Justice Department agrees to brief Dems as Trump touts "spygate"

According to who?

 

Do you think a seasoned and experienced judge, appointed to a FISA court by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, is too stupid or uneducated to read a footnote? Do you think a FISA court judge is unable to determine whether or not the source of the dossier mattered enough to change the outcome of the FISA warrant being issued? I'm guessing you believe Nunes, even though his report was completely refuted.

How VERY interesting that the money trail for the embedded spy leads back to Obama, because Trump very plainly said the FBI embedded the spy in his campaign. So, which was it- Obama or the FBI? Also, do you have a reputable citation that says there is evidence a spy was embedded, because so far, that's not what the FBI has said.

I'm going to overlook the inflammatory taunting in your post... this time.

I am eager for Mueller to bring his investigation to a close, but not so eager I want him to rush and not be thorough and correct. Watergate took much longer, and this investigation is much bigger.

I assume you also don't have a reputable citation declaring that Muller has found nothing, because there have been guilty pleas and one person is presently in prison from the Mueller investigation, and that's only so far.

 

You beat me to the punch. No indication the FBI is investigating Trump. Mueller is perhaps tryinh to make a case for obstruction, but the FBI's shady "counter intel" operation is finished.

 

Do you follow the news? This is from April.

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III informed President Trump’s attorneys last month that he is continuing to investigate the president but does not consider him a criminal target at this point, according to three people familiar with the discussions.

In private negotiations in early March about a possible presidential interview, Mueller described Trump as a subject of his investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. Prosecutors view someone as a subject when that person has engaged in conduct that is under investigation but there is not sufficient evidence to bring charges.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...5eac230e514_story.html?utm_term=.f8868f8f37e9​

 

No, he didn't "hide" the dossier, he was just untruthful about the entire document. If an FBI Director willingly withheld information from Barack Obama, you'd probably be singing a different tune. There's no excuse to give/enable the media to have MORE information than the President, especially in a supposed 'defensive briefing'.

I lament and regret that more legally cannot be done than firing, because it's not like it's just some work violation. It's a gross violation of the President's trust.

 

Obama obstructed the congressional investigation into "Fast & Furious" for 6 years. Obama on multiple occasions exerted "executive privilege" to withhold subpoenaed docs, and block testimony. Holder was found in contempt of congress for refusing to make witnesses and docs available even after it had been determined they weren't covered by "executive privilege". Obama could well have been investigated by the FBI, if Holder wasn't his co-conspirator. If the 2 border patrol agents widows got their wishes granted, Obama would have been charged as an accessory to those murders. Obamas actions well exceeded "influence" ...

 

OBAMA is still POTUS?

 

Comey, as of April, still claims he didn't, and doesn't know who funded the dossier. McCabe's alibi is a little different. McCabe points to the "footnote" that mentions Fusion GPS ... The prequisite "vetting" process before presentation to FISA was intentionally cursory. Steele, the unidentified "reliable source" cited in the FBI "footnote" had already been dismissed by the FBI at the time the app. was submitted to FISA. Comey absolutelty knew that.

 

I was specifically referring to the defensive briefing prior to the CNN leak that we now know came from Clapper/Brennan, who should absolutely testify on that(we don't know if the Senate Intel Committee, corrupt as it is bothered to broach the subject.)

I will always follow the law, but it strikes me as hypocritical that the ones who were charged with enforcing it cannot hold themselves to the same standards.

 

Clapper & Brennan are the ones with the most to hide. And anytime Clapper's testifying, Clapper's lying. He simply cannot tell the truth. Halper, Clapper's long time CIA colleague, member of his CIA "think tank" concocted a Flynn conspiracy in 2013. Halper, fuelled the Carter Page conspiracy too. Clapper either trusts Halper implicitly, or directs Halper to concoct conspiracies to support unwarranted operations. We'll never get the truth out of Clapper. Brennan is right on par with Clapper ... a habitual liar.

 

Trump committed no obstruction of justice. James Comey is not, and never was, the personification of 'justice'. He was just another employee and easily replaced.

However there is a very good chance that high ranking members of the FBI and DOJ may face charges of obstruction of justice. We'll see when the results of the ongoing investigations start coming in.

 

Just what did you see as Comey being untruthful about the dossier? Information was not withheld from Trump. Comey informed Trump what was in the dossier. I'm sure that was an awkward conversation he didn't want to have, but he did it. Trump was informed during the campaign that Russia was trying to infiltrate and to be careful about what they did and who they talked to. It didn't matter that they were warned, multiple Trump campaign folks talked to, met with, and negotiated with multiple Russians on multiple occasions… after the warning from the intelligence agencies.

Let me ask you this- hypothetical situation- You're the FBI Director and you get information from foreign allied intelligence agencies that one of the main candidates for President is being targeted by Russia. Russia is looking to cause chaos in the US, looking to compromise an American president, use leverage to sway economic and political decisions in the favor of Russia, and people in the campaign are actively engaged with Russians to accomplish those goals. So, you start a counterintelligence investigation to find out if your allied intelligence reports were valid, what Russia was doing, and what the presidential campaign was doing in response. You find the allied intelligence is valid, Russia has hacked the other candidate's party's electronics and released them to the public to hurt the opposition. Another document is sent to you by a senior politician that says many of the same things you've already heard from another source, so you have some verification. The favored candidate makes a speech at the same time asking Russia to get more emails. A personal friend and known partisan dirty trickster states another person working for the opposition would soon have his time in the barrel. Then, against the odds, the Russia's favored candidate wins the election and his advisors are caught on discussing relief of sanctions with the Russian ambassador before the inauguration, and he lies about the conversation when confronted. Just what would you do? Throw all that information out the window and believe the newly elected President is a perfectly legitimate and all the things you've seen unfold are coincidence of no importance? Throw your support behind this new guy and pledge allegiance to him, even when he asks you to stop a valid criminal investigation the very guy caught talking sanction relief with the ambassador? Or continue the investigation?

 

Did anyone force the FBI to give up classified information to the Congressional committee during the investigation into Fast and Furious and then release a misleading report about it? Did they go back and require a second briefing on more classified information despite the FBI saying it could put lives in danger?

Every single person in the Trump campaign/transition/administration that has been questioned by Congressional committees have refused to answer questions about any conversation they have had with Trump, on the off chance that Trump may want to exert executive privilege at some point in the future… so pre-emptive non-disclosure without executive privilege, but you criticize Obama alone for actually using executive privilege? Let's be fair.

I'm not happy about Fast and Furious either. Our government needs to stop playing games.

 

Let me ask you two things-
1. Is the President above the law, or does the law also apply to the President?
2. If the President is not above the law, and there is evidence the President broke the law, who is going to hold him accountable?

 

He is.....remind us what Rosenstein said. Lets see if you can come up with what Rosenstein put out to the public and Trump.

 

I've answered your question several times. The American people will hold Trump accountable in the unlikely event crimes are uncovered. Voters, through their elected congressional reps, will impeach the POTUS if the evidence warrants it. The POTUS is then subject to "civilian" criminal liability. You keep coming back to a "constitutional crisis" that isn't real. Voters who our dissatisfied by the investigations outcome can remove Trump from office, and see him prosecuted come mid-terms. You're again implying the US constitution is deficient, and suggesting the electoral system is unreliable. Mid-terms will reveal if yours is more than just a singular view. I suspect you'll find you're in the minority in Nov.

 

The Vaunted Big Blue Wave:

 

I'm not sure I'm following you here. Are you addressing the difference between a "subject" and a "target" of an FBI investigation?

Trump is the subject of a criminal investigation. I don't expect the FBI to ever tell Trump he is a target, even if he is.

 

The President is not above the law. No American is. That's an ideal.

What is the Constitutional remedy for a President found to have broken the law? Are we to wait for the next election and let the people's vote speak, or is there another remedy mentioned in the Constitution? Don't we have a representative democracy that has the ability to act quicker than waiting for a 4 year term to be up, on something serious like a crime by the president? We both know there is.

Here's why I come back to a Constitutional crisis (and no, it isn't real now, but we are certainly on the path to one)… the remedy for a presidential crime is impeachment. I find the probability of a Republican controlled Congress impeaching and removing a Republican president to be extremely small. So, the possibility is we may have a sitting criminal president remaining in office… in other words, someone above the law because no consequences would follow his criminal acts. That absolutely is a deficiency in the Constitution that needs to be addressed. So does the ability of a president to decline a Grand Jury subpoena, even over a Supreme Court ruling. A political solution to a criminal act is problematic because the founding fathers didn't foresee a Congress that would put maintaining partisan power over the best interests of the country, and not remove a criminal president. This issue isn't just about Trump.

I suspect there will be some seats change hands in November, but if you've read my posts, I've consistently said that I don't think the Senate will change enough seats to have 67 votes to remove, in the event the House votes to impeach. That would only happen if 15ish Republican Senators decide to remove. Do you see them voting to remove?

 

Returning the Rogue Security-State to Lawful Constitutional Oversight might feel painful for you, but, I assure you that's is for ALL of our own good.

 

Sunday Schadenfreude: California Dems thrash around on their great blue wave

Apparently, there are so many of them running they are cannibalizing each other which jeopardizes their prospects for retaking the House.

 

The despair is palpable. Mueller isn't going to deliver an indictment .... he can't even get an audience with Trump. Muellers congressional report will be long on inuendo, and suspicion, but woefully short on tangible evidence. Trump won't be impeached on Muellers "feelings" about Trumps motive for firing Comey ... and that reality has obviously set in. So it looks like the "scream at the sky day" observance will be held the day after mid-terms this year.

 

If its bad for the Democrats and the leftness......its good for the Country. Real Good!

 

Dirty Bob Mueller has so many conflicts of interest, it’s been clear from the start that the Mueller team has numerous conflicts of interest starting with Mueller himself, that if Dirty Bob had any integrity, he would have never accepted the position.


Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

When will the 13 Angry Democrats (& those who worked for President O), reveal their disqualifying Conflicts of Interest? It’s been a long time now! Will they be indelibly written into the Report along with the fact that the only Collusion is with the Dems, Justice, FBI & Russia?

12:56 PM - May 26, 2018

What is "The Report" that Trump is referring to?

 

What you don't address is that it isn't about whether or not Comey was fired, but that Comey was fired for a corrupt reason- to stop a criminal investigation, as Trump said on camera, after he said he fired Comey for another reason. Legally, changing the story is very bad for Trump….. just sayin'.

Guiliani's quote yesterday is also bad news for Trump fans. Guiliani admitted that he believes Trump will be found to have committed a crime, and the issue now is impeachment. Therefore, he's running a PR campaign on jury nullification to keep Trump in office despite being guilty of a crime, appealing to the people to tell their elected representatives not to remove him from office.

As to some obstruction of justice among leaders in the FBI and DOJ, I'll believe that when I see it.