It's Over; The FBI and DOJ done messeded up bigly.

[BWK]

Calm down lib... we have been here before... russia russia russia... all over again... same playbook... same coach....
View attachment 692767

"The Post, citing unnamed sources, did not identify the foreign government named in the document describing the country’s military defenses"

Russia collusion was proven.

 

[BWK]

I'm glad you didn't try to deny my post.

They hang their hats on attacking the messenger or the message. How pitiful is that.

 

[BWK]

MSN

www.msn.com

They don't want to discuss it; Nuclear angle to Mar-a-Lago scandal comes into sharper focus

 

[Marener]

Hats Off to Hillary: Prosecuting Trump in the Shadow of Clinton’s Emails

Below is my column in the Hill on the recent focus on obstruction as a possible charge against former President Donald Trump. There is no question that the filings reflect a belief that the Trump t…

jonathanturley.org

Turley is glossing over a lot of facts.

For starters, he says Clinton “didn’t fully cooperate” which needs context about when they pushed back (hint, it was in discussing how to allow searches or laptops of lawyers which would have a LOT of privileged information). Second, not fully cooperate is a really far from criminally obstructing. In fact, it’s legal to not cooperate at all (if they had so chosen to go that route which they didn’t). Obstruction is an entirely different matter.

Turley says Garland needs to address the concerns of people who see a double standard. Turley needs to stop perpetuating misleading rhetoric. Garland can’t reach the ultra-MAGA. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t enforce the law.

 

[Mac1958]

They don't want to discuss it; Nuclear angle to Mar-a-Lago scandal comes into sharper focus

If it's true that these documents were found, it's only more and more critical that we fully understand why he was so committed to keeping them.

And if this is true, what are our allies thinking right now? How can they ever trust America again? And who could blame them for not trusting us?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Turley is glossing over a lot of facts.

For starters, he says Clinton “didn’t fully cooperate” which needs context about when they pushed back (hint, it was in discussing how to allow searches or laptops of lawyers which would have a LOT of privileged information). Second, not fully cooperate is a really far from criminally obstructing. In fact, it’s legal to not cooperate at all (if they had so chosen to go that route which they didn’t). Obstruction is an entirely different matter.

Turley says Garland needs to address the concerns of people who see a double standard. Turley needs to stop perpetuating misleading rhetoric. Garland can’t reach the ultra-MAGA. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t enforce the law.

Orange man should have done like the clintons and destroyed the docs. Everything would have been good right?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

They don't want to discuss it; Nuclear angle to Mar-a-Lago scandal comes into sharper focus

Ah yes, but you ran like a coward when clinton was destroying classified docs. Hypocrite, you have no credibility. Next.

 

[White 6]

"Not surprising Mueller did not show collusion. As he stated within the first page or two, he wasn't looking for collusion, but crimes that could be prosecuted."

Huh? He certainly was looking for collusion and who did it on our side. And theirs.

The order appointing me as Special Counsel directed our Office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. It also included investigating efforts to interfere with, or obstruct, the investigation.

That is the definition of collusion. He WAS looking for it, but didn't find it for the simple reason that there was none by Trump or members of his campaign. Whether it was illegal or not or prosecutable is beside the point. We needed to know what happened and what needed to be done to prevent future interferences. It was not only about any illegalities.

Read Robert Mueller's opening statement: Russian interference among 'most serious' challenges to American democracy

Mueller was testifying Wednesday for hours on Capitol Hill about his investigation into Russian interference, possible coordination by members of President Donald Trump's campaign and possible obstruction of justice by Trump himself.

www.cnbc.com

It seems clear to me that members of the Mueller investigating team took that order too far, once they found nothing to indicate any collusion on the part of the Trump campaign they went looking for anything else they could find and ended up with evidence of wrong-doing that was totally unconnected to their stated mission. And that is flat out wrong, they should not have used that authority to go after anything they could find. That investigation should have ended in it's 1st year IMHO; after that it became a political effort to damage Trump and his administration.

You can "say" what you like, but it is bullshit. Your response prompted me to check my copy of the Mueller Report, going for my person markup copy instead of original. There on page 2 of the released report, in the third paragraph, you can read it for yourself in your copy of the report. You are either not one to view reports for yourself (depending on others to interpret for you), so you have no copy downloaded from the Department of Justice, or being disingenuous at best.

Either way, you can **** off and pound sand, to your hearts content. He was not looking for collusion. Mueller was looking for prosecutable crimes committed and by nature of those referred, prosecuted, admitted guilty or found guilty by juries of their peers, found several.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Russia collusion was proven.

No, it wasn't. Quit lying and spreading propaganda.

 

[Marener]

Orange man should have done like the clintons and destroyed the docs. Everything would have been good right?

He probably did destroy some docs. But we can’t prosecute him for “probably”.

The problem with accusing Clinton of doing so is that there’s no factual basis for it.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

He probably did destroy some docs. But we can’t prosecute him for “probably”.

The problem with accusing Clinton of doing so is that there’s no factual basis for it.

They actually found that she was trafficking classified docs and she did destroy govt hard drives and phones. That happened.

 

[White 6]

Actually you did, dimwit.

Actually, I did not, and have never been an elected representative in the House or Senate.

 

[Rambunctious]

Russia collusion was proven.

Proven to be a hoax....

 

[Rambunctious]

Witnesses you idiot. Get a clue. Trump violated the Esponage Act; Nuclear angle to Mar-a-Lago scandal comes into sharper focus

MSNBC Maddowblog?????????????? are you insane?... stop reading this bullshit... what is wrong with you?....

 

[Marener]

They actually found that she was trafficking classified docs and she did destroy govt hard drives and phones. That happened.

She didn’t destroy government hard drives and phones. I bet you never read the FBI investigation report. It would prove you’re a liar.

 

[Rambunctious]

She didn’t destroy government hard drives and phones. I bet you never read the FBI investigation report. It would prove you’re a liar.

She smashed her phone or had staff do it and they bleach bit her computer... were you living under a rock or in some msnbc induced haze or what?.....

 

[LordBrownTrout]

She didn’t destroy government hard drives and phones. I bet you never read the FBI investigation report. It would prove you’re a liar.

Yeah, she did. That happened.

 

[Marener]

She smashed her phone or had staff do it and they bleach bit her computer... were you living under a rock or in some msnbc induced haze or what?.....

Shush. I know more than you.

1. They weren’t government phones
2. The server had the communications. The phones are meaningless.
3. A phone was smashed when it was replaced with a new one.
4. Clinton didn’t defy a subpoena by telling anyone to erase data and only told people to erase emails after her lawyer had submitted her work emails.

This is all in the FBI report which none of you idiots have read.

I know what you’re response is going to be. Your response is just going to show how uninformed you are and why it’s useless to respond to people who have no interest in reality.

 

[Marener]

Yeah, she did. That happened.

Did you read the FBI report?

 

[Rambunctious]

Shush. I know more than you.

1. They weren’t government phones
2. The server had the communications. The phones are meaningless.
3. A phone was smashed when it was replaced with a new one.
4. Clinton didn’t defy a subpoena by telling anyone to erase data and only told people to erase emails after her lawyer had submitted her work emails.

This is all in the FBI report which none of you idiots have read.

I know what you’re response is going to be. Your response is just going to show how uninformed you are and why it’s useless to respond to people who have no interest in reality.

You are wrong about that... it was a government phone and even if she bought the phone herself which she didn't it was a government phone the day she used it for work....