Justice

[toomuchtime_]

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.

What I am saying is, it is not a crime.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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 ******* 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.

It is not a crime for Nunes to consult with the WH and it is not a crime to end an investigation that is, itself, a miscarriage of justice.

 

[Lewdog]

If a man is the head of the House intelligence committee, he is supposed to act impartial, not run to the ******* 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.

It is not a crime for Nunes to consult with the WH and it is not a crime to end an investigation that is, itself, a miscarriage of justice.

Wrong. And I can see this conversation is going to go nowhere because you can't distinguish the difference between a crime and partisanship.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

It is not a crime for Nunes to consult with the WH and it is not a crime to end an investigation that is, itself, a miscarriage of justice.

Wrong. And I can see this conversation is going to go nowhere because you can't distinguish the difference between a crime and partisanship.

lol You mean you can't.

 

[whitehall]

"Their laws"? Is there really a faction of (millennials?) society who think that complicated tax laws don't apply if they don't hurt anyone or complicated V&T laws don't apply even if their kids are at risk or narcotics laws don't apply as long as they don't kill a Border Patrol Officer while they are smuggling junk across the border? How far are anarchists willing to go with this crazy scenario?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Especially when you are a blind partisan libtard!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

No. The only people who have been plead guilty were NOT members of the campaign at the time, because the election was over. The others charged were never associated with the campaign at the time the crimes were alleged.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Why is that you people ignore that fact that the crimes Manfort is accused of happened long before he ever even met Donald Trump? He shouldn't even be in the discussion!

 

[Coyote]

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.

No. It's a list of actual crimes. Lying to the FBI is a crime. Nothing to do with suspicions and bias'. It is either a lie or the truth. That one is pretty clear cut. And, you seem to forget Carter Page was on the radar since 2013. Again, not my bias but a fact.

When the subject of the investigation uses his power to prematurely end it it can be reasonably called obstruction. Did Clinton, in Whitewater investigation (lasting several years) attempt this? How about Clinton with Benghazi?

All this raises a bigger questions - why do you guys, who dragged Benghazi out for 17 months, want to end this one? Don't you want the truth to be known? Whether it's good or bad?

I'm arguing this: follow the evidence - be thorough - be professional. Mueller certainly is. And to add to the lopsided situation he happens to be Republican as was Comey which makes it harder to discredit them with bias.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Exactly - they aren't supposed to be an extension of the White House. This is so Nixonian....

 

[Coyote]

If a man is the head of the House intelligence committee, he is supposed to act impartial, not run to the ******* 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.

It is not a crime for Nunes to consult with the WH and it is not a crime to end an investigation that is, itself, a miscarriage of justice.

Which is not fact, but your opinion.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Why is that you people ignore that fact that the crimes Manfort is accused of happened long before he ever even met Donald Trump? He shouldn't even be in the discussion!

He's in the discussion because he was a significant person on Trump's campaign team and he was involved with Russia. It's reasonable to include him based on that alone if you are going to examine everyone who might possibly be involved.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Why is that you people ignore that fact that the crimes Manfort is accused of happened long before he ever even met Donald Trump? He shouldn't even be in the discussion!

He's in the discussion because he was a significant person on Trump's campaign team and he was involved with Russia. It's reasonable to include him based on that alone if you are going to examine everyone who might possibly be involved.

He was a campaign manager recommended to Trump by others. When his background was discovered, he was removed post haste!

Why can't you be honest for once in your miserable, liberalism-infested life?

I can never understand why liberals are such pathological liars. Did your parents dribble your tiny little heads on the floor and render you incapable of any intelligence and sense of honesty?

 

[Bush92]

Real Question: “Involved in What?” Hillary lost. Give it up. Russian’s had nothing to do with it. Gay pride parades, and BLM burning down legit businesses...That had everything to do with it. The Left has no leadership capabilities.

 

[Bush92]

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.

Why is that you people ignore that fact that the crimes Manfort is accused of happened long before he ever even met Donald Trump? He shouldn't even be in the discussion!

He's in the discussion because he was a significant person on Trump's campaign team and he was involved with Russia. It's reasonable to include him based on that alone if you are going to examine everyone who might possibly be involved.

OMG...please...your smarter than this. Don’t be a tool of liberal media.

 

[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.

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.

Why is that you people ignore that fact that the crimes Manfort is accused of happened long before he ever even met Donald Trump? He shouldn't even be in the discussion!

He's in the discussion because he was a significant person on Trump's campaign team and he was involved with Russia. It's reasonable to include him based on that alone if you are going to examine everyone who might possibly be involved.

He was a campaign manager recommended to Trump by others. When his background was discovered, he was removed post haste!

Why can't you be honest for once in your miserable, liberalism-infested life?

I can never understand why liberals are such pathological liars. Did your parents dribble your tiny little heads on the floor and render you incapable of any intelligence and sense of honesty?

I'm so glad you used that as an excuse.

So Peter Strzok was removed "post haste" from the Russia investigation as soon as his text messages were discovered.

 

[Bush92]

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.

Why is that you people ignore that fact that the crimes Manfort is accused of happened long before he ever even met Donald Trump? He shouldn't even be in the discussion!

He's in the discussion because he was a significant person on Trump's campaign team and he was involved with Russia. It's reasonable to include him based on that alone if you are going to examine everyone who might possibly be involved.

Grasping at straws. The Russians turned how many votes? Zero. Clinton’s were out of touch with mainstream Americans...and they lost. That’s it. Nothing more.

 

[Coyote]

Real Question: “Involved in What?” Hillary lost. Give it up. Russian’s had nothing to do with it. Gay pride parades, and BLM burning down legit businesses...That had everything to do with it. The Left has no leadership capabilities.

This isn't about overturning an election. That won't happen. People voted. The votes are not disputed. Hillary lost.

This is about insuring our electoral integrity in future elections.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Why is that you people ignore that fact that the crimes Manfort is accused of happened long before he ever even met Donald Trump? He shouldn't even be in the discussion!

He's in the discussion because he was a significant person on Trump's campaign team and he was involved with Russia. It's reasonable to include him based on that alone if you are going to examine everyone who might possibly be involved.

He was a campaign manager recommended to Trump by others. When his background was discovered, he was removed post haste!

Why can't you be honest for once in your miserable, liberalism-infested life?

I can never understand why liberals are such pathological liars. Did your parents dribble your tiny little heads on the floor and render you incapable of any intelligence and sense of honesty?

You just don't get it.

Every connection has to be examined.

And please, spare me the faux outrage, tuck your overly abused dicks back in your pants and use your god given brains. For someone who chucks guilt by association at others like rice in a wedding, you come off as blatently dishonest.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Why is that you people ignore that fact that the crimes Manfort is accused of happened long before he ever even met Donald Trump? He shouldn't even be in the discussion!

He's in the discussion because he was a significant person on Trump's campaign team and he was involved with Russia. It's reasonable to include him based on that alone if you are going to examine everyone who might possibly be involved.

Grasping at straws. The Russians turned how many votes? Zero. Clinton’s were out of touch with mainstream Americans...and they lost. That’s it. Nothing more.

That is not the point dude. The election is OVER (which reminds me isn't it time you guys got over blaming everything on Hillary?). She lost. Get over it. Trump won fair and square.