorities are in possession of the tapes, then how did CNN obtain this one? Rudy said it was ok to share. I know they waved the attorney client privilege,(which 2/3 of what the government seized was ruled as such) & after listening to it multiple times, I can see why as there is once again, nothing there.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 25, 2018 6:09:00 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2018/07/25/suspicious-fbi-doj-didnt-check-christopher-steeles-leaks-press/It’s Suspicious That The FBI And DOJ Didn’t Check Into Christopher Steele’s Leaks To The Press Would you do everything you could to determine whether you could trust a source who lied to you before relying on him to treat a U.S. citizen guilty of treason? Jason Beale By Jason Beale JULY 25, 2018 Here’s a hypothetical question for journalists: Let’s say you managed to convince the translator in the room during the President Trump-Vladimir Putin meeting to speak to you, and you only, on the condition of anonymity, and you’re in the midst of writing an explosive, exclusive story for your publication. As you’re writing, you look up to see BREAKING NEWS on CNN, and listen as Wolf Blitzer reports the story you’re writing, with the exact fly-on-the-wall detail you received from your “exclusive” source. So what’s your first move? Would you assume CNN must’ve convinced the Russian translator to talk to them and move on with your story without taking any action, or would you call your source to figure out where that CNN information came from? If your source denied talking to CNN, would you believe him and move on, or would you do whatever you could to determine whether you can trust this source on such an important matter? You’d want to know the answer to that question before proceeding, would you not? A hypothetical question for editors: Let’s say you’re editing an article on a Pentagon policy change and notice a number of paragraphs that you think you may have read before in another publication. You Google the lines and find that your reporter appears to have lifted entire paragraphs of copy from another article. So what’s your first move? Would you reflect on your reporter’s stellar reputation, assume it had to be a strange coincidence, and simply append an editor’s note saying: “We are aware that passages in this article may appear familiar to the reader, but we’re confident that our reporter would never plagiarize another writer’s work”? Or would you contact your reporter immediately to determine whether those passages were lifted? If your reporter denied plagiarizing the paragraphs, would you believe him and move on, or would you do whatever you could to determine whether you could trust your reporter before taking any further action? You’d want to know the answer to that question before proceeding, would you not? So here’s a hypothetical question for the FBI: Let’s say you’re putting together a secret document requesting a secret court to declare a fellow American a treasonous agent of a foreign power and grant the government clandestine access to his intimate communications. As you’re reviewing the evidence you plan to include, you discover a news article that contains information known only to your source and his employer—the same information you are planning to include in the secret FISA warrant application. As your relationship with the source—which has included financial compensation—is predicated on his agreement not to share this information with anyone (other than his employer) outside of the FBI, it occurs to you that his possible abrogation of the agreement will reflect poorly on his credibility and judgement, necessitating his dismissal as a source, and calling into question whether you can responsibly certify his credibility in front of a FISA judge. On the other hand, if it was his employer who leaked the information to the press, you may be able to include the source’s information in your secret FISA warrant application, as his employer wasn’t under the same confidentiality restrictions. You’re at a crossroads, and the viability of crucial information provided by your principal source is at risk. So, what’s your first move? A significant part of your case against the American citizen—the part that, if true, proves that he was involved in private, treasonous negotiations with high-level Russian officials in Moscow in July 2016—hinges entirely on the credibility of this source, and you need to know whether you can vouch for this guy under oath. Would you immediately contact your source to determine whether he provided that information to the reporter? If he denied leaking the information, would you believe him and proceed with certifying his information and credibility in the secret warrant application requesting the court to designate a fellow citizen an agent of a foreign power?
|
|
|
Post by Boots on Jul 25, 2018 7:19:50 GMT -6
So, the FBI has the taped conversations between Trump & his lawyer. This just happened: www.cnn.com/2018/07/24/politics/michael-cohen-donald-trump-tape/index.htmlCohen told Trump about his plans to set up a company and finance the purchase of the rights from American Media, which publishes the National Enquirer. “I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend David,” Cohen said in the recording, likely a reference to American Media head David Pecker. Trump interrupts Cohen asking, “What financing?” according to the recording. When Cohen tells Trump, “We’ll have to pay.” Trump is heard saying “pay with cash” but the audio is muddled and it’s unclear whether he suggests paying with cash or not paying. Cohen says, “no, no” but it is not clear what is said next. ...... So, if the authorities are in possession of the tapes, then how did CNN obtain this one? Releases by Cohen's attorney. Certainly embarrassing to him and Melania, but I fail to grasp how responding to extortion is illegal. What is the significance?
|
|
|
Post by soonerbounce13 on Jul 25, 2018 7:55:34 GMT -6
I don't get the uproar over that recording
|
|
|
Post by sooner98 on Jul 25, 2018 8:15:16 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 25, 2018 8:15:34 GMT -6
So, the FBI has the taped conversations between Trump & his lawyer. This just happened: www.cnn.com/2018/07/24/politics/michael-cohen-donald-trump-tape/index.htmlCohen told Trump about his plans to set up a company and finance the purchase of the rights from American Media, which publishes the National Enquirer. “I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend David,” Cohen said in the recording, likely a reference to American Media head David Pecker. Trump interrupts Cohen asking, “What financing?” according to the recording. When Cohen tells Trump, “We’ll have to pay.” Trump is heard saying “pay with cash” but the audio is muddled and it’s unclear whether he suggests paying with cash or not paying. Cohen says, “no, no” but it is not clear what is said next. ...... So, if the authorities are in possession of the tapes, then how did CNN obtain this one? Releases by Cohen's attorney. Certainly embarrassing to him and Melania, but I fail to grasp how responding to extortion is illegal. What is the significance? I’ve read where the attorney released it. As to the other, from what I’ve been reading, etc. it seems some in the media & Investigators are looking into whether or not Trump violates FEC rules by using campaign contributions to pay off the lady in question.
|
|
|
Post by sheepdog on Jul 25, 2018 8:23:23 GMT -6
Carter Page reminds me of the little leaguer who would ask the umpire to call two timeouts each game so he could scurry to the potty so he could go pee pee. The guy does not have the proper character to become a spy in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by sooner98 on Jul 25, 2018 8:52:20 GMT -6
Carter Page reminds me of the little leaguer who would ask the umpire to call two timeouts each game so he could scurry to the potty so he could go pee pee. The guy does not have the proper character to become a spy in my opinion. He has certainly handled being illegally surveilled for a year and being falsely accused by the government of treason quite well, and with a lot of class. Check out his Twitter page, every post he puts is responded to by wave after wave of undead zombies still wanting to eat his brains, even though it is obvious to any sane, non-zombie that he is innocent of any wrongdoing.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 25, 2018 10:46:15 GMT -6
According to Fox News’ Catherine Herridge, GOP lawmakers have discovered new documents related to the phony dossier after Lisa Page’s closed-door deposition.
“Lawmakers are aware of new records after the recent closed-door depositions from FBI agent Peter Strzok and his former colleague and lover FBI lover Lisa Page.” Catherine Herridge said. “Lawmakers are now seeking records related to the controversial Trump dossier. An internal FBI file documenting bureau efforts to verify the salacious allegations,” Herridge continued.
Other documents are related to former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe’s memos that document alleged ‘obstruction’ of the Russia probe.
Mark Meadows ✔ @repmarkmeadows Over the last 10 months, we've caught the DOJ:
- Withholding documents - Hiding text messages - Ignoring deadlines - Engaging in potential FISA abuse - Defying Congressional subpoenas
Just to name a few examples.
Enough is enough. People need to be held accountable. 10:01 AM - Jul 25, 2018
10.6K
6,313 people are talking about this
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 25, 2018 16:39:30 GMT -6
If Meadows & others are serious about impeachment Rosenstein, they could ask for an immediate vote. But if they don’t demand a vote, they could let the issue percolate over August, with the threat of forcing an impeachment vote in the fall.
— Chad Pergram (@chadpergram) July 25, 2018
For clues to how Meadows could try impeachment effort on Rosenstein, look to his “vacate the chair” resolution in July ’15. On July 28 ’15, Meadows intro’d a resolution to essentially take a no-confidence vote on Boehner. But Meadows never allowed the resolution to go “live.”
— Chad Pergram (@chadpergram) July 25, 2018
Meadows resolution to “vacate the chair” w/Boehner in ’15 withered on the vine. It infuriated some GOPers. But other GOPers applauded Meadows. The threat was that Meadows would try again in the fall. Meadows didn’t have to. Boehner resigned that October
— Chad Pergram (@chadpergram) July 25, 2018
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 25, 2018 17:58:03 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 26, 2018 7:01:21 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2018/07/26/media-gaslighting-cant-hide-fact-trump-campaign-was-spied-on/Media Gaslighting Can’t Hide Fact Trump Campaign Was Spied On After a year of alarming revelations, the media are still more interested in proving the Trump campaign treasonously colluded with Russia than wrestling with the fact that the FBI spied on a presidential campaign. Mollie Hemingway By Mollie Hemingway JULY 26, 2018 On Saturday night, heavily redacted copies of the FBI’s application to wiretap Trump campaign affiliate Carter Page were released. The portion of the 412-page document that was not redacted supported the claims of Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), as well as those made by the majority of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The senators and the representatives had issued reports alleging that the FBI used an unverified Clinton campaign document to secure a wiretap against an American citizen, that the application for the wiretap used circular reporting and lacked verification for its central claims, and that it made materially false claims related to the source’s credibility. President Trump tweeted triumphantly and hyperbolically about what the documents showed regarding the FBI’s behavior toward his campaign. Whatever you think about Trump’s reaction to the release of the FISA application, the media reaction to the story was disingenuous and even more hyperbolic than the president’s tweets. After a year of continuous and alarming revelations, the media are still more interested in proving the Trump campaign treasonously colluded with Russia than wrestling with the fact that the FBI spied on a presidential campaign, and used dubious partisan political research to justify their surveillance. The media reaction to both the redacted Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) wiretap applications and President Trump’s tweets was pure gaslighting. They claimed the FISA applications hurt the critics’ case. It wasn’t that they reported the news that critics of the FISA application felt vindicated while defenders of the wiretap applications also felt vindicated. They wrote as partisans in a war with those skeptical of FISA abuse. The New York Times went with both “Without Evidence, Trump Claims Vindication From Release of Carter Page Documents” and “How a Trump Decision Revealed a G.O.P. Memo’s Shaky Foundation.” The latter headline was in reference to the House Intelligence report. The accompanying article completely ignored the criminal referral from Graham and Grassley that buttressed the HPSCI allegations. USA Today went with “President Trump, allies dismiss revelations in new court documents tied to Russia probe.” The Washington Post went on a days-long tantrum. See, for example, “Carter Page FISA warrants underscore the difficulty of disproving presidential falsehoods,” “The Carter Page wiretap dispute isn’t a fair fight,” and an error-riddled, tangent-laden “fact” “check” headlined “Over four days, false claims dominated Trump’s Twitter feed.” When Facts Get In The Way Of Narratives This is part of a pattern for the media when they encounter facts related to the surveillance of the Trump campaign. When Department of Justice officials leaked to the media that they had run at least one informant against the Trump campaign, a breathtaking admission by any sense of news judgment, the news was buried in the middle of the story and completely downplayed. Others joined in with the gaslighting, spending weeks arguing — and I’m not joking here — that running a secret government informant against a campaign is not spying on a campaign. The Times headline was — hand to God — “F.B.I. Used Informant to Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign, Not to Spy, as Trump Claims.” CNN contributor and Obama director of national intelligence James Clapper told the viewing audience that actually “it was a good thing” that Trump’s campaign was spied on. A Washington Post journalist wrote in defense of obscuring the spying: “Trump’s win: We’re debating a ‘spy,’ not an ‘informant.'” Blaming Republicans For Comprehending Facts If you go back to last year, CNN’s Jake Tapper mocked and derided Republican voters who told pollsters they thought the Obama administration had spied on the Trump campaign. This mockery took place after CNN reported that … the Obama administration had spied on Page! Still, he called it the definition of fake news and compared it to believing in ghosts. 32 percent of the public thinks President Obama intentionally spied on Donald Trump and members of his campaign and 52 percent of Republicans believe this charge. A charge that there is literally no evidence to support. It is the definition of fake news. Now, look, this is America and you can believe whatever you want to believe. 18 percent of the public says they’ve seen or been in the presence of a ghost. I mean whatever. But in a thriving democracy, truth matters and facts matter. Again, this segment aired weeks after CNN itself reported that the Obama administration had secured a wiretap to spy on Page. What We Know of FBI’s Trump Campaign Surveillance Sometimes it’s good to take a step back from a complicated story and view it from a distance. Rather than think about whether the wiretap application against Carter Page supports this party or that party, let’s just take a moment to reflect on where the story stands. In January 2017, days before Trump’s inauguration, high-level intelligence officials leaked to CNN the news that “Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him.” The Hillary Clinton campaign had latched onto “Russia” as an explanation for her loss, encouraging a largely compliant media to hype up reports of Russian meddling in the election.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 26, 2018 10:33:53 GMT -6
Paul Ryan does not support impeaching Rosenstein:
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 26, 2018 10:35:33 GMT -6
Sessions defends Rosenstein: www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-rosenstein/sessions-defends-deputy-rosenstein-after-impeachment-move-idUSKBN1KG23EU.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Thursday defended his deputy, Rod Rosenstein, and took a swipe at fellow Republicans in Congress who moved to impeach Rosenstein, who oversees the federal probe of Russia’s role in the 2016 presidential election. “My deputy, Rod Rosenstein, is highly capable. I have the highest confidence in him,” Sessions said during an appearance in Boston. “What I would like Congress to do is to focus on some of the legal challenges that are out there,” including illegal immigration, the attorney general added.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 26, 2018 10:50:30 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2018/07/26/americans-dont-care-russia-thats-sign-countrys-strength/Most Americans Don’t Care About Russia, And That’s A Sign Of Our Country’s Strength Nope, I don’t care about Russia, you don’t either, and you know it. Hear that sound? It’s the sound of 300 million Americans blinking. Peter Burfeind By Peter Burfeind JULY 26, 2018 I learned something about myself the last few days: I don’t really care about Russia. I used to, when they were the Soviet Union and had thousands of missiles aimed at me that could incinerate my world, but now? Not so much. Don’t get me wrong, I care about Russia in a “Hmph, Russia annexed a country I feel like I heard about somewhere, how ‘bout that” kind of way. But beyond that? Well, let’s say I care about Russia as much as the Germans arming their soldiers with broom handles against them do, which is to say, not very much. Germans are wicked smart, I’ve been told, and if they don’t care about Russia, I feel liberated not to care about Russia either. I could have gone the past three years hearing nothing about the goings on of Russia, and I’m pretty sure my life would not have changed a bit. Well, except for all that time reading about the intricacies of “Russian collusion”—I’d have gotten that back. The Last American Hears About Russia, and Blinks The other day my wife asked me to explain what’s going on with President Trump and Russia, and out came a rambling, impressionistic word salad about peeing on a bed, FBI lovers, dossiers, the Democratic National Committee screwing Bernie Sanders, and Trump being called a traitor for dissing intelligence agencies. My wife, to quote Nietzsche, blinked. At that moment, I realized how little Russia matters to me as well. This led to a couple “aha’s.” First: there are a whole lot of other political things I don’t really care about. Second, I’m not alone in my feelings. Hear that sound? It’s the sound of 300 million Americans blinking. If I’m honest, the only reason I care about Russia is because it’s fun. That’s about it. It’s my video game. It’s an escapist leisure—we Americans have a lot of those—and reading Andrew McCarthy about Russian collusion is a nice distraction while I sip my coffee and ready my mind for the day. For those on the Left scandalized by this—The Republic is at stake! Russians stole the presidency for Trump!—guess what? Ten years ago I was in your shoes. I was convinced Obama’s election meant the end of the republic. I suffered eight long years hearing about Washington shenanigans to take over a sixth of the economy, intense regulation of industry, the revolution of marriage and gender, selling baby body parts, using courts to impose a cultural revolution, and entrenching a globalist ideology threatening to nullify the country and principles I grew up with. Somehow I survived. The apocalypse never happened. Truth be told, I didn’t really suffer. Things actually went pretty well in my life. I had children, wrote a book, became an Army chaplain, went on vacations, and further enjoyed the liberties and blessings of this country. If I went through those eight years not knowing a single detail of Obama’s presidency, my life would have changed not one bit. For all of you “suffering” through Trump, the same is true. And you know it.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 26, 2018 11:32:42 GMT -6
Sessions defends Rosenstein: www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-rosenstein/sessions-defends-deputy-rosenstein-after-impeachment-move-idUSKBN1KG23EU.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Thursday defended his deputy, Rod Rosenstein, and took a swipe at fellow Republicans in Congress who moved to impeach Rosenstein, who oversees the federal probe of Russia’s role in the 2016 presidential election. “My deputy, Rod Rosenstein, is highly capable. I have the highest confidence in him,” Sessions said during an appearance in Boston. “What I would like Congress to do is to focus on some of the legal challenges that are out there,” including illegal immigration, the attorney general added. What a disaster. Not only is he useless an AG he cost us a Senate seat and gave us Roy Moore.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 26, 2018 11:33:36 GMT -6
So, now Robert Mueller is investigating President Trump’s tweets for obstruction of justice: www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/us/politics/trump-tweets-mueller-obstruction.htmlFor years, President Trump has used Twitter as his go-to public relations weapon, mounting a barrage of attacks on celebrities and then political rivals even after advisers warned he could be creating legal problems for himself. Those concerns now turn out to be well founded. The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, is scrutinizing tweets and negative statements from the president about Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, according to three people briefed on the matter. Several of the remarks came as Mr. Trump was also privately pressuring the men — both key witnesses in the inquiry — about the investigation, and Mr. Mueller is examining whether the actions add up to attempts to obstruct the investigation by both intimidating witnesses and pressuring senior law enforcement officials to tamp down the inquiry. Mr. Mueller wants to question the president about the tweets. His interest in them is the latest addition to a range of presidential actions he is investigating as a possible obstruction case: private interactions with Mr. Comey, Mr. Sessions and other senior administration officials about the Russia inquiry; misleading White House statements; public attacks; and possible pardon offers to potential witnesses. The special counsel’s investigators have told Mr. Trump’s lawyers they are examining the tweets under a wide-ranging obstruction-of-justice law beefed up after the Enron accounting scandal, according to the three people. The investigators did not explicitly say they were examining possible witness tampering, but the nature of the questions they want to ask the president, and the fact that they are scrutinizing his actions under a section of the United States Code titled “Tampering With a Witness, Victim, or an Informant,” raised concerns for his lawyers about Mr. Trump’s exposure in the investigation.
|
|
|
Post by oilsooner on Jul 26, 2018 13:24:27 GMT -6
So, now Robert Mueller is investigating President Trump’s tweets for obstruction of justice: www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/us/politics/trump-tweets-mueller-obstruction.htmlFor years, President Trump has used Twitter as his go-to public relations weapon, mounting a barrage of attacks on celebrities and then political rivals even after advisers warned he could be creating legal problems for himself. Those concerns now turn out to be well founded. The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, is scrutinizing tweets and negative statements from the president about Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, according to three people briefed on the matter. Several of the remarks came as Mr. Trump was also privately pressuring the men — both key witnesses in the inquiry — about the investigation, and Mr. Mueller is examining whether the actions add up to attempts to obstruct the investigation by both intimidating witnesses and pressuring senior law enforcement officials to tamp down the inquiry. Mr. Mueller wants to question the president about the tweets. His interest in them is the latest addition to a range of presidential actions he is investigating as a possible obstruction case: private interactions with Mr. Comey, Mr. Sessions and other senior administration officials about the Russia inquiry; misleading White House statements; public attacks; and possible pardon offers to potential witnesses. The special counsel’s investigators have told Mr. Trump’s lawyers they are examining the tweets under a wide-ranging obstruction-of-justice law beefed up after the Enron accounting scandal, according to the three people. The investigators did not explicitly say they were examining possible witness tampering, but the nature of the questions they want to ask the president, and the fact that they are scrutinizing his actions under a section of the United States Code titled “Tampering With a Witness, Victim, or an Informant,” raised concerns for his lawyers about Mr. Trump’s exposure in the investigation. If Mueller charges Trump with OOJ, without any evidence or charges of collusion with Russia, its nearly certain that our political sphere will continue to devolve, likely into more violence. As Lincoln warned us, a house divided against itself cannot stand. The far left will not be able to square charges against Trump with slow (or no) action on the part of the government/Congress to impeach him, nor resistance from Trump or his supporters, especially when they realize impeachment does not equate removal from office. OOJ charges, in their minds, will vindicate all they have claimed since 11/8 (though the reality is that this causality couldn't be any less true), and it will almost certainly push them to widespread violence as they seek the impeachment (and removal) they have been told is impending. Nearly all discussion of OOJ/impeachment I see from progressives fails to even attempt to peer into the rabbit hole regarding the incredibly murky framework of convicting a sitting president of OOJ, especially when it comes without an associated crime. The entire thing is mind boggling even to consider, but with today's socio-political disparities and the Deep State at full throttle in defense of its hierarchy, its nearly impossible to know where this train is headed....or if/when we could leave the tracks. Unfortunately, with the a fortiori evidence from the indictment of 12 Russians days before the Helsinki summit, the sad reality is that Mueller will likely wait to see the results of the midterms to determine whether or not to charge Trump with OOJ. If a "blue wave," charge him with OOJ. If not, don't. This perversion of justice is a sad commentary on where we sit with our government today. Hopefully the train hasn't already left the tracks, but such high ranking officials playing politics with the justice system makes me question it.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 26, 2018 13:42:55 GMT -6
So, now Robert Mueller is investigating President Trump’s tweets for obstruction of justice: www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/us/politics/trump-tweets-mueller-obstruction.htmlFor years, President Trump has used Twitter as his go-to public relations weapon, mounting a barrage of attacks on celebrities and then political rivals even after advisers warned he could be creating legal problems for himself. Those concerns now turn out to be well founded. The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, is scrutinizing tweets and negative statements from the president about Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, according to three people briefed on the matter. Several of the remarks came as Mr. Trump was also privately pressuring the men — both key witnesses in the inquiry — about the investigation, and Mr. Mueller is examining whether the actions add up to attempts to obstruct the investigation by both intimidating witnesses and pressuring senior law enforcement officials to tamp down the inquiry. Mr. Mueller wants to question the president about the tweets. His interest in them is the latest addition to a range of presidential actions he is investigating as a possible obstruction case: private interactions with Mr. Comey, Mr. Sessions and other senior administration officials about the Russia inquiry; misleading White House statements; public attacks; and possible pardon offers to potential witnesses. The special counsel’s investigators have told Mr. Trump’s lawyers they are examining the tweets under a wide-ranging obstruction-of-justice law beefed up after the Enron accounting scandal, according to the three people. The investigators did not explicitly say they were examining possible witness tampering, but the nature of the questions they want to ask the president, and the fact that they are scrutinizing his actions under a section of the United States Code titled “Tampering With a Witness, Victim, or an Informant,” raised concerns for his lawyers about Mr. Trump’s exposure in the investigation. If Mueller charges Trump with OOJ, without any evidence or charges of collusion with Russia, its nearly certain that our political sphere will continue to devolve, likely into more violence. As Lincoln warned us, a house divided against itself cannot stand. The far left will not be able to square charges against Trump with slow (or no) action on the part of the government/Congress to impeach him, nor resistance from Trump or his supporters, especially when they realize impeachment does not equate removal from office. OOJ charges, in their minds, will vindicate all they have claimed since 11/8 (though the reality is that this causality couldn't be any less true), and it will almost certainly push them to widespread violence as they seek the impeachment (and removal) they have been told is impending. Nearly all discussion of OOJ/impeachment I see from progressives fails to even attempt to peer into the rabbit hole regarding the incredibly murky framework of convicting a sitting president of OOJ, especially when it comes without an associated crime. The entire thing is mind boggling even to consider, but with today's socio-political disparities and the Deep State at full throttle in defense of its hierarchy, its nearly impossible to know where this train is headed....or if/when we could leave the tracks. Unfortunately, with the a fortiori evidence from the indictment of 12 Russians days before the Helsinki summit, the sad reality is that Mueller will likely wait to see the results of the midterms to determine whether or not to charge Trump with OOJ. If a "blue wave," charge him with OOJ. If not, don't. This perversion of justice is a sad commentary on where we sit with our government today. Hopefully the train hasn't already left the tracks, but such high ranking officials playing politics with the justice system makes me question it. I see it differently. To me, all of this investigation, etc was intended to drive President Trump’s poll numbers down into the 20’s to 30’s , which would result in a “blue wave” & then the newly empowered Democrats could “correct the error “ by impeaching President Trump. However, several factors have came along that blew up this plan. #1: The economy. It’s going good right now, with record low unemployment numbers, pay increases, etc. #2: The OIG Report. It validated why both Comey & McCabe we’re fired and laid out the facts that it was open & shut that those two brought it upon themselves with their unethical behaviors. This was a deadly blow to the OOJ charges as they pointed to the firing of Comey as the chief OOJ charge. #3: Mueller fighting off going to trial with one of the indicted Russian companies. The judge of this case is quickly losing his patience with Team Mueller on this one. #4: Polls showing the Democrats lead is falling into the mid terms. Again, Trump’s policies are working and the only message the Democrats can put together is more open borders, etc. I don’t know what the future holds, but if things keep going for Trump as they are now,(better trade with EU, NK elimination of testing sites, etc), doing anything to a President with close to or above 50% approval rating would not be looked upon favorably,(especially the side driving the narrative). Unless his numbers drop off massively, I believe he will be safe.
|
|
|
Post by Boots on Jul 26, 2018 13:56:08 GMT -6
So, now Robert Mueller is investigating President Trump’s tweets for obstruction of justice: www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/us/politics/trump-tweets-mueller-obstruction.htmlFor years, President Trump has used Twitter as his go-to public relations weapon, mounting a barrage of attacks on celebrities and then political rivals even after advisers warned he could be creating legal problems for himself. Those concerns now turn out to be well founded. The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, is scrutinizing tweets and negative statements from the president about Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, according to three people briefed on the matter. Several of the remarks came as Mr. Trump was also privately pressuring the men — both key witnesses in the inquiry — about the investigation, and Mr. Mueller is examining whether the actions add up to attempts to obstruct the investigation by both intimidating witnesses and pressuring senior law enforcement officials to tamp down the inquiry. Mr. Mueller wants to question the president about the tweets. His interest in them is the latest addition to a range of presidential actions he is investigating as a possible obstruction case: private interactions with Mr. Comey, Mr. Sessions and other senior administration officials about the Russia inquiry; misleading White House statements; public attacks; and possible pardon offers to potential witnesses. The special counsel’s investigators have told Mr. Trump’s lawyers they are examining the tweets under a wide-ranging obstruction-of-justice law beefed up after the Enron accounting scandal, according to the three people. The investigators did not explicitly say they were examining possible witness tampering, but the nature of the questions they want to ask the president, and the fact that they are scrutinizing his actions under a section of the United States Code titled “Tampering With a Witness, Victim, or an Informant,” raised concerns for his lawyers about Mr. Trump’s exposure in the investigation. While its debatable that a President that has the power to shut down any investigation can obstruct justice, this is actually pretty good news. By moving to OOJ, that means we are past collusion.
|
|
|
Post by oilsooner on Jul 26, 2018 14:03:35 GMT -6
If Mueller charges Trump with OOJ, without any evidence or charges of collusion with Russia, its nearly certain that our political sphere will continue to devolve, likely into more violence. As Lincoln warned us, a house divided against itself cannot stand. The far left will not be able to square charges against Trump with slow (or no) action on the part of the government/Congress to impeach him, nor resistance from Trump or his supporters, especially when they realize impeachment does not equate removal from office. OOJ charges, in their minds, will vindicate all they have claimed since 11/8 (though the reality is that this causality couldn't be any less true), and it will almost certainly push them to widespread violence as they seek the impeachment (and removal) they have been told is impending. Nearly all discussion of OOJ/impeachment I see from progressives fails to even attempt to peer into the rabbit hole regarding the incredibly murky framework of convicting a sitting president of OOJ, especially when it comes without an associated crime. The entire thing is mind boggling even to consider, but with today's socio-political disparities and the Deep State at full throttle in defense of its hierarchy, its nearly impossible to know where this train is headed....or if/when we could leave the tracks. Unfortunately, with the a fortiori evidence from the indictment of 12 Russians days before the Helsinki summit, the sad reality is that Mueller will likely wait to see the results of the midterms to determine whether or not to charge Trump with OOJ. If a "blue wave," charge him with OOJ. If not, don't. This perversion of justice is a sad commentary on where we sit with our government today. Hopefully the train hasn't already left the tracks, but such high ranking officials playing politics with the justice system makes me question it. I see it differently. To me, all of this investigation, etc was intended to drive President Trump’s poll numbers down into the 20’s to 30’s , which would result in a “blue wave” & then the newly empowered Democrats could “correct the error “ by impeaching President Trump. However, several factors have came along that blew up this plan. #1: The economy. It’s going good right now, with record low unemployment numbers, pay increases, etc. #2: The OIG Report. It validated why both Comey & McCabe we’re fired and laid out the facts that it was open & shut that those two brought it upon themselves with their unethical behaviors. This was a deadly blow to the OOJ charges as they pointed to the firing of Comey as the chief OOJ charge. #3: Mueller fighting off going to trial with one of the indicted Russian companies. The judge of this case is quickly losing his patience with Team Mueller on this one. #4: Polls showing the Democrats lead is falling into the mid terms. Again, Trump’s policies are working and the only message the Democrats can put together is more open borders, etc. I don’t know what the future holds, but if things keep going for Trump as they are now,(better trade with EU, NK elimination of testing sites, etc), doing anything to a President with close to or above 50% approval rating would not be looked upon favorably,(especially the side driving the narrative). Unless his numbers drop off massively, I believe he will be safe. I'm sure there is a lot of truth to that. The Strzok/Page revelations make it clear that Mueller, through his/his teams bias against Trump, thought that this investigation (and its leaks/tactics) would weaken Trump politically, resulting in a resignation or impeachment. I believe this strategy continues on, though he now knows Trump is not going to resign and retains re-electable poll numbers despite the investigation. Thus, it becomes a calculus to determine the likelihood of impeachment if charges are brought. Even rookie DA's know to avoid bringing charges they are certain can not be proved. Surely Mueller holds the same reservations. Thus, the numbers needed to impeach (2/3 super majority....simply not going to happen without a serious blue wave), must be secured before filing charges. This is why I believe Mueller will wait to conclude his investigation until the Mid Terms are over. But, this is just the Deep State's play. It does nothing to discuss the fallout coming from the progressive left, and their neo-McCarthyism. It certainly affects it, but these are two independent, and very serious issues we face today.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 26, 2018 14:25:09 GMT -6
thehill.com/hilltv/rising/398983-house-intel-chair-redactions-in-fisa-documents-just-as-bad-or-worse-than-what“What’s in the redactions is equally bad, some would probably say worse than what the American people can see today,” Nunes said. “So just to be clear, there’s 400, roughly 75 percent of them are blacked out,” he continued. “So people learned over the weekend that the dossier indeed was what led this FISA, so they used that dossier and pieces of that dossier to push that FISA out to Carter Page.” “I would argue that what’s left in there is really bad, if not worse, but also what’s not in there is even worse than what people can see, what people can’t see.”
|
|