Justice

[Lewdog]

They didn't lie. You are going off a memo that has LOTS of stuff not included. Look up how many pages a FISA application is. Not to mention, when a judge does a renewal of a FISA they look at if the prior FISA heeded any useful information. So obviously there is a lot more to it than just the Steele Dossier.

That's exactly why we need a special counsel to open an investigation into possible crimes committed by the FBI/Justice. Clearly they can't be trusted to investigate themselves.

More likely it should be to investigate Nunes and his working with the White House as part of an investigation that was supposed to be handled by the committee in Congress... and how Nunes LIED about information he gave to the White House, that the White House actually helped him to create.

Fine, but nothing you are accusing Nunes of doing is a crime, but there is sufficient evidence the FBI/Justice committed crimes by misrepresenting the Steele dossier to the Court in order to get a warrant they would not otherwise be entitled to to create a special commission, empowered to investigate and prosecute any crimes committed by FBI/Justice and to follow the evidence wherever it may lead to discover who else in the government may have been involved in these crimes. A special commission will hold open hearings, unlike a special counsel, so the people can know once and for all what happened.

Accusing? Nunes took information from the intelligence committee that he learned, to the White House, where people were the ones being investigated... then got information from the White House to use to create a smokescreen... and then reported that he took that same information BACK to the White House.

He's not doing anything different than when people accused Lynch of talking to Bill Clinton on the plane.

What we know is that Nunes didn't commit a crime by talking to Trump, but if Lynch and Clinton were talking about suppressing the investigation into the Clinton campaign to influence the campaign that is a crime.

What you don't know is, who Nunes talked to in the White House, and if included people that are part of the investigation. There is no difference.

 

[Coyote]

They didn't lie. You are going off a memo that has LOTS of stuff not included. Look up how many pages a FISA application is. Not to mention, when a judge does a renewal of a FISA they look at if the prior FISA heeded any useful information. So obviously there is a lot more to it than just the Steele Dossier.

That's exactly why we need a special counsel to open an investigation into possible crimes committed by the FBI/Justice. Clearly they can't be trusted to investigate themselves.

More likely it should be to investigate Nunes and his working with the White House as part of an investigation that was supposed to be handled by the committee in Congress... and how Nunes LIED about information he gave to the White House, that the White House actually helped him to create.

Fine, but nothing you are accusing Nunes of doing is a crime, but there is sufficient evidence the FBI/Justice committed crimes by misrepresenting the Steele dossier to the Court in order to get a warrant they would not otherwise be entitled to to create a special commission, empowered to investigate and prosecute any crimes committed by FBI/Justice and to follow the evidence wherever it may lead to discover who else in the government may have been involved in these crimes. A special commission will hold open hearings, unlike a special counsel, so the people can know once and for all what happened.

Accusing? Nunes took information from the intelligence committee that he learned, to the White House, where people were the ones being investigated... then got information from the White House to use to create a smokescreen... and then reported that he took that same information BACK to the White House.

He's not doing anything different than when people accused Lynch of talking to Bill Clinton on the plane.

What we know is that Nunes didn't commit a crime by talking to Trump, but if Lynch and Clinton were talking about suppressing the investigation into the Clinton campaign to influence the campaign that is a crime.

Actually...that statement is inaccurately framed.

Nunes talking to Trump isn't a crime.

Lynch talking to Clinton isn't a crime.

But if Nunes was talking to Trump about obstructing the Russia investigation...that could be a crime.

And if Lynch was talking with Clinton about suppressing the Clinton investigation...that could be a crime.

 

[toomuchtime_]

That's exactly why we need a special counsel to open an investigation into possible crimes committed by the FBI/Justice. Clearly they can't be trusted to investigate themselves.

More likely it should be to investigate Nunes and his working with the White House as part of an investigation that was supposed to be handled by the committee in Congress... and how Nunes LIED about information he gave to the White House, that the White House actually helped him to create.

Fine, but nothing you are accusing Nunes of doing is a crime, but there is sufficient evidence the FBI/Justice committed crimes by misrepresenting the Steele dossier to the Court in order to get a warrant they would not otherwise be entitled to to create a special commission, empowered to investigate and prosecute any crimes committed by FBI/Justice and to follow the evidence wherever it may lead to discover who else in the government may have been involved in these crimes. A special commission will hold open hearings, unlike a special counsel, so the people can know once and for all what happened.

Accusing? Nunes took information from the intelligence committee that he learned, to the White House, where people were the ones being investigated... then got information from the White House to use to create a smokescreen... and then reported that he took that same information BACK to the White House.

He's not doing anything different than when people accused Lynch of talking to Bill Clinton on the plane.

What we know is that Nunes didn't commit a crime by talking to Trump, but if Lynch and Clinton were talking about suppressing the investigation into the Clinton campaign to influence the campaign that is a crime.

What you don't know is, who Nunes talked to in the White House, and if included people that are part of the investigation. There is no difference.

It doesn't matter because it is still not a crime.

 

[TexM3]

More likely it should be to investigate Nunes and his working with the White House as part of an investigation that was supposed to be handled by the committee in Congress... and how Nunes LIED about information he gave to the White House, that the White House actually helped him to create.

Fine, but nothing you are accusing Nunes of doing is a crime, but there is sufficient evidence the FBI/Justice committed crimes by misrepresenting the Steele dossier to the Court in order to get a warrant they would not otherwise be entitled to to create a special commission, empowered to investigate and prosecute any crimes committed by FBI/Justice and to follow the evidence wherever it may lead to discover who else in the government may have been involved in these crimes. A special commission will hold open hearings, unlike a special counsel, so the people can know once and for all what happened.

Accusing? Nunes took information from the intelligence committee that he learned, to the White House, where people were the ones being investigated... then got information from the White House to use to create a smokescreen... and then reported that he took that same information BACK to the White House.

He's not doing anything different than when people accused Lynch of talking to Bill Clinton on the plane.

Exactly.

No!!!
The difference is the investigation into Clinton has merit the investigation into Trump is made up of BS.

I thought you'd say that.

Merit (and BS) is in the eye of the partisan.

More BS, that’s all y’all have and it’s pathetic!

Hillary actually broke the law the only reason she’s not in prison is because her clout and lots of people that mess with her end up dead.

 

[Coyote]

Fine, but nothing you are accusing Nunes of doing is a crime, but there is sufficient evidence the FBI/Justice committed crimes by misrepresenting the Steele dossier to the Court in order to get a warrant they would not otherwise be entitled to to create a special commission, empowered to investigate and prosecute any crimes committed by FBI/Justice and to follow the evidence wherever it may lead to discover who else in the government may have been involved in these crimes. A special commission will hold open hearings, unlike a special counsel, so the people can know once and for all what happened.

Accusing? Nunes took information from the intelligence committee that he learned, to the White House, where people were the ones being investigated... then got information from the White House to use to create a smokescreen... and then reported that he took that same information BACK to the White House.

He's not doing anything different than when people accused Lynch of talking to Bill Clinton on the plane.

Exactly.

No!!!
The difference is the investigation into Clinton has merit the investigation into Trump is made up of BS.

I thought you'd say that.

Merit (and BS) is in the eye of the partisan.

More BS, that’s all y’all have and it’s pathetic!

Hillary actually broke the law the only reason she’s not in prison is because her clout and lots of people that mess with her end up dead.

We don't know yet if Trump broke the law - that investigation is ongoing. But we know several of his campaign staff did. And I'm pretty sure we can agree that if Trump broke the law he won't end up in jail either.

....and if we're going indulge in conspiracy theories...well...Trump is building up a bunch of dead folks too

 

[TexM3]

Coyote are you a page shill or brainwashed?

You can’t see that this is a complete sham with the facts that we have available you’re hopeless.

 

[toomuchtime_]

That's exactly why we need a special counsel to open an investigation into possible crimes committed by the FBI/Justice. Clearly they can't be trusted to investigate themselves.

More likely it should be to investigate Nunes and his working with the White House as part of an investigation that was supposed to be handled by the committee in Congress... and how Nunes LIED about information he gave to the White House, that the White House actually helped him to create.

Fine, but nothing you are accusing Nunes of doing is a crime, but there is sufficient evidence the FBI/Justice committed crimes by misrepresenting the Steele dossier to the Court in order to get a warrant they would not otherwise be entitled to to create a special commission, empowered to investigate and prosecute any crimes committed by FBI/Justice and to follow the evidence wherever it may lead to discover who else in the government may have been involved in these crimes. A special commission will hold open hearings, unlike a special counsel, so the people can know once and for all what happened.

Accusing? Nunes took information from the intelligence committee that he learned, to the White House, where people were the ones being investigated... then got information from the White House to use to create a smokescreen... and then reported that he took that same information BACK to the White House.

He's not doing anything different than when people accused Lynch of talking to Bill Clinton on the plane.

What we know is that Nunes didn't commit a crime by talking to Trump, but if Lynch and Clinton were talking about suppressing the investigation into the Clinton campaign to influence the campaign that is a crime.

Actually...that statement is inaccurately framed.

Nunes talking to Trump isn't a crime.

Lynch talking to Clinton isn't a crime.

But if Nunes was talking to Trump about obstructing the Russia investigation...that could be a crime.

And if Lynch was talking with Clinton about suppressing the Clinton investigation...that could be a crime.

Opposition to the investigation is not obstruction of justice. There is to date no evidence that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration committed any crime in collusion with the Russian government or that it supported any cover up of any crime committed by anyone associated with it, and since there never was a legitimate legal reason to begin the investigation, if justice were the goal, there never would have been an investigation. The major crime committed was by the FBI when it committed perjury to obtain a surveillance warrant and

Since there never was a reasonable basis for suspecting that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration had committed a crime in collusion with the Russian government, the investigation, itself, is a violation of the Constitution and is a crime.

 

[Lewdog]

More likely it should be to investigate Nunes and his working with the White House as part of an investigation that was supposed to be handled by the committee in Congress... and how Nunes LIED about information he gave to the White House, that the White House actually helped him to create.

Fine, but nothing you are accusing Nunes of doing is a crime, but there is sufficient evidence the FBI/Justice committed crimes by misrepresenting the Steele dossier to the Court in order to get a warrant they would not otherwise be entitled to to create a special commission, empowered to investigate and prosecute any crimes committed by FBI/Justice and to follow the evidence wherever it may lead to discover who else in the government may have been involved in these crimes. A special commission will hold open hearings, unlike a special counsel, so the people can know once and for all what happened.

Accusing? Nunes took information from the intelligence committee that he learned, to the White House, where people were the ones being investigated... then got information from the White House to use to create a smokescreen... and then reported that he took that same information BACK to the White House.

He's not doing anything different than when people accused Lynch of talking to Bill Clinton on the plane.

What we know is that Nunes didn't commit a crime by talking to Trump, but if Lynch and Clinton were talking about suppressing the investigation into the Clinton campaign to influence the campaign that is a crime.

What you don't know is, who Nunes talked to in the White House, and if included people that are part of the investigation. There is no difference.

It doesn't matter because it is still not a crime.

Obstruction of justice IS a crime...

 

[Lewdog]

More likely it should be to investigate Nunes and his working with the White House as part of an investigation that was supposed to be handled by the committee in Congress... and how Nunes LIED about information he gave to the White House, that the White House actually helped him to create.

Fine, but nothing you are accusing Nunes of doing is a crime, but there is sufficient evidence the FBI/Justice committed crimes by misrepresenting the Steele dossier to the Court in order to get a warrant they would not otherwise be entitled to to create a special commission, empowered to investigate and prosecute any crimes committed by FBI/Justice and to follow the evidence wherever it may lead to discover who else in the government may have been involved in these crimes. A special commission will hold open hearings, unlike a special counsel, so the people can know once and for all what happened.

Accusing? Nunes took information from the intelligence committee that he learned, to the White House, where people were the ones being investigated... then got information from the White House to use to create a smokescreen... and then reported that he took that same information BACK to the White House.

He's not doing anything different than when people accused Lynch of talking to Bill Clinton on the plane.

What we know is that Nunes didn't commit a crime by talking to Trump, but if Lynch and Clinton were talking about suppressing the investigation into the Clinton campaign to influence the campaign that is a crime.

Actually...that statement is inaccurately framed.

Nunes talking to Trump isn't a crime.

Lynch talking to Clinton isn't a crime.

But if Nunes was talking to Trump about obstructing the Russia investigation...that could be a crime.

And if Lynch was talking with Clinton about suppressing the Clinton investigation...that could be a crime.

Opposition to the investigation is not obstruction of justice. There is to date no evidence that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration committed any crime in collusion with the Russian government or that it supported any cover up of any crime committed by anyone associated with it, and since there never was a legitimate legal reason to begin the investigation, if justice were the goal, there never would have been an investigation. The major crime committed was by the FBI when it committed perjury to obtain a surveillance warrant and

Since there never was a reasonable basis for suspecting that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration had committed a crime in collusion with the Russian government, the investigation, itself, is a violation of the Constitution and is a crime.

If a man is the head of the House intelligence committee, he is supposed to act impartial, not run to the fucking White House to share information and work with the President to stop the investigation.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote are you a page shill or brainwashed?

You can’t see that this is a complete sham with the facts that we have available you’re hopeless.

You confuse fact with opinion. I'm sticking to fact, and facts are only determined by examining all available evidence. We don't have much of that yet.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Fine, but nothing you are accusing Nunes of doing is a crime, but there is sufficient evidence the FBI/Justice committed crimes by misrepresenting the Steele dossier to the Court in order to get a warrant they would not otherwise be entitled to to create a special commission, empowered to investigate and prosecute any crimes committed by FBI/Justice and to follow the evidence wherever it may lead to discover who else in the government may have been involved in these crimes. A special commission will hold open hearings, unlike a special counsel, so the people can know once and for all what happened.

Accusing? Nunes took information from the intelligence committee that he learned, to the White House, where people were the ones being investigated... then got information from the White House to use to create a smokescreen... and then reported that he took that same information BACK to the White House.

He's not doing anything different than when people accused Lynch of talking to Bill Clinton on the plane.

What we know is that Nunes didn't commit a crime by talking to Trump, but if Lynch and Clinton were talking about suppressing the investigation into the Clinton campaign to influence the campaign that is a crime.

What you don't know is, who Nunes talked to in the White House, and if included people that are part of the investigation. There is no difference.

It doesn't matter because it is still not a crime.

Obstruction of justice IS a crime...

Regardless of what Nunes told Trump or anyone else at the WH, it does not constitute obstruction of justice.

 

[Lewdog]

Accusing? Nunes took information from the intelligence committee that he learned, to the White House, where people were the ones being investigated... then got information from the White House to use to create a smokescreen... and then reported that he took that same information BACK to the White House.

He's not doing anything different than when people accused Lynch of talking to Bill Clinton on the plane.

What we know is that Nunes didn't commit a crime by talking to Trump, but if Lynch and Clinton were talking about suppressing the investigation into the Clinton campaign to influence the campaign that is a crime.

What you don't know is, who Nunes talked to in the White House, and if included people that are part of the investigation. There is no difference.

It doesn't matter because it is still not a crime.

Obstruction of justice IS a crime...

Regardless of what Nunes told Trump or anyone else at the WH, it does not constitute obstruction of justice.

Yes, yes it does. When a person in a position like Nunes, shares classified information that is part of an active investigation, then comes up with a plan on how to derail that investigation, that IS obstruction.

 

[Coyote]

More likely it should be to investigate Nunes and his working with the White House as part of an investigation that was supposed to be handled by the committee in Congress... and how Nunes LIED about information he gave to the White House, that the White House actually helped him to create.

Fine, but nothing you are accusing Nunes of doing is a crime, but there is sufficient evidence the FBI/Justice committed crimes by misrepresenting the Steele dossier to the Court in order to get a warrant they would not otherwise be entitled to to create a special commission, empowered to investigate and prosecute any crimes committed by FBI/Justice and to follow the evidence wherever it may lead to discover who else in the government may have been involved in these crimes. A special commission will hold open hearings, unlike a special counsel, so the people can know once and for all what happened.

Accusing? Nunes took information from the intelligence committee that he learned, to the White House, where people were the ones being investigated... then got information from the White House to use to create a smokescreen... and then reported that he took that same information BACK to the White House.

He's not doing anything different than when people accused Lynch of talking to Bill Clinton on the plane.

What we know is that Nunes didn't commit a crime by talking to Trump, but if Lynch and Clinton were talking about suppressing the investigation into the Clinton campaign to influence the campaign that is a crime.

Actually...that statement is inaccurately framed.

Nunes talking to Trump isn't a crime.

Lynch talking to Clinton isn't a crime.

But if Nunes was talking to Trump about obstructing the Russia investigation...that could be a crime.

And if Lynch was talking with Clinton about suppressing the Clinton investigation...that could be a crime.

Opposition to the investigation is not obstruction of justice.

No it isn't.

But actively attempting to obstruct/derail it...is. Things like pressuring officials to stop, demands of personal loyalty...lying to the FBI...those are concerns.

There is to date no evidence that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration committed any crime in collusion with the Russian government or that it supported any cover up of any crime committed by anyone associated with it, and since there never was a legitimate legal reason to begin the investigation, if justice were the goal, there never would have been an investigation.

All of that is part of an ongoing active investigation so we aren't going to be privy to much evidence. To be honest, I strongly suspect that the investigation will reveal some interesting things. Like money laundering. The sanctions effected the Russian oligarchs and government quite a bit, and it wouldn't surprise me - given the lack of transparency into his finances - if Trump and some of his campaign members were involved. But that is just guessing. There was a powerful legal reason to begin the investigation - I can't believe you wouldn't acknowledge it - and that is the Russian attempt to influence our election in Trump's favor. This has been by now, well documented. That doesn't mean Trump colluded but it very surely means it needs to be looked at if our electoral process is to retain any integrity in the future. Mueller's mandate is to oversee the investigation into Russian tampering in the 2016 presidential election. And that includes looking at the various campaigns.

Justice comes later - when people are indicted, tried and convicted or exonerated. Justice is preceded by investigation.

The major crime committed was by the FBI when it committed perjury to obtain a surveillance warrant and

Specifically - what perjury? Do you have access to the FISA warrent because as of this point, it has not been released and if it has not been you have no way of knowing what evidence was given to obtain it.

On the other hand - we DO know that:
Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
George Papadopoulous has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
Paul Manafort has been indicted on multiple charges which including money laundering, conspiracy and tax fraud. (all serious crimes).

Since there never was a reasonable basis for suspecting that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration had committed a crime in collusion with the Russian government, the investigation, itself, is a violation of the Constitution and is a crime.

I would say there is a reasonable basis - more than reasonable. In fact - if it were Clinton and not Trump, I'm sure you'd be all in.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Fine, but nothing you are accusing Nunes of doing is a crime, but there is sufficient evidence the FBI/Justice committed crimes by misrepresenting the Steele dossier to the Court in order to get a warrant they would not otherwise be entitled to to create a special commission, empowered to investigate and prosecute any crimes committed by FBI/Justice and to follow the evidence wherever it may lead to discover who else in the government may have been involved in these crimes. A special commission will hold open hearings, unlike a special counsel, so the people can know once and for all what happened.

Accusing? Nunes took information from the intelligence committee that he learned, to the White House, where people were the ones being investigated... then got information from the White House to use to create a smokescreen... and then reported that he took that same information BACK to the White House.

He's not doing anything different than when people accused Lynch of talking to Bill Clinton on the plane.

What we know is that Nunes didn't commit a crime by talking to Trump, but if Lynch and Clinton were talking about suppressing the investigation into the Clinton campaign to influence the campaign that is a crime.

Actually...that statement is inaccurately framed.

Nunes talking to Trump isn't a crime.

Lynch talking to Clinton isn't a crime.

But if Nunes was talking to Trump about obstructing the Russia investigation...that could be a crime.

And if Lynch was talking with Clinton about suppressing the Clinton investigation...that could be a crime.

Opposition to the investigation is not obstruction of justice. There is to date no evidence that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration committed any crime in collusion with the Russian government or that it supported any cover up of any crime committed by anyone associated with it, and since there never was a legitimate legal reason to begin the investigation, if justice were the goal, there never would have been an investigation. The major crime committed was by the FBI when it committed perjury to obtain a surveillance warrant and

Since there never was a reasonable basis for suspecting that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration had committed a crime in collusion with the Russian government, the investigation, itself, is a violation of the Constitution and is a crime.

If a man is the head of the House intelligence committee, he is supposed to act impartial, not run to the fucking White House to share information and work with the President to stop the investigation.

Once again, it is not a crime. Misrepresenting the Steele dossier to a court to obtain a warrant is a crime, perjury, and it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Committing this crime in such a politically charged case, raises serious questions about the integrity of the FBI/Justice and its ability to abide by its duty to protect the Constitution of the US. Questions like, how high up in the Justice Department did the decision to commit perjury go? Did persons, such as Rosenstein learn about the perjury and try to cover it up? These questions can only be properly answered by a special commission empowered to investigate and prosecute all crimes connected with this original crime of perjury that holds public hearings.

 

[Lewdog]

Accusing? Nunes took information from the intelligence committee that he learned, to the White House, where people were the ones being investigated... then got information from the White House to use to create a smokescreen... and then reported that he took that same information BACK to the White House.

He's not doing anything different than when people accused Lynch of talking to Bill Clinton on the plane.

What we know is that Nunes didn't commit a crime by talking to Trump, but if Lynch and Clinton were talking about suppressing the investigation into the Clinton campaign to influence the campaign that is a crime.

Actually...that statement is inaccurately framed.

Nunes talking to Trump isn't a crime.

Lynch talking to Clinton isn't a crime.

But if Nunes was talking to Trump about obstructing the Russia investigation...that could be a crime.

And if Lynch was talking with Clinton about suppressing the Clinton investigation...that could be a crime.

Opposition to the investigation is not obstruction of justice. There is to date no evidence that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration committed any crime in collusion with the Russian government or that it supported any cover up of any crime committed by anyone associated with it, and since there never was a legitimate legal reason to begin the investigation, if justice were the goal, there never would have been an investigation. The major crime committed was by the FBI when it committed perjury to obtain a surveillance warrant and

Since there never was a reasonable basis for suspecting that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration had committed a crime in collusion with the Russian government, the investigation, itself, is a violation of the Constitution and is a crime.

If a man is the head of the House intelligence committee, he is supposed to act impartial, not run to the fucking White House to share information and work with the President to stop the investigation.

Once again, it is not a crime. Misrepresenting the Steele dossier to a court to obtain a warrant is a crime, perjury, and it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Committing this crime in such a politically charged case, raises serious questions about the integrity of the FBI/Justice and its ability to abide by its duty to protect the Constitution of the US. Questions like, how high up in the Justice Department did the decision to commit perjury go? Did persons, such as Rosenstein learn about the perjury and try to cover it up? These questions can only be properly answered by a special commission empowered to investigate and prosecute all crimes connected with this original crime of perjury that holds public hearings.

Obstruction of justice IS a crime.

 

[toomuchtime_]

What we know is that Nunes didn't commit a crime by talking to Trump, but if Lynch and Clinton were talking about suppressing the investigation into the Clinton campaign to influence the campaign that is a crime.

What you don't know is, who Nunes talked to in the White House, and if included people that are part of the investigation. There is no difference.

It doesn't matter because it is still not a crime.

Obstruction of justice IS a crime...

Regardless of what Nunes told Trump or anyone else at the WH, it does not constitute obstruction of justice.

Yes, yes it does. When a person in a position like Nunes, shares classified information that is part of an active investigation, then comes up with a plan on how to derail that investigation, that IS obstruction.

The President ultimately decides what is classified and what isn't, so there is no information that cannot be shared with him on that basis, and deciding that an investigation is a miscarriage of justice, as this one clearly is, and should be ended is not obstruction of justice.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Fine, but nothing you are accusing Nunes of doing is a crime, but there is sufficient evidence the FBI/Justice committed crimes by misrepresenting the Steele dossier to the Court in order to get a warrant they would not otherwise be entitled to to create a special commission, empowered to investigate and prosecute any crimes committed by FBI/Justice and to follow the evidence wherever it may lead to discover who else in the government may have been involved in these crimes. A special commission will hold open hearings, unlike a special counsel, so the people can know once and for all what happened.

Accusing? Nunes took information from the intelligence committee that he learned, to the White House, where people were the ones being investigated... then got information from the White House to use to create a smokescreen... and then reported that he took that same information BACK to the White House.

He's not doing anything different than when people accused Lynch of talking to Bill Clinton on the plane.

What we know is that Nunes didn't commit a crime by talking to Trump, but if Lynch and Clinton were talking about suppressing the investigation into the Clinton campaign to influence the campaign that is a crime.

Actually...that statement is inaccurately framed.

Nunes talking to Trump isn't a crime.

Lynch talking to Clinton isn't a crime.

But if Nunes was talking to Trump about obstructing the Russia investigation...that could be a crime.

And if Lynch was talking with Clinton about suppressing the Clinton investigation...that could be a crime.

Opposition to the investigation is not obstruction of justice.

No it isn't.

But actively attempting to obstruct/derail it...is. Things like pressuring officials to stop, demands of personal loyalty...lying to the FBI...those are concerns.

There is to date no evidence that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration committed any crime in collusion with the Russian government or that it supported any cover up of any crime committed by anyone associated with it, and since there never was a legitimate legal reason to begin the investigation, if justice were the goal, there never would have been an investigation.

All of that is part of an ongoing active investigation so we aren't going to be privy to much evidence. To be honest, I strongly suspect that the investigation will reveal some interesting things. Like money laundering. The sanctions effected the Russian oligarchs and government quite a bit, and it wouldn't surprise me - given the lack of transparency into his finances - if Trump and some of his campaign members were involved. But that is just guessing. There was a powerful legal reason to begin the investigation - I can't believe you wouldn't acknowledge it - and that is the Russian attempt to influence our election in Trump's favor. This has been by now, well documented. That doesn't mean Trump colluded but it very surely means it needs to be looked at if our electoral process is to retain any integrity in the future. Mueller's mandate is to oversee the investigation into Russian tampering in the 2016 presidential election. And that includes looking at the various campaigns.

Justice comes later - when people are indicted, tried and convicted or exonerated. Justice is preceded by investigation.

The major crime committed was by the FBI when it committed perjury to obtain a surveillance warrant and

Specifically - what perjury? Do you have access to the FISA warrent because as of this point, it has not been released and if it has not been you have no way of knowing what evidence was given to obtain it.

On the other hand - we DO know that:
Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
George Papadopoulous has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
Paul Manafort has been indicted on multiple charges which including money laundering, conspiracy and tax fraud. (all serious crimes).

Since there never was a reasonable basis for suspecting that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration had committed a crime in collusion with the Russian government, the investigation, itself, is a violation of the Constitution and is a crime.

I would say there is a reasonable basis - more than reasonable. In fact - if it were Clinton and not Trump, I'm sure you'd be all in.

That's a nice list of all your suspicions and biases, but since there never was a legitimate legal reason to open the investigation and the FBI/Justice cannot investigate everything about everyone without a reasonable suspicion a crime has been committed, ending the investigation cannot reasonable be called obstruction of Justice. It is more reasonably called obstructing a miscarriage of Justice. The US Justice Department cannot legally operate on the, show me the man and I'll show you the crime, basis you seem to be advocating.

 

[Lewdog]

What you don't know is, who Nunes talked to in the White House, and if included people that are part of the investigation. There is no difference.

It doesn't matter because it is still not a crime.

Obstruction of justice IS a crime...

Regardless of what Nunes told Trump or anyone else at the WH, it does not constitute obstruction of justice.

Yes, yes it does. When a person in a position like Nunes, shares classified information that is part of an active investigation, then comes up with a plan on how to derail that investigation, that IS obstruction.

The President ultimately decides what is classified and what isn't, so there is no information that cannot be shared with him on that basis, and deciding that an investigation is a miscarriage of justice, as this one clearly is, and should be ended is not obstruction of justice.

You still don't get it. The house intelligence committee is independent from the White House and shouldn't be consulting the White House in their investigation. Jesus this isn't complicated.

 

[toomuchtime_]

What we know is that Nunes didn't commit a crime by talking to Trump, but if Lynch and Clinton were talking about suppressing the investigation into the Clinton campaign to influence the campaign that is a crime.

Actually...that statement is inaccurately framed.

Nunes talking to Trump isn't a crime.

Lynch talking to Clinton isn't a crime.

But if Nunes was talking to Trump about obstructing the Russia investigation...that could be a crime.

And if Lynch was talking with Clinton about suppressing the Clinton investigation...that could be a crime.

Opposition to the investigation is not obstruction of justice. There is to date no evidence that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration committed any crime in collusion with the Russian government or that it supported any cover up of any crime committed by anyone associated with it, and since there never was a legitimate legal reason to begin the investigation, if justice were the goal, there never would have been an investigation. The major crime committed was by the FBI when it committed perjury to obtain a surveillance warrant and

Since there never was a reasonable basis for suspecting that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration had committed a crime in collusion with the Russian government, the investigation, itself, is a violation of the Constitution and is a crime.

If a man is the head of the House intelligence committee, he is supposed to act impartial, not run to the fucking White House to share information and work with the President to stop the investigation.

Once again, it is not a crime. Misrepresenting the Steele dossier to a court to obtain a warrant is a crime, perjury, and it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Committing this crime in such a politically charged case, raises serious questions about the integrity of the FBI/Justice and its ability to abide by its duty to protect the Constitution of the US. Questions like, how high up in the Justice Department did the decision to commit perjury go? Did persons, such as Rosenstein learn about the perjury and try to cover it up? These questions can only be properly answered by a special commission empowered to investigate and prosecute all crimes connected with this original crime of perjury that holds public hearings.

Obstruction of justice IS a crime.

Deciding to end the investigation does not constitute obstruction of justice. If it were, every police chief or district attorney who ever ended an investigation would be guilty of obstruction of justice. Clearly, there are times when some investigations should be ended, and this is certainly one of those times. In fact, since there was never a legitimate legal reason for beginning it, the investigation, itself is a miscarriage of justice.

 

[Lewdog]

Actually...that statement is inaccurately framed.

Nunes talking to Trump isn't a crime.

Lynch talking to Clinton isn't a crime.

But if Nunes was talking to Trump about obstructing the Russia investigation...that could be a crime.

And if Lynch was talking with Clinton about suppressing the Clinton investigation...that could be a crime.

Opposition to the investigation is not obstruction of justice. There is to date no evidence that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration committed any crime in collusion with the Russian government or that it supported any cover up of any crime committed by anyone associated with it, and since there never was a legitimate legal reason to begin the investigation, if justice were the goal, there never would have been an investigation. The major crime committed was by the FBI when it committed perjury to obtain a surveillance warrant and

Since there never was a reasonable basis for suspecting that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration had committed a crime in collusion with the Russian government, the investigation, itself, is a violation of the Constitution and is a crime.

If a man is the head of the House intelligence committee, he is supposed to act impartial, not run to the fucking White House to share information and work with the President to stop the investigation.

Once again, it is not a crime. Misrepresenting the Steele dossier to a court to obtain a warrant is a crime, perjury, and it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Committing this crime in such a politically charged case, raises serious questions about the integrity of the FBI/Justice and its ability to abide by its duty to protect the Constitution of the US. Questions like, how high up in the Justice Department did the decision to commit perjury go? Did persons, such as Rosenstein learn about the perjury and try to cover it up? These questions can only be properly answered by a special commission empowered to investigate and prosecute all crimes connected with this original crime of perjury that holds public hearings.

Obstruction of justice IS a crime.

Deciding to end the investigation does not constitute obstruction of justice. If it were, every police chief or district attorney who ever ended an investigation would be guilty of obstruction of justice. Clearly, there are times when some investigations should be ended, and this is certainly one of those times. In fact, since there was never a legitimate legal reason for beginning it, the investigation, itself is a miscarriage of justice.

Consulting the White House in order to try and create a fake smokescreen to try to get support to end the investigation... when he had no place to be consulting the White House in the first place.