Congress Criminal Referral Clinton, Comey, McCabe, Lynch, Strzok, and Page to DOJ

#301
#301
orangeluvr said:
Standing by the post, mountain of info to support the claims made there in. Authoritarians go after political enemies, distort the truth, discredit or censor the press, and blatantly lie. This is exactly what tRump is doing, sad there is tolerance for it. :ermm:
Click to expand...

Indeed they do
 
#309
#309
Orange_Crush said:
I get that. Leaks of what? By who?
Click to expand...

Lips are zipped. Only media and twitter speculation’s.

FROM Burr and Warner: “As noted in the Senate Resolution, the DOJ has sought the assistance of the Committee in a pending investigation. The Committee is cooperating with the Department on this matter. Any questions about the investigation should be directed to the DOJ.”
 
#310
#310
Vol0725 said:
Lips are zipped. Only media and twitter speculation’s.

FROM Burr and Warner: “As noted in the Senate Resolution, the DOJ has sought the assistance of the Committee in a pending investigation. The Committee is cooperating with the Department on this matter. Any questions about the investigation should be directed to the DOJ.”
Click to expand...

The question is: Is this a move by the corrupt DoJ to protect itself? Or a move by the cleaned up DoJ to go after the corrupt DoJ and those it had been protecting.

The fact that the Senate unanimously voted to help isn't cause for faith that it's to promote justice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#315
#315
#316
#316
ajvol01 said:
The president can't obstruct justice by firing a subordinate with cause.

DOJ watchdog finds James Comey defied authority as FBI director, sources say | abc7news.com
Click to expand...




Yes he can, if the justification offered after the fact is a pretextual one.


Here, Trump had Rosenstein write him a letter giving him an excuse to do it because of the way the Clinton email investigation was handled (which is supremely ironic given that his criticism of Comey for that played a significant role in Trump's favor).


But then Trump did two things. First, he said on national tv that THE reason he fired Comey was over the Russia investigation. Second, he bragged to Russian officials that THE reason he did it was to get rid of the Russia investigation.


Now, you might argue that those comments were just typical Trump off-the-cuff gobbledygook and that he did not mean that. That the real reason was because he felt that Comey had unfairly maligned Clinton with his announcements.


That, sir, creates a jury question. You are free to argue that Trump did not mean what he said. I'll just play the Lester Holt interview. It would take a reasonable jury about 30 seconds to convict Trump's lying azz.
 
#317
#317
orangeluvr said:
Law and rules apply to everyone, no matter the office or position Supposed to work like that anyway. tRump said publicly said he fired Comey for the russia investigation. On top of that he invited our enemies into the peoples's house to boast about it. Unreal. :crazy:
Click to expand...

There can't be any way you all believe all this, I refuse to believe fellow Americans can be this radical
 
#320
#320
lawgator1 said:
Yes he can, if the justification offered after the fact is a pretextual one.


Here, Trump had Rosenstein write him a letter giving him an excuse to do it because of the way the Clinton email investigation was handled (which is supremely ironic given that his criticism of Comey for that played a significant role in Trump's favor).


But then Trump did two things. First, he said on national tv that THE reason he fired Comey was over the Russia investigation. Second, he bragged to Russian officials that THE reason he did it was to get rid of the Russia investigation.


Now, you might argue that those comments were just typical Trump off-the-cuff gobbledygook and that he did not mean that. That the real reason was because he felt that Comey had unfairly maligned Clinton with his announcements.


That, sir, creates a jury question. You are free to argue that Trump did not mean what he said. I'll just play the Lester Holt interview. It would take a reasonable jury about 30 seconds to convict Trump's lying azz.
Click to expand...

You know damn well you wouldn’t bring such a weak azz case to a jury.
 
#321
#321
lawgator1 said:
Yes he can, if the justification offered after the fact is a pretextual one.


Here, Trump had Rosenstein write him a letter giving him an excuse to do it because of the way the Clinton email investigation was handled (which is supremely ironic given that his criticism of Comey for that played a significant role in Trump's favor).


But then Trump did two things. First, he said on national tv that THE reason he fired Comey was over the Russia investigation. Second, he bragged to Russian officials that THE reason he did it was to get rid of the Russia investigation.


Now, you might argue that those comments were just typical Trump off-the-cuff gobbledygook and that he did not mean that. That the real reason was because he felt that Comey had unfairly maligned Clinton with his announcements.


That, sir, creates a jury question. You are free to argue that Trump did not mean what he said. I'll just play the Lester Holt interview. It would take a reasonable jury about 30 seconds to convict Trump's lying azz.
Click to expand...

You must be an awful lawyer.

Your listening comprehension is terrible.

Or you're a liar.

Trump never said he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#322
#322
Orange_Crush said:
I get that. Leaks of what? By who?
Click to expand...

In DC that can be anybody and everybody. Knowing secrets is a mark of "importance", and divulging secrets is the only way to prove "importance" - and "being important" is what life in DC is all about. Congress should be known as the Leak Factory and kept housed in an industrial strength Depends diaper.
 
#323
#323
ajvol01 said:
You must be an awful lawyer.

Your listening comprehension is terrible.

Or you're a liar.

Trump never said he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation.
Click to expand...




Another question for the jury. I'm happy to go before them, play it, and let you argue that is not what he meant.


Good f'ing luck with that. You'll need it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top