Did these guys actually believe that they might be able to get away with it?

I guess all those indictments and guilty pleas aren’t for real.
One thing in favor of Mueller, Trump has surrounded himself with lawyers that really don’t want to go down with him and have lawyers of their own. They’re protecting themselves as everyone that rubs up agaisnt Trump gets dirt on themselves.

 

I would think before you can prove collusion, you must show more than listening to a Russian representative for 15 min. Can they show that anything came of the meeting to show they used the information that was told to them?

 

If you want to see collusion, than the ex Attorney General, Comey, Bill Clinton and several members of the FBI colluded to get charges dropped on Hillary Clinton so she could even run for President. I would also call that obstruction of Justice and the main reason Trump fired his Attorney General.

 

Ha ha, that’s funny. What the heck could they charge her of ? Being a Clinton. What a bunch of rubblish. Comey could have cost Hillary and election.....that’s great collusion (sarc).

 

Do you think if Trump destroyed one E-mail he was told to turn over to the FBI he wouldn't be charged? Not even mentioning she kept her server .

 

What an incorrect thing to say. Trump can’t be charged criminally with anything he has jurisdiction over unless recommended by the FBI ( ) and turned over to the DOJ. It would go nowhere either because Trump has jurisdiction over Business conducted by him like Secretary’s of States does over them. The Secretarys of State, sent business by email has the authority to do with it what ever she/he wants including deletion. Trump does too.
Now, if Trump was thought to jepordize National security, he could be impeached....as could have Hillary. They are subject to oversight by Congress. Did the Republican Congress which investigated her for years choose to impeach her ? No. Did Comey recommend criminal offenses to the DOJ ? No. He explained why. It’s not prosecutable. It then goes back to the Republican lead congress. They did nothing !

 

Now, as of January will the Dem lead house look into Trump using a private phone as president ? Yes. Is it a criminal offense ? No. But will they use it as evidence for bringing impeachment ? Along with everything else, we can only hope.

 

FIRST: Yes. You are blatantly ignoring the major part of the directive. And you dismiss your ignoring it off handily. Not very honest. Here is the quote from the real directive:

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).​

SECOND: I should give sh...crap because.... Why?... exactly. An investigator discovers a crime. And you object to it being investigated, pursued and punished? Why? If you want to claim that Rosenberg's directive was illegal, then we have another crime. Why should I, as an American citizen, expect otherwise?

Wait! I know what your response will be. You'll say something along the lines of "protecting the innocent". But this is why government officials should not only be honest, but give the appearance of being honest. If a government official acts as if they're guilty, it should be investigate why they are acting that way. Our democracy depends on it. Government officials have too much power. Citizens need to grab any opportunity they can to make sure they are not abusing it. Your post seems to simply imply that "we shouldn't know".

 

What is up with you guys and collusion? You're months and months behind in the news. Trump campaign operatives have confessed to collusion. In writing. Under oath! Collusion has nothing to do with "anything" coming out of any meeting. But, as I have said so many times before: collusion is the least of Trump's problems.

If is so obvious when you hear from somebody who only gets their news from wingnut media!

 

She could have been charged with the crimes Comey said she committed -- one under oath.

 

(i) is the major and substantive part of the order, not (ii) or (iii). (ii) and (iii) are usual boilerplate add-ons in these appointments and usually refer to things directly tied to the main purpose of the investigation. Or if something major is uncovered not related to the appointment the special prosecutor returns to his controllers for specific direction and a new authorization. Though it was hoped to be more than boilerplate in this case since they did not expect much from the coordination with the Russians, but wanted to find something -- anything -- on Trump.

Your rationale could be applied to appointing special prosecutors to look for stuff on Obama, Clinton, Schmur, Pelosi, Feinstein, Pence, McConnell, Ryan, Durbin, et al. I assume you would be in favor of that. Or does your rationale for Soviet-style investigations apply only to Trump?

There was nothing illegal with Rosenstein's appointment letter. Politically and constitutionally untoward, yes, but not illegal.

 

Like exactly, what crimes are they ? State them and show the evidence. You’re wrong fully saying “Comey said” when he said no such thing. That’s Brietbart talking.

Trump DID “knowingly and intentionally” release sensitive information directly to persons without clearances who were adversaries.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-...d-information-to-russian-officials-1494890345

 

You can keep repeating the same rebuttal until the cows come home, no matter what. But in his July explanation of his investigation Comey admitted that Hillary violated the espionage act by mishandling confidential and classified material. He also testified under oath to congress that Hillary lied under oath in her earlier testimony to congress.
Trump decides what information can be disclosed

 

Again, you supply no evidence. Let’s see the quote. When you say “ Comey said or Comey admitted” you need to provide THE QUOTE and source
so far, it’s just Trumpism BS. Show the quote for Comey said “ Hillary lies under oath.”

You have given no references. It’s just right wing tripe in your part.

 

Exactly where did you get this QUOTE ? This and the one that said Hillary “lied under oath.”
A real source not the one from dah. .

 

It is easy to find. I won't do the work for you. Get the YouTube of Comey's July 2016 report.

 

I disagree. It's quite likely that the worst crimes committed were not the ones described in (i) Don't get me wrong.... those are pretty serious. I'm just saying that they are not the worst.

Remember Nixon? Watergate wasn't what brought him down... His campaign sending some goons to wiretap a hotel was embarrassing. But survivable... With the right lies it would have probably ranked not too high above banging a White House intern.. But it was the cover-up. This time we have the same or worse cover-up.... and probably much more....

And it certainly looks every day more and more like the most definitely did.

Or to assign congressional committees.... oh wait.... they did!.

Only difference is they didn't find anything... unlike this case.

 

Oh, well. I'll be nice. Here's the YouTube with Comey testifying to Hillary's lying under oath (and some other stuff.)

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4609291/comey-hillary-lie

 

Your enthusiasm and support for the Soviet style of justice is striking. I hate to say it because you seem like a nice guy but that support of a Soviet style government is the biggest threat against the American republic that ever was.

 

And still two things make this entire fiasco irrelevant . Hillary as Secretary of State had the right to do what she did with the emails as using a federal server was a policy, not a regulation and Colin Powell did the same. Secondly, no secure information was actually known to be given or picked up by anyone Else, least if all, adversaries. They were secure. Comey right fully did not recommend criminal prosecution. The republicans controlled congress could have filed perjury charges and /or filed for impeachment . They did neither...case closed. She’s a grandma and unlike trump, is not handing secure information directly to the Russians...it’s totally irrelevant now.

 

Your statement confirms everything I said. Hillary did not have the right or authority to mishandle classified information through gross negligence -- a violation of the espionage act -- on her private server. Plus she did not have a get out of jail free card for her lying about her private server.
Congress did refer Hillary's lying under oath to the DOJ (the only thing they can do) who let it die in their inbox.

 

Funny....Trump is president and Hillary is a retired grandma and still you’re running agaisnt her: she must really be something special..

 

Great observation

Why can't the RW quit her?

 

Just pointing out her felonies for the record. Grandma Clinton is still actively exhorting her fellow Democrats to be uncivil.

 

Great! The old Republican mantra: when you can't respond to arguments, just give them a nasty-sounding name, and don't bother responding. "Soviet", "Socialist" and "Communist" being the all-time favorites to try to get the right-winger out of the argumentative corner they get themselves into.

Fact is that the British were the biggest threat in history against the American Republic in its earlier stages. Soviets and Nazis were the second biggest in history until Donald Trump came along.