DOJ Initial Russia Hearings

Caveman said:
What is required for exoneration? Can somebody comment on why Mueller would make that distinction? Is that his way of recommending further investigation?
Click to expand...
It's a good question - I've been in the car all day and this has come up.  Experts say that they feel it's a wink to congress that while there was not evidence of collusion with Russia in the election there are things that need to be dealt with at their level.  So that could be behaviors that are questionable or illegal, but did not fall clearly into the collusion investigation.  It would have to be clear evidence to either convince or exonerate - the verbiage is suggestive that there is more to look into.

Would love to see the content of the report and not just Barr's interpretation, it may explain this point in particular more clearly.

 
MNBigRedNorth said:
Exactly!  Great post.  How did any of those conviction most of which were process crimes, guilty pleas (that Cohen gave for things that weren't even crimes because Mueller's team were a bunch of bullies threaten his family) and Gen. Flynn who was completely set-up by DOJ officials and was pushed to bankruptcy defending him self.  Also most of the Russian's that indictments were handed down to will never see the light of day in a court because they  live in Russia and will never step one foot in our country.  The investigation was nothing more than a road block operation to block Donald J. Trump our duly elected president from doing his job and covering up for the illegal activities of the past administration, the Clinton Campaign and the dirty work of the Clinton Foundation.  It will be interesting where all this will lead.  The Dems may cook their own goose if all the information is released, because if a complete investigation was done there should be information about how the Clinton Campaign obtained the Dossier and how the past administration used the phony information to obtain FISA Warrants. To sum it all up this was an illegal operation to unseat and legally elected president.  An act of sedition/treason against a sitting president, that is only tried in a military court.  
Click to expand...


Who is the first to get charged in the military court?  My money is on Glenn Simpson from Fusion GPS.  They were working for the Russians, specifically Natalia Veselnitskaya (yes the Trump Tower meeting attorney), on the Prevezon Holding case while also employing Christopher Steele to dig dirt on PRESIDENT Donald J. Trump.  It is all a giant set up.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
@45timesbetterthanemptysuit  Questions. 

The report states that the Russuans made numerous offers to trump to help him. 

A). Why didn’t Trump report this to the appropriate officials?

B). Why did Trump cancel sanctions on Russia that Obama had put in place  immediately after taking office?

C). Why did he exhonerate Russia in Helsinki and proclaim that he believes Putin over his own intelligence community about Russia meddling?

Remember, he knew they were meddling. 
Click to expand...
@Dewiz @MNBigRedNorth

??????

 
knapplc said:
Funny thing is, all the realists here are like, "Sure, investigate Hillary, Obama, et al, if there's evidence of wrongdoing," while the Trumpists are super offended that this investigation, which led to multiple convictions and plea deals, ever happened.

Shows you who's interested in truth & justice, right there.
Click to expand...
I agree.   :yeah I've been mostly :snacks: since the Mueller report came out but what I want is full transparency.  We need the full report released to Congress and a full accounting of the findings - retracting only sensitive info that the general public doesn't need.   Don't let party loyalty from getting in the way of proper investigations.  The Russian investigations took us down several fruitful rabbit trails(and I think - will continue to take us down- this thing isn't over yet).  If the evidence is there to investigate Hillary - then let the evidence speak.   Our loyalties should never be to a person or a party but to the Constitution, the law and justice.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
@45timesbetterthanemptysuit
Click to expand...


BigRedBuster said:
2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:
@45timesbetterthanemptysuit  Questions. 

The report states that the Russuans made numerous offers to trump to help him. 

A). Why didn’t Trump report this to the appropriate officials?

B). Why did Trump cancel sanctions on Russia that Obama had put in place  immediately after taking office?

C). Why did he exhonerate Russia in Helsinki and proclaim that he believes Putin over his own intelligence community about Russia meddling?

Remember, he knew they were meddling. 
Click to expand...


These are all good points.  Inquiring minds would like to know :dunno   Trump's behavior is not appropriate of someone who was innocent. 

 
MNBigRedNorth said:
Exactly!  Great post.  How did any of those conviction most of which were process crimes, guilty pleas (that Cohen gave for things that weren't even crimes because Mueller's team were a bunch of bullies threaten his family) and Gen. Flynn who was completely set-up by DOJ officials and was pushed to bankruptcy defending him self.  Also most of the Russian's that indictments were handed down to will never see the light of day in a court because they  live in Russia and will never step one foot in our country.  The investigation was nothing more than a road block operation to block Donald J. Trump our duly elected president from doing his job and covering up for the illegal activities of the past administration, the Clinton Campaign and the dirty work of the Clinton Foundation.  It will be interesting where all this will lead.  The Dems may cook their own goose if all the information is released, because if a complete investigation was done there should be information about how the Clinton Campaign obtained the Dossier and how the past administration used the phony information to obtain FISA Warrants. To sum it all up this was an illegal operation to unseat and legally elected president.  An act of sedition/treason against a sitting president, that is only tried in a military court.  
Click to expand...


Notre Dame Joe was nice enough to respond, but I'm wondering whether you or Dewiz think that by merely swapping the name Hillary for Donald makes the same charges and scenario sound more investigation-worthy:

All 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agree that Russia sought to influence the U.S. election by undermining Donald Trump, the speculation that Vladimir Putin preferred Hillary Clinton as President. The Obama White House learns about this before the election, but doesn't go public. Donald Trump wins the popular vote but Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency through the electoral college. She immediately undermines the entire U.S. intelligence community for casting doubt on her legitimacy, even as they are turning up incontrovertible evidence that Clinton's campaign manager and other associates were representing Russian interests illegally, while Chelsea Clinton was getting a taste of the family business by opening "Clinton Towers" in Azerbaijan, providing cover for a money-launder operation by a corrupt family of former Soviets.  Hillary Clinton stands before the world and says she believes Vladimir Putin over her own intelligence agencies. She proceeds to attack NATO, fulfilling one of Putin's greatest dreams. Just for fun, Hillary also tells the world she has "fallen in love" with Kim Jung Un, a really great guy who said nice things about her, as she ignores the sanction recommendations of her own administration. That she illegally paid $130,000 in hush money from her campaign to silence one of her multiple lesbian prostitutes is so far down the list it's almost a distraction. 

 
NM11046 said:
It's a good question - I've been in the car all day and this has come up.  Experts say that they feel it's a wink to congress that while there was not evidence of collusion with Russia in the election there are things that need to be dealt with at their level.  So that could be behaviors that are questionable or illegal, but did not fall clearly into the collusion investigation.  It would have to be clear evidence to either convince or exonerate - the verbiage is suggestive that there is more to look into.

Would love to see the content of the report and not just Barr's interpretation, it may explain this point in particular more clearly.
Click to expand...


The other thing we have to keep in mind is the  NY Southern District investigations.   Trump is not out of danger here.  Mueller's report very well could have been a wink and nod at Congress to dig deeper as Mueller's hands were tied as to the scope of the investigation.  Congress is not tied and neither is the NYSD. 

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
Notre Dame Joe was nice enough to respond, but I'm wondering whether you or Dewiz think that by merely swapping the name Hillary for Donald makes the same charges and scenario sound more investigation-worthy:

All 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agree that Russia sought to influence the U.S. election by undermining Donald Trump, the speculation that Vladimir Putin preferred Hillary Clinton as President. The Obama White House learns about this before the election, but doesn't go public. Donald Trump wins the popular vote but Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency through the electoral college. She immediately undermines the entire U.S. intelligence community for casting doubt on her legitimacy, even as they are turning up incontrovertible evidence that Clinton's campaign manager and other associates were representing Russian interests illegally, while Chelsea Clinton was getting a taste of the family business by opening "Clinton Towers" in Azerbaijan, providing cover for a money-launder operation by a corrupt family of former Soviets.  Hillary Clinton stands before the world and says she believes Vladimir Putin over her own intelligence agencies. She proceeds to attack NATO, fulfilling one of Putin's greatest dreams. Just for fun, Hillary also tells the world she has "fallen in love" with Kim Jung Un, a really great guy who said nice things about her, as she ignores the sanction recommendations of her own administration. That she illegally paid $130,000 in hush money from her campaign to silence one of her multiple lesbian prostitutes is so far down the list it's almost a distraction. 
Click to expand...
That's cute.  Not biting on this one!  First it's not even close to an apple to apple comparison.  More like big red juicy apple=Trump and sour cabbage=Clinton

 
Back
Top