Clinton & Trump are criminals and should be in jail. /sarcasm

[Deleted member 2897]

I don't know if the dear leader has done something legally actionable or not but I do know that when the investigation is completed there shouldn't being any lingering questions. The staff Mueller has put together is among the best Democrat boosters and bundlers in the DOJ/FBI. If there is evidence of criminal actions then the indictments will be handed down, if not then no indictments. Unlike the Congressional quasi lynchings we've seen Mueller is not trying the case in the media. So however is comes to pass I have no axe to grind unlike some folks

FTFY (over half of the lawyers he has hired are big Democrat donors)

 

[OldJacketFan]

FTFY (over half of the lawyers he has hired are big Democrat donors)

I'm sorry but this is kind of thing that tend to inhibit unemotional conversation. All of the DOJ/FBI employees have the right to vote for whoever they choose. They also have professional code of ethics/conducts that I would think they would take with the utmost seriousness. So if is HALF then the other HALF are Republican boosters and bundlers ????????

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

(1) Foreign surveillance is not the same as Trump tower.
(2) Everyone who is in a position to know says that Trump himself was not under investigation.

I understand that it is difficult to keep all the facts straight. The good news is that we will know in, my guess, about two years what this was all about. That is much, much faster than the Watergate investigation.

1)Foreign surveillance..... It's been confirmed that a Trump server was surveiled under a FISA warrant. https://www.google.com/amp/amp.time.../04/trump-wiretapping-fbi-warrent/?source=dam
by the FBI....the same FBI that apparently uses the bogus Trump dossier as grounds for that FISA warrant...the same FBI whose director apparently drafted the, no charges forthcoming memo before the investigation even got off the ground.

2) Trump may not have been under surveillance himself but his server was. The grounds for that surveillance are now highly suspect to say the least. So what was the motive for this surveillance? To keep our country safe or find political dirt? Do you not see the potential danger here?

The facts that the unmasking occurred. Obama signed an executive order, in his final hours in office, to make that surveillance intel and unmasking widely disseminated and thus easier to leak. Then the leak occurred. If you can't connect the dots on this there is no hope for you. You are blindly biased imo. But there are many like you. Maybe a majority....like the majority of climate scientists.....

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I'm sorry but this is kind of thing that tend to inhibit unemotional conversation. All of the DOJ/FBI employees have the right to vote for whoever they choose. They also have professional code of ethics/conducts that I would think they would take with the utmost seriousness. So if is HALF then the other HALF are Republican boosters and bundlers ????????

He said over half and it's way over half. Does that mean these investigators are corrupt? Biased and motivated to conclude a preconceived notion for political ends? No. Not definitively. But the prior problems I listed in my above post above give good cause for concern here. To a naked eye the makeup of the investigative team appears slanted toward a particular political slant. That does not foster trust.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I'm sorry but this is kind of thing that tend to inhibit unemotional conversation. All of the DOJ/FBI employees have the right to vote for whoever they choose. They also have professional code of ethics/conducts that I would think they would take with the utmost seriousness. So if is HALF then the other HALF are Republican boosters and bundlers ????????

You're assuming that 100% of these guys are heavy political donators. In fact, zero of them should be. Why in the world can we not find someone who gives the maximum amount to the political opponent of the guy you're investigating?

 

[OldJacketFan]

You're assuming that 100% of these guys are heavy political donators. In fact, zero of them should be. Why in the world can we not find someone who gives the maximum amount to the political opponent of the guy you're investigating?

I'm not assuming anything. In fact I couldn't care less who gave what to whom. If they are highly skilled professionals, and from what I've read they are, then they will do what they have been charged to. To wit; investigate the allegations and proceed where the evidence leads to regardless of who is involved. All of these individuals are highly professional, highly skilled at what they do based upon their demonstrated years of work with their respective departments. As I said earlier however it turns out I am fine with it, are you?

 

[OldJacketFan]

He said over half and it's way over half. Does that mean these investigators are corrupt? Biased and motivated to conclude a preconceived notion for political ends? No. Not definitively. But the prior problems I listed in my above post above give good cause for concern here. To a naked eye the makeup of the investigative team appears slanted toward a particular political slant. That does not foster trust.

Please see my reply to @bwelbo. Are you good with the results of the investigation regardless of the end result?

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I'm not assuming anything. In fact I couldn't care less who gave what to whom. If they are highly skilled professionals, and from what I've read they are, then they will do what they have been charged to. To wit; investigate the allegations and proceed where the evidence leads to regardless of who is involved. All of these individuals are highly professional, highly skilled at what they do based upon their demonstrated years of work with their respective departments. As I said earlier however it turns out I am fine with it, are you?

I can't pre-judge an investigation. What if the result is they never find anything, but they charge him with obstructing justice. No I would t be fine with something like that. If something is Fake News you shouldn't be charged with trying to stop Fake News. Whatever the theoretical is, it's all theoretical at this point.

There won't be anything. They've had 18 months and found nothing. If the CIA and FBI can't find anything, Robert Mueller won't either.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

1)Foreign surveillance..... It's been confirmed that a Trump server was surveiled under a FISA warrant. https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2017/03/04/trump-wiretapping-fbi-warrent/?source=dam
by the FBI....the same FBI that apparently uses the bogus Trump dossier as grounds for that FISA warrant...the same FBI whose director apparently drafted the, no charges forthcoming memo before the investigation even got off the ground.

2) Trump may not have been under surveillance himself but his server was. The grounds for that surveillance are now highly suspect to say the least. So what was the motive for this surveillance? To keep our country safe or find political dirt? Do you not see the potential danger here?

The facts that the unmasking occurred. Obama signed an executive order, in his final hours in office, to make that surveillance intel and unmasking widely disseminated and thus easier to leak. Then the leak occurred. If you can't connect the dots on this there is no hope for you. You are blindly biased imo. But there are many like you. Maybe a majority....like the majority of climate scientists.....

O.K., take a deep breath. This is all going to be o.k. in the end. God told me so.

Let's make a few distinctions. Is Trump under investigation? Oh, most definitely. The trigger for this was apparent obstruction of justice. I believe it is plainly obvious that he has been engaging in this but it does not matter what I believe. An independent investigator will make a determination on this. We will find out with time.

Did Obama wiretap Trump tower? Well, let me put it this way. If he did then every government institution in this country is involved in the coverup, a conspiracy so big that it rivals the conspiracy that 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush administration. No. I do not believe in conspiracies of that magnitude. 17 government agencies have said it did not happen.

Did the FBI monitor activity between Trump Tower and Russia? First let me offer this disclaimer. I tried to follow your link and it did not work. When I pasted it into my browser it did not go to a specific link. So, let me answer from my own memory. The F.B.I. was concerned that there were thousands of internet "pings" going on between Russia and a site in this country. They investigated, as well they should, and as I would absolutely want them to do. They found that a Trump server was communicating with a server in Russia. It turned out that it was spam, primarily advertising originating, if I recall correctly, out of Philadelphia. No harm, no foul. These were not Trump conversations and no one was exposed. They were monitoring a server, not Trump.

On your last point we may have to agree to disagree. Unmasking is governed by very specific laws and is a legitimate course of action when our security is at risk. Unless you have been hiding under a rock, you know that Russia hacked our election process. They bought thousands of ads on Facebook that planted fake news stories about Hillary Clinton, they redirected chat rooms to Russian sources who guided conversations to slam Clinton, they put thousands of bots on social media, they planted fake news stories, they targeted key precincts across the country by infiltrating social media and they hacked the voting records of as many as 39 states and possibly even some voting machines. The surveillance was related to this. All of this is public record and not in dispute. What is confusing to some Trump supporters is that this info was picked up, not at Trump tower, but in international traffic that is routinely monitored by the NSA.

O.K., so what was the surveillance about? Turns out that some Trump associates were communicating with Russia going back over two years ago. Perhaps these were innocent business deals. I doubt that but even if they were it was good, proper and fitting for our intelligence to be involved because the Russians in question were Russian intelligence agents with direct ties to Putin. This is the meat of the stuff under investigation, the stuff of which there have been leaks and the stuff where there was unmasking. Trump, for some unknown reason, continues to maintain that no one in his organization has ever had any dealings with Russia. Even though he is prone to hyperbole, this is flat out incorrect.

Funny that some want to discredit the dossier. It would be very easy to prove whether the information in that dossier is bogus or not but the people who have charge of it, committees controlled by Republicans who want to protect Trump, refuse to open the dossier up for public hearings. Too bad. That only increases the paranoia and division in this country. A little sunlight on this would go a long way to clearing things up.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

O.K., take a deep breath. This is all going to be o.k. in the end. God told me so.

Let's make a few distinctions. Is Trump under investigation? Oh, most definitely. The trigger for this was apparent obstruction of justice. I believe it is plainly obvious that he has been engaging in this but it does not matter what I believe. An independent investigator will make a determination on this. We will find out with time.

Did Obama wiretap Trump tower? Well, let me put it this way. If he did then every government institution in this country is involved in the coverup, a conspiracy so big that it rivals the conspiracy that 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush administration. No. I do not believe in conspiracies of that magnitude. 17 government agencies have said it did not happen.

Did the FBI monitor activity between Trump Tower and Russia? First let me offer this disclaimer. I tried to follow your link and it did not work. When I pasted it into my browser it did not go to a specific link. So, let me answer from my own memory. The F.B.I. was concerned that there were thousands of internet "pings" going on between Russia and a site in this country. They investigated, as well they should, and as I would absolutely want them to do. They found that a Trump server was communicating with a server in Russia. It turned out that it was spam, primarily advertising originating, if I recall correctly, out of Philadelphia. No harm, no foul. These were not Trump conversations and no one was exposed. They were monitoring a server, not Trump.

On your last point we may have to agree to disagree. Unmasking is governed by very specific laws and is a legitimate course of action when our security is at risk. Unless you have been hiding under a rock, you know that Russia hacked our election process. They bought thousands of ads on Facebook that planted fake news stories about Hillary Clinton, they redirected chat rooms to Russian sources who guided conversations to slam Clinton, they put thousands of bots on social media, they planted fake news stories, they targeted key precincts across the country by infiltrating social media and they hacked the voting records of as many as 39 states and possibly even some voting machines. The surveillance was related to this. All of this is public record and not in dispute. What is confusing to some Trump supporters is that this info was picked up, not at Trump tower, but in international traffic that is routinely monitored by the NSA.

O.K., so what was the surveillance about? Turns out that some Trump associates were communicating with Russia going back over two years ago. Perhaps these were innocent business deals. I doubt that but even if they were it was good, proper and fitting for our intelligence to be involved because the Russians in question were Russian intelligence agents with direct ties to Putin. This is the meat of the stuff under investigation, the stuff of which there have been leaks and the stuff where there was unmasking. Trump, for some unknown reason, continues to maintain that no one in his organization has ever had any dealings with Russia. Even though he is prone to hyperbole, this is flat out incorrect.

Funny that some want to discredit the dossier. It would be very easy to prove whether the information in that dossier is bogus or not but the people who have charge of it, committees controlled by Republicans who want to protect Trump, refuse to open the dossier up for public hearings. Too bad. That only increases the paranoia and division in this country. A little sunlight on this would go a long way to clearing things up.

Too long and full of Fake News. Did not read it all. So now he's under investigation, he's not, and he is within 5 comments.

There is no government wide conspiracy - they already admitted it. You can't unmask something if there is nothing to unmask.

And so on. Stopped reading after the first 2 paragraphs were completely wrong.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I can't pre-judge an investigation. What if the result is they never find anything, but they charge him with obstructing justice. No I would t be fine with something like that. If something is Fake News you shouldn't be charged with trying to stop Fake News. Whatever the theoretical is, it's all theoretical at this point.

There won't be anything. They've had 18 months and found nothing. If the CIA and FBI can't find anything, Robert Mueller won't either.

History might be instructive at this point. The Watergate investigation took four years. This investigation is in its infancy at this point. With regard to Watergate, some have said that Nixon made serious tactical errors in his handling of the scandal. First, he took the investigation personally and began to orchestrate all White House activity around the scandal. Second, he engaged in obstruction. I am not sure I agree, but some say that Nixon would not have been found guilty of anything had he not engaged in obstruction. So, all that is to say, if Trump is guilty of nothing more than obstruction he is still guilty. It is a crime whether he likes it or not. He also would do well not to obsess, the way he seems too, about "fake news." As John Dean famously said, "The truth will out." In my experience, sooner or later, it does.

This is a nation of laws, not personalities. That has been a steep learning curve for this President but I continue to hope he will learn.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Too long and full of Fake News. Did not read it all. So now he's under investigation, he's not, and he is within 5 comments.

There is no government wide conspiracy - they already admitted it. You can't unmask something if there is nothing to unmask.

And so on. Stopped reading after the first 2 paragraphs were completely wrong.

You need to learn what fake news is. It is not everything you disagree with regardless of the facts.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Please see my reply to @bwelbo. Are you good with the results of the investigation regardless of the end result?

When I already have stated my concern that there appears to be heavy political bias in the makeup of the investigative team. No. I'm pretty worried before they announce didly. So I will preserve my judgment upon seeing the facts and investigative procedures utilized.

 

[AE 87]

I'm not assuming anything. In fact I couldn't care less who gave what to whom. If they are highly skilled professionals, and from what I've read they are, then they will do what they have been charged to. To wit; investigate the allegations and proceed where the evidence leads to regardless of who is involved. All of these individuals are highly professional, highly skilled at what they do based upon their demonstrated years of work with their respective departments. As I said earlier however it turns out I am fine with it, are you?

His point is that if well over half are big donors to Clinton and Obama, it does not follow that the remainders are Republicans or donors to Republicans. You said, "So if is HALF then the other HALF are Republican boosters and bundlers ????????" Even in the form of a question, its logic does assume that 100% are boosters or bundlers.

From what I have heard, none of the lawyers hired have contributed to Republican candidates. One of the lawyers actually represented the Clinton Foundation.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

You need to learn what fake news is. It is not everything you disagree with regardless of the facts.

That is not at all what I said.

Stop.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

History might be instructive at this point. The Watergate investigation took four years. This investigation is in its infancy at this point. With regard to Watergate, some have said that Nixon made serious tactical errors in his handling of the scandal. First, he took the investigation personally and began to orchestrate all White House activity around the scandal. Second, he engaged in obstruction. I am not sure I agree, but some say that Nixon would not have been found guilty of anything had he not engaged in obstruction. So, all that is to say, if Trump is guilty of nothing more than obstruction he is still guilty. It is a crime whether he likes it or not. He also would do well not to obsess, the way he seems too, about "fake news." As John Dean famously said, "The truth will out." In my experience, sooner or later, it does.

This is a nation of laws, not personalities. That has been a steep learning curve for this President but I continue to hope he will learn.

That you are comparing this to Watergate is a joke. Nixon knew crimes had been committed. They had 8 track tapes and not email and phone surveillance like we have today. Comparing investigation times is hilariously pitiful. If there is no crime and someone walks around everywhere trying to get you to stop chasing fake news, that's not a crime.

Stop colluding with the Russians.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

@Northeast Stinger

The link above works for me when I click on it. A google archived fortune mag article. I'll try again.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.time.../04/trump-wiretapping-fbi-warrent/?source=dam

As for your response....I will have to take a breath to attempt to answer that fairly long winded diatribe. It is probably gonna take more time than it's worth but you seem a bit confused on the facts and hypocritical on your adherence to law so I'll hit some highlights.

O.K., take a deep breath. This is all going to be o.k. in the end. God told me so.

Let's make a few distinctions. Is Trump under investigation? Oh, most definitely. The trigger for this was apparent obstruction of justice.

You quote me but I think you are responding to beelbo here. The FISA warrant came long before Comey was fired, the alleged obstruction which is a laughable allegation.

I believe it is plainly obvious that he has been engaging in this but it does not matter what I believe. An independent investigator will make a determination on this. We will find out with time.

There is some fair concern the independent investigators are pre-biased.

Did Obama wiretap Trump tower? Well, let me put it this way. If he did then every government institution in this country is involved in the coverup, a conspiracy so big that it rivals the conspiracy that 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush administration. No. I do not believe in conspiracies of that magnitude. 17 government agencies have said it did not happen.

This is a ridiculous contention. No one is alleging the entire government or 17, only a few of the 17 weee intel agencies btw, are involved here. All you need is a very few # of people, possibly as few as a one, properly positioned to receive the dissiminated intel in order to leak it anonymously. The fact that Obama's executive order dispersed this intel to 17 govt agencies makes it fairly impossible to ever identify any individuals involved in the unmasking. Barring media uncovering the anonymous leakers, which will never happen.

Now I ask you to answer this question. If you can't or won't provide a reasonable explanation then there is nothing to debate further as you are excusing corruption for political gain. --What legitimate purpose did Obama have in disseminating this intel to all of these 17 agencies???

Did the FBI monitor activity between Trump Tower and Russia? First let me offer this disclaimer. I tried to follow your link and it did not work. When I pasted it into my browser it did not go to a specific link. So, let me answer from my own memory. The F.B.I. was concerned that there were thousands of internet "pings" going on between Russia and a site in this country. They investigated, as well they should, and as I would absolutely want them to do. They found that a Trump server was communicating with a server in Russia. It turned out that it was spam, primarily advertising originating, if I recall correctly, out of Philadelphia. No harm, no foul. These were not Trump conversations and no one was exposed. They were monitoring a server, not Trump.

No. The FBI utilized the bogus fusion dossier info to garner the FISA warrant. Maybe they threw the pings you reference in to boot but the dossier was the big factor.

On your last point we may have to agree to disagree. Unmasking is governed by very specific laws and is a legitimate course of action when our security is at risk.

It sure is not legal to unmask without cause and no good cause has yet been shown. Add in the organized leak / smear campaign and it's extremely illegal.

Unless you have been hiding under a rock, you know that Russia hacked our election process. They bought thousands of ads on Facebook that planted fake news stories about Hillary Clinton, they redirected chat rooms to Russian sources who guided conversations to slam Clinton, they put thousands of bots on social media, they planted fake news stories, they targeted key precincts across the country by infiltrating social media and they hacked the voting records of as many as 39 states and possibly even some voting machines. The surveillance was related to this. All of this is public record and not in dispute. What is confusing to some Trump supporters is that this info was picked up, not at Trump tower, but in international traffic that is routinely monitored by the NSA.

No it's not a hack of the election. It would be propoganda. Something they have a history of doing preparing Trump. Far less severe than some instances of US interference in foreign election. Oh yeah...your guy Obama said it wasn't possible for the Ruskies to hack the election....before he claimed they did once his girl lost.


O.K., so what was the surveillance about? Turns out that some Trump associates were communicating with Russia going back over two years ago. Perhaps these were innocent business deals. I doubt that but even if they were it was good, proper and fitting for our intelligence to be involved because the Russians in question were Russian intelligence agents with direct ties to Putin. This is the meat of the stuff under investigation, the stuff of which there have been leaks and the stuff where there was unmasking. Trump, for some unknown reason, continues to maintain that no one in his organization has ever had any dealings with Russia. Even though he is prone to hyperbole, this is flat out incorrect.

I admit I can't follow all of the Trumpsters hyperboles. I believe he said he did not have any personal dealings on Russia. As for his staff what he denied was collision with the Russian government interfering in the election.

Funny that some want to discredit the dossier. It would be very easy to prove whether the information in that dossier is bogus or not but the people who have charge of it, committees controlled by Republicans who want to protect Trump, refuse to open the dossier up for public hearings. Too bad. That only increases the paranoia and division in this country. A little sunlight on this would go a long way to clearing things up.

I have heard it's actually the Dems on the committee blocking the release of info. I also previously posted examples of fusion resisting Congressional subpoenas and providing blank pages of paper in response to info requests from the committee.

The dossier has been widely and roundly condemned as false. Please provide proof otherwise. Maybe Trump DNA from urine stained sheets. Smh

This was a long rebuttal so let me conclude with my prior request. I ask you to answer this question. If you can't or won't provide a reasonable explanation then there is nothing to debate further as you are excusing corruption for political gain. --What legitimate purpose did Obama have in disseminating this intel to all of these 17 agencies???

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I rushed that prior post and didn't edit errors; so I apologize for some typos and dang autocorrections.

For instance..."preparing Trump" should have read..."predating Trump."

I think y'all can get my points even with errors present however.

 

[AE 87]

That you are comparing this to Watergate is a joke. Nixon knew crimes had been committed. They had 8 track tapes and not email and phone surveillance like we have today. Comparing investigation times is hilariously pitiful. If there is no crime and someone walks around everywhere trying to get you to stop chasing fake news, that's not a crime.

Stop colluding with the Russians.

Let's be real here. Comparison to Watergate displays ignorance of history. The Watergate burglars were caught in the act.

There was concrete evidence of a connection between burglars and White House.

There was testimonial evidence to the same. Some self-incriminating written to congress.

White House people start resigning and lying (not nec in that order).

In other words, there was a concrete, explict crime. There were multiple explicit evidentiary connections between crime and White House. All of this was present before special prosecutor or hearings.

Connecting this with Trump on the basis of time alone betrays either extreme ignorance or sophistry, imo.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I rushed that prior post and didn't edit errors; so I apologize for some typos and dang autocorrections.

For instance..."preparing Trump" should have read..."predating Trump."

I think y'all can get my points even with errors present however.

I don't count off for style points.