Mueller Report Imminent

#6,952
#6,952
Watching this Q&A with McGahn.

At 33:40 a student asks him how he think Trump would do if Mueller had interviewed him under oath.

McGahn's response: Trump has been in a number of depositions and he made it to become president.

What McGahn did not say: Trump would tell the truth.

 
#6,953
#6,953
Velo Vol said:
Watching this Q&A with McGahn.

At 33:40 a student asks him how he think Trump would do if Mueller had interviewed him under oath.

McGahn's response: Trump has been in a number of depositions and he made it to become president.

What McGahn did not say: Trump would tell the truth.

Click to expand...


You collusion guys are dumb as hell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01, SpaceCoastVol, Orange_Vol1321 and 3 others
#6,954
#6,954
Info... tough times coming for some folks,

A newly-uncovered document suggests that the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ), including the FBI, was “well aware” that foreign agent Christopher Steele was trying to interfere in the 2016 presidential election with disinformation — and yet still used his materials to spy on American citizens and the Trump campaign, according to Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC).

“[O]fficials at the FBI and (Department of Justice) DOJ were well aware the dossier was a lie — from very early on in the process all the way to when they made the conscious decision to include it in a FISA application,” Meadows said Tuesday in a statement to The Hill’s John Solomon. “The fact that Christopher Steele and his partisan research document were treated in any way seriously by our Intelligence Community leaders amounts to malpractice.”

This memo is the latest piece of evidence suggesting the FBI spied on American citizens for partisan political purposes.
Bruce Ohr — a career DOJ official whose wife worked for Fusion GPS, the firm that hired Steele — has testified that he told the FBI Steele was politically biased against Trump and that his dossier was based on hearsay.

Steele himself gave a statement to a London court saying that the purpose of his work, at least in part, was to give Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) standing to “challenge the validity of the outcome of that election.”

James, Comey, the FBI Director at the time, has admitted he knew Democrats were funding Steele and Fusion GPS’s work “before there were any court filings” — but withheld this information from the FISA application and from the intelligence briefing with president-elect Trump which gave CNN and BuzzFeed the “news hook” to publicly air the hoax allegations without any corroboration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01 and Orange_Vol1321
#6,955
#6,955
IPleadInsanity said:
Live in the real world...the only difference between this president and the last 3 is scripted dialog. The last 3 were 100% scripted this guy is 20% scripted, and its easy to tell when he is reading scripted material he does it so badly. He says what he is thinking not what his writers want you to hear and could care less what you think about it. I am sure you miss the daily pablum but frankly I don't. Don't be so bamboozled and don't expect a non-politician to act like a politician. You will feel better when the next president is elected in 2024, Ivanka.
Click to expand...
Not even remotely true.
 
#6,963
#6,963
NEVolFan said:
A newly-uncovered document suggests that the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ), including the FBI, was “well aware” that foreign agent Christopher Steele was trying to interfere in the 2016 presidential election with disinformation — and yet still used his materials to spy on American citizens and the Trump campaign, according to Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC).
Click to expand...

Link to the mystery document?
 
#6,964
#6,964
RockyTop85 said:
Your posts are usually thoughtful and I respect that.

The fifth amendment thing is totally wrong and that is the justification for broad obstruction statutes.

You can stay silent all day long but you can’t lie to the police, attempt to destroy evidence, or try to get the police fired. (Not legal advice, consult a lawyer).

It’s inconsistent imo that you’re seemingly not bothered by an executive branch employee falsifying White house records to mislead the public because it’s not technically illegal, or trying to exert undue influence over an investigation into his behavior because you didn’t think it was illegal, but this statute kills the America you want to live in.

Also the fact that you’re trying to turn this around on me, (maybe? I’m still not clear on that) when we’ve had discussions where I’ve advocated for a narrower criminal code.

Seems like rhetoric, to me.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you are getting at with all of this. My point has generally, as I tend to wander, is where is the line between questionable and illegal. And you pointed out the law says there is no line. If its questionable it's illegal. That doesnt seem like a good law, which is why I have pointed out that anybody investigated could be guilty of that. And that's scary to me.

I dont care if trump goes down. It just shouldn't be over some bs. This is an incredibly divisive subject which boils down to a process crime now that the Russian thing has blown over.

Imo its bs that we get a chicken or egg result under an incredibly broad law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RockyTop85
#6,967
#6,967
Schiff... once again to a logical mind, his narrative makes no sense. Dems lost the election and took their ball and went to their glass house and started throwing rocks.

Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) proclaimed America could not survive another four years of Donald Trump as president.
Schiff said, “I don’t think this country could survive another four years with a president like this who gets up every day trying to find new and inventive ways to divide us.”
He added, “He doesn’t seem to understand that a fundamental aspect of his job is to try to make us a more perfect union, but that’s not at all where he’s coming from. He’s going to be defeated. He has to be defeated because I don’t know how much more our democratic institutions can take of this kind of attack on the rule of law.”


Adam Schiff: America Will Not Survive Another Four Years with Trump | Breitbart
 
#6,968
#6,968
NEVolFan said:
Schiff... once again to a logical mind, his narrative makes no sense. Dems lost the election and took their ball and went to their glass house and started throwing rocks.

Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) proclaimed America could not survive another four years of Donald Trump as president.
Schiff said, “I don’t think this country could survive another four years with a president like this who gets up every day trying to find new and inventive ways to divide us.”
He added, “He doesn’t seem to understand that a fundamental aspect of his job is to try to make us a more perfect union, but that’s not at all where he’s coming from. He’s going to be defeated. He has to be defeated because I don’t know how much more our democratic institutions can take of this kind of attack on the rule of law.”


Adam Schiff: America Will Not Survive Another Four Years with Trump | Breitbart
Click to expand...

Doing an excellent chicken little impersonation.
 
#6,969
#6,969
NEVolFan said:
Schiff... once again to a logical mind, his narrative makes no sense. Dems lost the election and took their ball and went to their glass house and started throwing rocks.

Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) proclaimed America could not survive another four years of Donald Trump as president.
Schiff said, “I don’t think this country could survive another four years with a president like this who gets up every day trying to find new and inventive ways to divide us.”
He added, “He doesn’t seem to understand that a fundamental aspect of his job is to try to make us a more perfect union, but that’s not at all where he’s coming from. He’s going to be defeated. He has to be defeated because I don’t know how much more our democratic institutions can take of this kind of attack on the rule of law.”


Adam Schiff: America Will Not Survive Another Four Years with Trump | Breitbart
Click to expand...

Bless It
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#6,970
#6,970
Now here's an idea that will get votes... once they begin to let everyone here illegally the right to vote.

Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” 2020 presidential hopeful Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) said she supported giving health insurance to people in the country illegally.
When asked if she supported giving Medicare for all to people in this country illegally, Harris said, “I’m opposed to any policy that would deny in our country any human being from access to public safety, public education or public health, period.”

www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/05/12/harris-i-support-illegal-aliens-having-full-access-to-health-care/
 
#6,971
#6,971
NEVolFan said:
Now here's an idea that will get votes... once they begin to let everyone here illegally the right to vote.

Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” 2020 presidential hopeful Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) said she supported giving health insurance to people in the country illegally.
When asked if she supported giving Medicare for all to people in this country illegally, Harris said, “I’m opposed to any policy that would deny in our country any human being from access to public safety, public education or public health, period.”

www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/05/12/harris-i-support-illegal-aliens-having-full-access-to-health-care/
Click to expand...

It's only money......
 
#6,973
#6,973
NEVolFan said:
James Comey Didn’t Know Whether Dossier Claims Were True – Yet Still Used Info in FISA Applications | Breitbart
Click to expand...

I see no document or first-hand sources in that link. Just an article that relies on the reader to jump from one conclusion to another with no basis to support it.

For instance, the title:

"James Comey Didn’t Know Whether Dossier Claims Were True – Yet Still Used Info in FISA Applications"

OK. Which info was used in the applications? All of it? Or parts the FBI verified?

Then there's this:

According to Republican House characterizations, the FISA applications signed by Comey withheld key information raising questions about the dossier, including that it was financed by Clinton and the DNC and had known credibility issues.
Click to expand...

But according to the Democratic memo, the application noted that Steele:

was approached by an identified U.S. person who indicated to Source #1 [Steele] that a U.S.-based law firm had hired the identified U.S. person to conduct research regarding Candidate #1’s ties to Russia. (The identified U.S. person and Source #1 have a long-standing business relationship.) The identified U.S. person hired Source #1 to conduct this research. The identified U.S. person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into candidate #1’s ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign.
Click to expand...

Now if you're a seasoned Federal judge, and you read that someone paid a source to conduct research on a candidate's ties to Russia, is it really a great mystery what is going on? FISA applications by their nature try to minimize the number of named American parties. And that's what happened here. And the judge could figure it out.
 
#6,974
#6,974
Velo Vol said:
I see no document or first-hand sources in that link. Just an article that relies on the reader to jump from one conclusion to another with no basis to support it.

For instance, the title:

"James Comey Didn’t Know Whether Dossier Claims Were True – Yet Still Used Info in FISA Applications"

OK. Which info was used in the applications? All of it? Or parts the FBI verified?

Then there's this:



But according to the Democratic memo, the application noted that Steele:



Now if you're a seasoned Federal judge, and you read that someone paid a source to conduct research on a candidate's ties to Russia, is it really a great mystery what is going on? FISA applications by their nature try to minimize the number of named American parties. And that's what happened here. And the judge could figure it out.
Click to expand...
We'll have to wait for the Horowitz report to know anything for sure.
 
#6,975
#6,975
LouderVol said:
Not sure what you are getting at with all of this. My point has generally, as I tend to wander, is where is the line between questionable and illegal. And you pointed out the law says there is no line. If its questionable it's illegal. That doesnt seem like a good law, which is why I have pointed out that anybody investigated could be guilty of that. And that's scary to me.

I dont care if trump goes down. It just shouldn't be over some bs. This is an incredibly divisive subject which boils down to a process crime now that the Russian thing has blown over.

Imo its bs that we get a chicken or egg result under an incredibly broad law.
Click to expand...

We’re not going to get a chicken and egg result based on this law. The law arguably doesn’t even apply to the president and even if it does, he can’t be indicted. It’s just an analog for societal norms.

The issue of whether he’s removed is a political question. Ideally, it’s a threshold question for 100 senators. But You’re saying you don’t subscribe to those laws as being representative of societal norms or at least not your ideal, so where is that threshold for you?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top