IMO, the final throes of this drawn out facade....

[Baptist Believer]

No, I never said that Mueller's team hadn't leaked, all I said was that there has been leaks.

Fair enough. I'll just chalk it up to you not following the flow of the conversation. I asked a specific question and you answered a different question, a question I did not ask.

You are way more far gone that I'd realized, Trump will NEVER "go to jail"

I was just following the premise that HankD had laid out, that Trump would receive a pardon from Mike Pence. In case you didn't know, if just a few of the things in the Steele intelligence memos (aka, "the Steele dossier") as well as a number of things we have seen played out publicly, then the President is likely to do serious jail time. There are allegations of extensive money laundering, which would also bring to light tax evasion, not to mention bribes and kickbacks from deals in Russia, conspiring with the Russians to use stolen information in the election, and promising, if elected, to ease sanctions on Russia. Then there are also issues regarding Trump's private business practices and issues concerning Cohen and receipt of funds for political favors, as well as numerous attempts to obstruct justice.

So if President Trump is guilty of many of these things, he faces serious prison time.

... it's more likely Hillary and Obama do.

We will see.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Technically speaking, John McCain is on your side. He went out of his way to deliver that dossier and he's darn proud of it.

He should be, it is a patriotic thing to do. If you had received similar reports about Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Paul Ryan, or any other major political figure, I'm sure you would do the same, just like I would.

why has he NEVER talked to Julian Assange?

Where do you get the idea that he hasn't, or at least, hasn't tried to do so?

 

[777]

McCain's nickname was "McNasty" for a reason - patriotic, how? By being a tool?

Fair enough. I'll just chalk it up to you not following the flow of the conversation. I asked a specific question and you answered a different question, a question I did not ask.
.

Then you're doubling down on your own mistake. I know why you have to believe that Mueller is running a tight ship because there's currently an absence of evidence that incriminates Trump. If you can't see it, therefore, it doesn't exist.

But you have to know if the MSM (Mueller's ally) had anything big on Trump, they would leak it in a heart beat. I think you're still hung up on that dossier and yeah yeah yeah, it's just a bunch of reports but it was also a bunch of opposition research and that is almost always unreliable - unless you're trying to get a FISA warrant during an election year on your opponent.

 

[Baptist Believer]

McCain's nickname was "McNasty" for a reason - patriotic, how? By being a tool?

By reporting corruption, espionage and possible treason.

Then you're doubling down on your own mistake.

I think the record is clear. I'm not going to go over it again.

I know why you have to believe that Mueller is running a tight ship because there's currently an absence of evidence that incriminates Trump.

Actually, it is because I have known FBI people over the years who develop cases, and know that leaking is a huge issue for them. It goes against culture. That's apparently the reason McCabe was fired.

If you can't see it, therefore, it doesn't exist.

No, that's a foolish premise. But that's what the President and his supporters claim. If you can't see it at this very moment, then Mueller doesn't have it.

But you have to know if the MSM (Mueller's ally) had anything big on Trump, they would leak it in a heart beat.

(1) Journalism is not "leaking," it's reporting.
(2) The mainstream media, as well as many other sources have lots of "big" evidence on the President. But the media and most of the public knows that Mueller has resources that no one else has and is content to wait for the facts to come in.
(3) The mainstream media has been ALL OVER this story.

I think you're still hung up on that dossier...

Actually, I'm not hung up on it at all. I've just be watching the President and his cronies present ever-changing stories about their activities. They act like extremely guilty people.

...and yeah yeah yeah, it's just a bunch of reports but it was also a bunch of opposition research and that is almost always unreliable...

Opposition research is often accurate. The spin that is put on it is often unfair. If you look at the Steele reports, you will see that there is no spin. It is simply documentation of what Steele has heard from his sources.

...unless you're trying to get a FISA warrant during an election year on your opponent.

That false story is getting quite old. Anyone who has read and comprehended the Nunes memo knows that the FISA warrant on Carter Page stemmed from Pappadopolous' drunken ramblings told to a friendly foreign agent.

 

[777]

It supposedly officially began then, but the spy or spies were already in place by Commie Brennan (most likely to go to jail of all). Set up.

By reporting corruption, espionage and possible treason.

He didn't report it, fool went all the way over there and gave the dossier to his deep state massah, but Jimbo already had it.

I think the record is clear.I'm not going over it again.

I will, then. There have been multiple leaks in the Mueller investigation.

Actually, it is because I have known FBI people over the years who develop cases, and know that leaking is a huge issue for them. It goes against culture. That's apparently the reason McCabe was fired.

Comey leaked, Clapper leaked. Sometimes you WANT the info to be leaked for various reasons.

No, that's a foolish premise. But that's what the President and his supporters claim. If you can't see it at this very moment, then Mueller doesn't have it.

Someone as intelligent as you also should realize that just because you can't see it at the very moment doesn't mean he has it and also you should be careful of projection/displacement.

(1) Journalism is not "leaking," it's reporting.
(2) The mainstream media, as well as many other sources have lots of "big" evidence on the President. But the media and most of the public knows that Mueller has resources that no one else has and is content to wait for the facts to come in.
(3) The mainstream media has been ALL OVER this story.

It's reporting if the hack reports the leak, it's just reporting a leak. The MSM has been all over this story. you can see the drool on Acosta's chin. They don't have the self-discipline to keep their mouth shut about anything they think will hurt Trump.

Watergate, that's what they're hopelessly trying to recreate.

Actually, I'm not hung up on it at all. I've just be watching the President and his cronies present ever-changing stories about their activities. They act like extremely guilty people.

Let it ride on odd ...

Opposition research is often accurate. The spin that is put on it is often unfair. If you look at the Steele reports, you will see that there is no spin. It is simply documentation of what Steele has heard from his sources

"No spin" on op research paid for by the DNC??? Steele himself said his innuendo was 70-90 percent accurate, he was an old spy that hadn't been over to Russia in decades.

His sources, hard to believe high-level Russian agents would even talk to him, but if they did, maybe they fed HIM disinformation? It's the Russian way, you know.

That false story is getting quite old. Anyone who has read and comprehended the Nunes memo knows that the FISA warrant on Carter Page stemmed from Pappadopolous' drunken ramblings told to a friendly foreign agent.

The spy timeline belies that fact, we will see. The Nunes memo never said that:

Nunes memo: Read the controversial Republican memo alleging FBI abuses - CNNPolitics

the FISA warrant was issued and granted because of the dossier.

 

[Adonia]

No, it has been thought of before. Back during the Starr investigation into Whitewater and such, there were Democrats whining about it, but it was never challenged. I remember that specifically, since Ken Starr himself had reservations about the broad mandate he had been given to investigate Bill Clinton. You can be sure that the Clinton Administration considered challenging it.

Ken Starr had no broad mandate to investigate anything he wanted to. His mandate was Clinton and Whitewater, nothing else and certainly not like Mueller who is going all over the place and into issues that have nothing to do with Trump and collusion. Starr's concern was when he stumbled on the Lewinsky matter. In an article in Time dated Jan 9th, 2009 Starr said: "All in all, it would have been better, more prudent for a different independent counsel to be appointed to investigate the Lewinsky phase of the investigation, but I think that is wishful thinking. "It had to be investigated under the [independent counsel] statute. The statute required that if certain information came to the attention of the attorney general, then the matter had to be investigated and Attorney General [Janet] Reno did her duty and said the Lewinsky matter has to be investigated and the sitting independent counsel should be the one to do it".

Ultimately, I don't know specifically what is going on, just as you said. I know what is supposed to happen and what has happened (Rosenstein has provided at least one additional memo of guidance, has approved going after search warrants and calling witnesses to testify, and has recommended referral of the Cohen matter to another jurisdiction), and the two seem to be consistent with each other. I sincerely doubt that they would run a shoddy investigation with so much on the line and under such scrutiny.

Yeah, Rosenstein added one additional memo of guidance after what happened had already been done. I believe it was about when Mueller sent in Federal agents to Manafort's home in the dead of night.

The minor persons who have been indicted and those who are clearly suspects all seem to be connected to Russia.

They were all things that happened years ago, before Trump decided to run for the presidency. It's Mueller only exceeding his mandate. Starr on the other hand kept to Clinton, no one else until the Lewinsky matter and it was AG Reno who told him to go there. Not so in this case, Rosenstein is only the rubber stamp for what Mueller wants to do.

 

[Adonia]

I want Mueller to finish the job. I don't think we could have found a better man for it. He has support from both parties.

No, he does not have the support of all the Republicans now. The RINO's yes, but others have come out against this continuing "investigation". Mueller is not the saint everyone says he is. He is ruthless when it comes to this stuff. He picks the man and then finds the crime just like the Communists did in Russia during the many show trials that were held there in the past. His pick of Mr. Weinstein as his second in command is troubling, as is his padding of his staff with Democrat lawyers who gave contributions to Clinton. This has become a sham of an investigation, a partisan witch hunt if there ever was one.

 

[FollowTheWay]

No, he does not have the support of all the Republicans now. The RINO's yes, but others have come out against this continuing "investigation". Mueller is not the saint everyone says he is. He is ruthless when it comes to this stuff. He picks the man and then finds the crime just like the Communists did in Russia during the many show trials that were held there in the past. His pick of Mr. Weinstein as his second in command is troubling, as is his padding of his staff with Democrat lawyers who gave contributions to Clinton. This has become a sham of an investigation, a partisan witch hunt if there ever was one.

 

[Adonia]

In the Watergate scandal there was the crime of "breaking and entering" and evidence was surfacing that Nixon participated in the coverup.

Concernng today' s issue with Trump and the cry of "collusion". Collusion (and there was none here) is not a crime and thus there can be be no "cover-up" or "Obstruction of Justice" like the charge that was laid at Nixon's feet.

So then, what is the point of going so far afield by going after people who were merely associated with Trump? This is now a political witch hunt which can be the only reasonable conclusion that can be made.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Ken Starr had no broad mandate to investigate anything he wanted to.

You missed the point. During the Starr investigation, Democrats were looking to end it and they eventually decided not to challenge the constitutionality of the law regarding special prosecutors. You had previously said that "no one probably thought of it before." Obviously, they have.

Yeah, Rosenstein added one additional memo of guidance after what happened had already been done. I believe it was about when Mueller sent in Federal agents to Manafort's home in the dead of night.

The memo we are discussing was issued prior to the execution of the first search warrant, although it was not made public until Manafort's attorneys challenged Mueller's authority. Since we didn't know about that other memo until Manafort's challenge caused it to be made public, we have no idea how many memos there may be for the Mueller team. To assume something doesn't exist just because you haven't seen it, or assume it must exist because you desire that it exist is foolishness. We simply don't know.

They were all things that happened years ago, before Trump decided to run for the presidency.

That's the story being told isn't it? That story is quite effective even though it does not connect with reality in many cases. Flynn's guilty plea was for action during the Trump campaign and into Trump's presidency. Based on other search warrants and indictments of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, Mueller is finding evidence of crimes during the time of the Trump campaign. Other indictments involved actions that occured during Trump's campaign. I won't go into it all, but here's a bit of reading material on the subject:

Most Americans Don't Realize Robert Mueller's Investigation has Uncovered Crimes

...Rosenstein is only the rubber stamp for what Mueller wants to do.

You are in no position to know that with any certainty.

 

[HankD]

...To assume something doesn't exist just because you haven't seen it, or assume it must exist because you desire that it exist is foolishness. We simply don't know.

thank you for admitting to that.

Most Americans Don't Realize Robert Mueller's Investigation has Uncovered Crimes

One can interpret this pattern of behavior in a few ways. One is that Mueller is steadily putting in place the building blocks of a huge, mafia-style takedown that will end with Manafort “flipping” under pressure and new indictments coming against members of Donald Trump’s family and damning evidence about Trump himself.

In your own words:
"That story is quite effective even though it does not connect with reality in many cases"
"You are in no position to know that with any certainty"
"just because you haven't seen it, or assume it must exist because you desire that it exist is foolishness"

 

[Adonia]

You missed the point. During the Starr investigation, Democrats were looking to end it and they eventually decided not to challenge the constitutionality of the law regarding special prosecutors. You had previously said that "no one probably thought of it before." Obviously, they have.

No, you are missing the point. Ken Starr was not acting as a principle officer. He kept to his original mandate and the AG was closely supervising him. Mr. Mueller on the other hand who is supposed to be an inferior officer is acting like a principle officer by forging his own path and going everywhere and doing whatever he wants. Mr. Mueller even had the audacity to make 4 of his lawyers Special Assistant Attorney Generals for the Eastern District of Virginia in addition to the titles they had because they were working for him. This was done to broaden their powers beyond the powers they originally had. This are the actions of a de facto principle officer, not an inferior one. The Democrats who were around during the Starr investigation were simply not confronted by these actions and could not claim that Starr was acting as a principle officer and thus violating the appointments clause of Article 2 Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

That's the story being told isn't it? That story is quite effective even though it does not connect with reality in many cases. Flynn's guilty plea was for action during the Trump campaign and into Trump's presidency. Based on other search warrants and indictments of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, Mueller is finding evidence of crimes during the time of the Trump campaign. Other indictments involved actions that occurred during Trump's campaign. I won't go into it all, but here's a bit of reading material on the subject:

Mr. Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI even though it has been found through the release of those emails or texts that the agents who questioned him did not think he was lying. Mr. Flynn was railroaded by Mueller for a guilty plea in order to save his son from prosecution. This looks like a need to get the President at any cost to otherwise innocent people.

 

[FollowTheWay]

In the Watergate scandal there was the crime of "breaking and entering" and evidence was surfacing that Nixon participated in the coverup.

Concernng today' s issue with Trump and the cry of "collusion". Collusion (and there was none here) is not a crime and thus there can be be no "cover-up" or "Obstruction of Justice" like the charge that was laid at Nixon's feet.

So then, what is the point of going so far afield by going after people who were merely associated with Trump? This is now a political witch hunt which can be the only reasonable conclusion that can be made.

Working with an enemy foreign power to change the result of a presidential election is not a crime? I don't agree. I would call it treason.

 

[HankD]

Working with an enemy foreign power to change the result of a presidential election is not a crime? I don't agree. I would call it treason.

What if...

...a progressive liberal is found guilty of this ?is it still a crime?
...a liberal has been found colluding with a foreign nation to perhaps seeing to it that they get control of most of our nuclear defense commodit(ies)?

 

[FollowTheWay]

What if...

...a progressive liberal is found guilty of this ?is it still a crime?
...a liberal has been found colluding with a foreign nation to perhaps seeing to it that they get control of most of our nuclear defense commodit(ies)?

Yes but Uranium One is not an example of this. This claim was investigated and found to be false.

 

[HankD]

Yes but Uranium One is not an example of this. This claim was investigated and found to be false.

Who found it false?

There are many more activities that could be cited by "reliable sources" that Trump is the true enemy colluding with foreign nations to do evil.

Yes the Alinsky strategy.

These tactics are old school and don't work any more.

People know full well that CNN is the "1984" version of the Ministry of Truth.

It's too soon, they don't have a chance with this generation.

The next up and coming generation - yes - a resounding yes (unless there is some form of intervention).
My guesstimate is by 2028/2032 America will "elect" a Marxist president.

What form of communism that choice will eventually take - who knows.
I suspect perhaps a governmental Hegelian synthesis of communism and capitalism similar to China's will come forth.

Again - intervention - a spiritual awakening ala Jonathan Edwards would work.

Trumps biggest sin - He is an unashamed Capitalist.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Ken Starr had no broad mandate to investigate anything he wanted to. His mandate was Clinton and Whitewater, nothing else and certainly not like Mueller who is going all over the place and into issues that have nothing to do with Trump and collusion. Starr's concern was when he stumbled on the Lewinsky matter. In an article in Time dated Jan 9th, 2009 Starr said: "All in all, it would have been better, more prudent for a different independent counsel to be appointed to investigate the Lewinsky phase of the investigation, but I think that is wishful thinking. "It had to be investigated under the [independent counsel] statute. The statute required that if certain information came to the attention of the attorney general, then the matter had to be investigated and Attorney General [Janet] Reno did her duty and said the Lewinsky matter has to be investigated and the sitting independent counsel should be the one to do it".



Yeah, Rosenstein added one additional memo of guidance after what happened had already been done. I believe it was about when Mueller sent in Federal agents to Manafort's home in the dead of night.



They were all things that happened years ago, before Trump decided to run for the presidency. It's Mueller only exceeding his mandate. Starr on the other hand kept to Clinton, no one else until the Lewinsky matter and it was AG Reno who told him to go there. Not so in this case, Rosenstein is only the rubber stamp for what Mueller wants to do.

As you can see, the investigation of president Clinton did branch out into areas unrelated to the original issue. It lasted 5 YEARS from the appointment of the initial Special prosecutor to the trial in the Senate.

Your claim about the Mueller investigation being different is obviously incorrect. The appointment of Mueller as Special Council was just about a year ago (May 16, 2017). So for this investigation to be as extensive as the Clinton investigation it should go on for another 4 YEARS.
***********************************************************************************************************
Clinton impeachment timeline


January 1994
Attorney General Janet Reno appoints Robert Fiske Jr. as the independent counsel in charge of investigating financial irregularities in the dealings of the Whitewater property company. The Clintons, and their business partners, James and Susan McDougal, are implicated.

August 1994
Fiske is replaced by the more conservative Kenneth Starr as the independent counsel investigating the Whitewater scandal.

May 1996
The first Whitewater trial ends with the conviction of the McDougals for fraud. A Senate hearing ends inconclusively a month later.

February 1997
Kenneth Starr, the Independent Counsel investigating the Whitewater scandal, announces he will step down from the investigation. He then changes his mind and continues his investigations.

May 1997
According to the Starr report released in September 1998, President Clinton tells Ms Lewinsky the affair is at an end. Just days later the Supreme Court reject Mr Clinton's claim that as President he should have immunity from civil cases. This ruling allows the Paula Jones harassment case to proceed against him.

January 16, 1998
Janet Reno, the US Attorney General, approves the Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr's request for an expansion of the inquiry to include the Clinton-Lewinsky affair.

March 13, 1998

Paula Jones' lawyers in the sexual harassment suit against Clinton publish much of their evidence, one of the many breaches of the judicial gagging order on this case.

April 1, 1998
The Paula Jones harassment case against the President is dismissed by the judge before it goes to trial.

September 8, 1998
Attorney-general Janet Reno announces a 90-day inquiry into whether Bill Clinton helped to plan a $44 million Democratic Party "issue ad" that breached election campaign spending laws.

September 9, 1998
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr releases his report to Congress. It has 11 possible grounds for impeachment. The House votes to make the 445-page report public.

October 5, 1998
The House Judiciary Committee votes to launch a congressional impeachment inquiry against President Clinton.

October 8, 1998
The House of Representatives vote for impeachment proceedings to begin against Clinton. The House judiciary committee will be given wide powers to draw up detailed charges against Mr Clinton, based on 11 allegations by the independent counsel Kenneth Starr in his report on the Monica Lewinsky affair.

December 1, 1998
The House of Representatives judiciary committee widens the scope of its inquiry to include the election campaign fundraising issue. The Republicans use their majority on the committee to subpoena senior law enforcement officers, including the FBI director Louis Freeh, to broadening the impeachment inquiry into a dispute over President Clinton's campaign fundraising.

December 11, 1998
The House Judiciary Committee approves three articles of impeachment on a 21-16 party line vote, passing them to the full House of Representatives. The three articles accuse Clinton of lying to a grand jury, committing perjury by denying he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, and obstructing justice. Clinton declares himself "profoundly sorry" and willing to accept censure.

December 12, 1998
The committee approves a fourth article of impeachment on a party-line vote, accusing Clinton of abusing power in a direct parallel to Watergate-era language.

December 19, 1998
President Clinton is impeached as the Republican controlled House approves two of the four proposed articles of impeachment by narrow partisan majorities: 228-206 and 221-212. Mr Clinton is sent for trial in the Senate.

January 7, 1999
The Senate formally begins the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton on two charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.

 

[HankD]

Personally I felt the Clinton impeachment was overreaching.

a congressional reprimand of deeds not becoming of the president would have sufficed.

Also President Clinton apologized publicly at least 3 times that I know of yet the RNC still went after him.

What goes around comes around?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 10:30 PM Pacific.

 

[Adonia]

Working with an enemy foreign power to change the result of a presidential election is not a crime? I don't agree. I would call it treason.

There is no evidence of this whatsoever. If anyone was working with a foreign power (the Russians) it was Hillary and the DNC as they were the ones who paid for the discredited dossier.