Senate Democrats just released full testimony on the Trump-Russia dossier. Here's what's in it

You're sure? So, if you're sure, that's a legal certainty here? I would refer you to her actual conviction then, where she was convicted on obstruction. An obvious oversight perhaps on your part? If so, why? Can you refer to her conviction then for insider trading? Or conspiracy? I can't. I can point to someone who regularly asserts her innocence, a fact that the conviction upholds btw, and of course, you're still convinced that she did something other than not being consistent with the investigation. Ok, Prove it.

I would tell you that if I put you in a room, and interrogated you, that I have leverage. Even if you haven't done anything wrong. I still have leverage. I can use the force of threat of violence or incarceration against you to compel you to provide the testimony that I require of you. Do you suppose that folks aren't aware of that? Of course you're being leveraged. So, Martha wasn't convicted of insider trading, but by the innuendo of it, and the evidence of her inconsistency, which led the nice jurors to assume there was more, and hence the conviction. Or, it could simply be shown that the inconsistency itself was sufficient in the law for a conviction. Either way, she wasn't convicted for the offense for which she was investigated for, which to me is prosecutorial misconduct. And that fear of prosecutorial misconduct is the leverage.

 

I don't care what you want to defend, Feinstein is an underling to the Chair of the committee.

She doesn't get to decide how the committee is run, does she?

 

She is one of the gang of 8, they're all big time senators.

 

Keep wishing, Grassley tucked his tail and ran away. His bluff on the dossier and Steele was exposed easily by the ranking member with Fusion's blessing. Keep trying though........

 

It wasn't legally binding though, and they said as much. It was a 'voluntary' meeting where his lawyer(Mr. Levy) set up the rules in advance. Speaking of, that's actually rather interesting: I'm sure the Committee received the letter in which Mr. Levy referenced to, and you'd THINK they framed the questions in a way that would have passed muster.

So, did the Committee not comprehend the letter(doubtful), or did Mr. Levy exercise 'privilege' even though the questions followed the intent of the letter?(Of course, all of this disregarding how an American Citizen is dictating rules to the SENATE Committee)

Simply put, the Committee wanted that information and didn't get it and contrary to ms.Sawyer, I'm not at all happy with that.

 

We don't know that. We don't know exactly what Steele told McCain and the FBI. He could've said something like "I have some information pertaining to Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump that might be of interest", and yes that'd pass legal muster for him.

But if he said something like "My sources compiled this document showing that Donald Trump is committing treason." Then yes, that would be a lie to the FBI. Since his statements couldn't be collaborated.

 

Nothing to try. Do or do not.

Feinstein, the underling, released a transcript of a closed door session, without committee approval.

 

Nope, she is not, and that fries your grits? Get over it.

 

LOL
Obviously you can't handle the facts, or you wouldn't be watching your grits burn on the stove. Perhaps you should get over it.

 

By going after family that did illegal things. It's basically legalized extortion.

 

Maybe he is. But you and I are not legally allowed to leverage knowledge of a crime to get something we want from someone else. That's called extortion when a normal pleb does it but it's legal for Mueler to do it.

If I said 'hey I know your son committed crime X and you don't do what I want he will go to jail for it.' Guess what I just broke the law.

 

The facts are she realized the testimony, and there is nothing you or Grassley can do except steam about it.

 

DAs always do that, and, no, it is not legalized extortion.

I am glad you see the approach of the catastrophe for Trump.

 

......And exposed Grassley as a lying piece of crap.....Kudos!!!

 

What did he lie about? The transcript shows unequivocally that Fusion requested multiple times that the testimony be kept confidential.

 

I suggest you read my post again, so you can see that I put in that post that Martha Stewart was found guilty of obstruction… you know, for lying about what she did? I even posted a link to the juror's statement, after the trial, saying had Stewart not lied, she might not have gone to prison. Lying is problematic and indicates the need to hide something. Lying is attempting to mislead law enforcement, also known as obstructing justice, because if you do nothing illegal, there's no need to lie about it. That is the very reason Trump's lawyers are negotiating his interview/testimony to Mueller. He has a bad habit of lying, even in court, and they want to prevent Trump from lying to Mueller- aka obstruction of justice.

If you did nothing illegal, there is no leverage to use against you. In this country, you are assumed to be innocent and guilt must be proven. Because Martha Stewart lied, the jury felt she was guilty because innocent people have no need to lie.

 

No,that is not a lie.

That is an opinion or even an accusation against his sources. In fact, that wouldn't be a lie even if Steele knew Trump was innocent of that charge.

There is no law that says your suspicions have to be provably true before handing evidence to authorities. That would be ridiculous.

Who gave you that idea?

 

But, both Flynn and Junior did illegal things. There is no leverage unless something illegal was done.

 

He's got years of practice, "believe me".

 

The obvious response here is that they lie wasn't about the admission of wrong doing. If it had been, there would have been charges against her for that wrong doing. So, yes, lying isn't the right behavior, but it still doesn't infer what you're suggesting in any absolute ways. She may simply have not wanted to answer the question. Why? We cannot guess at. We can, however, rely on her own testimony or interviews to either accept what she has said on the public record as being truthful or not. Since there is ZERO conviction on insider trading, obviously, there wasn't enough evidence to get a conviction, right? So, the inference or the implication that her conduct created the admission of guild for insider trading is still has no foundation, and yet you continue to assert it. Mueller has a track record of this. It is all about inconsistency, and convictions based on inconsistencies in the sworn statements to get a conviction.

So, the assertion that there is no leverage, of course there is. As soon as you receive the subpoena you are at risk. You can proclaim your innocence all you want, but if you are trapped by an inconsistent testimony you are liable for the very same obstruction BS Mueller would use. So you can assert perjury by the president, but you have to basis for the assertion, or knowledge that his testimony would be perjured, right? So, it's only your assertion of it that you rely on as a premise of fact, which it is not. I cannot know how you have determined such a puritanical view of the truth, so, I would ask, do you then, given the obvious lies from ms Clinton in front of congress support her conviction of obstruction? The super cool thing here is that we actually have evidence to prove ms Clinton purposefully lied to congress, and we have the written documentation to support that charge. So, you're on the put the Hill in jail team?

 

Feinstien is the senior Democrat on the committee and is due consultation or at least notification of actions being taken in the name of the committee. Nomally.

But, that is not how Grassley runs the committee. He's running it as individuals taking action on their own.

I know that isn't ideal. It is supposed to be a committee.

But, you have to tell that to Grassley. You can't get upset at Feinstein for acting as per what Grassley has made normal.

 

I ignored the thread. I would just like to point out the collusion between the FBI and the clinton campaign. Probably the insurance policy the FBI agent was talking about.

This basically makes the entire FBI investigation meaningless and anything they may have uncovered is also going to be thrown out.

 

You make an indefensible accusation and the actually notify that you are running away?

That's on you, bud.

 

I'm quite aware of how the legal system works. There's more to it than inconsistencies. When you tell the truth, you don't have to remember what you lied about before to be consistent. I'm also going to point out these phrases as being important in proving guilt- "preponderance of evidence" and "beyond a shadow of a doubt." Liars cause doubt.

I do have a basis to assert Trump perjured himself- https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/trump-lies/?utm_term=.8164bc2bd470

Comey testified under oath that Hillary Clinton was honest with the FBI. If you have evidence to the contrary, then contact the FBI.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...ccused-clinton-lying-fbi-said-she-did-n826361

I'm on America's team.

 

It is a lie. You told the FBI one thing, and the dossier ended up being something else entirely. In the real world, we call that a lie. And it's against the law to lie to Federal Law Enforcement agents(just ask George Papa).

So yes, we have people on the books for what I just said.