|
Post by jld54 on May 10, 2019 8:07:13 GMT -5
The repercussions are all political, but the factual findings are not. We can argue (and do!) about the repercussions, but there really should be no dispute as to the facts at this point. ....Russia tried to influence our election to the benefit of Trump. ....Senior members of the Trump campaign knew about this influence and welcomed it, but stopped short of tacitly or expressly agreeing to act in concert with Russia. They did act in concert with WikiLeaks. ....The President denied Russia's involvement over and over again. ....The President acted in myriad ways to discredit or outright stop the investigation into these activities. Is anything written above wrong? Can't we all agree it's incredibly troubling? It's as though Richard Nixon knew about the Watergate break-in and welcomed it but did not tacitly reach agreement with the perps. Everything else is pretty similar. Except the perps here are one of our historical foreign enemies!!!! Again, argue about what the ramifications should be and absolutely question the motives of Dems in the House. But to suggest they shouldn't investigate the "why" of this fact pattern (something Mueller did not do) just seems wrong to me. Frankly more than wrong. It seems outright unpatriotic. Before we move the goalposts, I have no issue at all with investigating whether investigators acted unethically or illegally or were politically motivated. That's important. And depending on the outcome, there should be ramifications. But it doesn't change any of the factual findings above, regardless. “Unpatriotic”? Do you mean using Clinton political opposition research obtained by a foreign national Steele from Russia to obtain a FISA warrant on a opposing campaign?
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 10, 2019 5:50:11 GMT -5
No criminal charges is all that matters from a prosecutorial investigation. The rest is political. I frankly couldn’t care less what term is used - this silly issue is simply another distraction from the bitter disappointment with the fact that Trump will not be perpwalked by Mueller. Again as a political matter the House can impeach, but will it do so? Again, and you know this as well because you've read it here if not in the MR, he was never going to be perp-walked by Mueller. That was never an option. Or a finding of criminal conspiracy with Russia leading to removal from office. That did not happen, hence the angst and anger.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 9, 2019 21:32:09 GMT -5
When the IG and AG finish their investigations all of the facts will be in. Until then I will reserve judgment. And what is it with the hair-splitting with the left - “exoneration” vs. “no charges”, “spying”, “surveillance”, or the funnier per the NYT —“ clearing investigator”. The substance is clear. No criminal charges against the President and and ongoing investigation into the — using the NYT euphemism - use of “cloaked investigators” on a political opponent. Exoneration v. no charges is not even close to being hair splitting. That's like calling black and gray hair splitting. I'm sure you're not stupid and understand this, so you must just be engaging in political claptrap. No criminal charges is all that matters from a prosecutorial investigation. The rest is political. I frankly couldn’t care less what term is used - this silly issue is simply another distraction from the bitter disappointment with the fact that Trump will not be perpwalked by Mueller. Again as a political matter the House can impeach, but will it do so?
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 9, 2019 10:19:43 GMT -5
I do not care to debate this issue from 30 -40 years ago, as I was only posting my views on the Mueller report/Obama administration use of “cloaked investigators/surveillors/ Not debate; just your thoughts... No thank you.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 8, 2019 19:30:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 8, 2019 19:23:32 GMT -5
I do not care to debate this issue from 30 -40 years ago, as I was only posting my views on the Mueller report/Obama administration use of “cloaked investigators/surveillors/ That makes sense. Does it, however, make you think that his more current tax returns should be released? The issue of the release of the current tax returns will be decided by the Courts. The case law provides that there must be a legitimate legislative purpose for the Congress to request tax returns. It is clear that there is all-out war between the House and executive branch on multiple fronts. The parties are so polarized that there is no will to compromise.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 8, 2019 18:30:08 GMT -5
I do not care to debate this issue from 30 -40 years ago, as I was only posting my views on the Mueller report/Obama administration use of “cloaked investigators/surveillors/
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 8, 2019 15:24:48 GMT -5
As stated recently by the only other non-Resistance poster on this Board:
"My point is the last two years has been nothing BUT conspiracy talk. Except one side seems to think their now-disproved conspiracy theory is still legitimate, to the point of mocking people who don't follow lockstep with what their media echo chamber tells them.
The IG report will lead to investigations that will lead to prosecutions.
Not sticking around to chat. Just wanted to put my stake in the ground on this topic - I'm looking forward to seeing YaBoy's reaction when all of the claims of illegal activity against the Trump campaign that he's spent two years dismissing and mocking turn out to be true.
I understand that it's easy to dislike Trump, but reality is still reality. See you later in the summer."
Over and out!
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 8, 2019 13:52:00 GMT -5
but, per DOJ rules, this was never going to end with criminal charges against the president. The win would have been closing off any possibilty of charges which the MR definitely did not do. Trump is protected temporarily by his office not by his innocence and the report seems to make that pretty clear. The AG determined that the crime of obstruction was not proven irrrespective of the OLC opinion. That marks the end of the criminal matter. It is a political matter from here on out. If the Democrats wish to impeach that is their right to do so. But will they?
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 8, 2019 12:10:51 GMT -5
When the IG and AG finish their investigations all of the facts will be in. Until then I will reserve judgment. And what is it with the hair-splitting with the left - “exoneration” vs. “no charges”, “spying”, “surveillance”, or the funnier per the NYT —“ clearing investigator”. The substance is clear. No criminal charges against the President and and ongoing investigation into the — using the NYT euphemism - use of “cloaked investigators” on a political opponent. It's not hair splitting. It was explicitly stated in the MR that the President was not exonerated. You choose to ignore that and use it as a synonym for something with which it is not synonymous. One can quibble all day with mere words but the bottom line is that as per DOJ rules the investigation ended with no criminal charges. Any defense lawyer would be thrilled with this outcome.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 8, 2019 11:30:56 GMT -5
So you haven't reached a conclusion, you're just bolding specific phrases for fun. A few posts up, he referred to Trump as "exonerated" so I admire the consistency. When the IG and AG finish their investigations all of the facts will be in. Until then I will reserve judgment. And what is it with the hair-splitting with the left - “exoneration” vs. “no charges”, “spying”, “surveillance”, or the funnier per the NYT —“ clearing investigator”. The substance is clear. No criminal charges against the President and and ongoing investigation into the — using the NYT euphemism - use of “cloaked investigators” on a political opponent.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 7, 2019 19:18:11 GMT -5
There is one person whose opinion counts, and that is the AG. The same person who admitted to not reading the report? Stay tuned. It's not over. If one googles Protect Democracy, one finds that it is a plaintiff in a suit against the President. And a quick review of the leaders show that they are almost all affiliated with left-leaning/ Democratic Party entities or persons, including the Obama Admin, Adam Schiff, and the ACLU. This is fine as a matter of free speech, of course, but this is promoted by a group with a political agenda. 650 signatures and counting? It's a bipartisan list. No one forced them to sign. Who cares who started it. So again, we are out of the legal arena now that the President has been exonerated, and into the political one. Again, he wasn't exonerated, but you know that. Stay tuned. P.S. I do not watch or follow Fox News. Hmmm... The investigation has been concluded with no criminal charges against the President and the AG found no criminal conduct irrespective of the OLC opinion. Again one can nit-pick about the term "exonerate" but the above outcome is the same. The IG and AG are now investigating the predicate for the surveillance/spying/"cloaked investigator" use, and we must await the outcome. All the rest is politics. Just as legal commentators on the left present their views, the same on the right express theirs. So a Protect Democracy petition is interesting but not controlling. One could post legal opinions for those like Andrew McCarthy but that is not more controlling than the opinions of left leaning pundits. So how about a cease fire on the ad hominem attacks ("Fox News watcher") and see what the IG and AG find, because the Mueller probe is over.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 7, 2019 18:01:58 GMT -5
So you haven't reached a conclusion, you're just bolding specific phrases for fun. The quotes show that Wray’s comments are not conclusive on the issue of potential improper conduct on the part of the Obama intelligence and law enforcement communities. I do not see how the above comments are “just for fun”. I have not made up my mind because I wish to form a judgment on the evidence that the IG and AG may have, and their conclusions. Until then we do not really know anything definitive.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 7, 2019 15:36:41 GMT -5
I plan to await the IG report and the whatever action may be taken by the AG before forming a conclusion. Until then we have an open issue. Whether a person uses the term "spy", "cloaked investigator", or some other term is not the issue. The issue is whether there is a proper predicate for such activity, as stated by the AG. The existence of a proper predicate -- or not -- is to be determined by the ongoing DOJ investigation. P.S. The full context of Wray's comments would not cause me to sleep easily if I were part of the Obama intelligence community: “Thank you,” said [Jeanne] Shaheen. “Do you believe, Director Wray, that the FBI and its agents spied into the 2016 presidential campaign operation?” “Well again, I want to be careful how I answer that question here, because there is an ongoing Inspector General investigation,” said Wray. “ I have my own thoughts based on the limited information I’ve seen so far, but I don’t think it would be right or appropriate for me to share those at this stage, because I really do think it’s important for everybody to respect the independent Inspector General’s investigation, which I think this question start — this line of questioning starts to implicate, and I think it’s very important for everybody to have full confidence in his review.” When Shaheen followed up by asking him if he had evidence of illegal surveillance, he responded with “I don’t think I personally have any evidence of that sort.”
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 7, 2019 12:19:34 GMT -5
FBI Director Chris Wray this morning on “spying” on Trump camp. “Well that’s not the term I would use. Lots of people have different colloquial phrases. I believe that the FBI is engaged in investigative activity and part of investigative activity includes surveillance” And he got very specific, saying that the warrants issued were justified as part of the counterintelligence investigation. "AG is seeking to understand better the circumstances at the department and the FBI relating to how this investigation started. And we're working to help him get that understanding. I think that's part of his job and part of my mine." We are still debating the term “spy”? How about we use the NYT euphemism of “cloaked investigator”?
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 7, 2019 7:36:41 GMT -5
Happy to see that non-partisan “former prosecutors” like Danang Dick Blumenthal and Trump primary challenger Bill Weld signed on and that objective observer Adam Schiff tweets his support. Once again this proves that the entire Mueller affair was a political operation from start to finish. Yawn... And the others? Should we look away? Is that what Fox News is instructing you this morning? There is one person whose opinion counts, and that is the AG. Political spin in the Washington Post does not change these facts. If one googles Protect Democracy, one finds that it is a plaintiff in a suit against the President. And a quick review of the leaders show that they are almost all affiliated with left-leaning/ Democratic Party entities or persons, including the Obama Admin, Adam Schiff, and the ACLU. This is fine as a matter of free speech, of course, but this is promoted by a group with a political agenda. So again, we are out of the legal arena now that the President has been exonerated, and into the political one. P.S. I do not watch or follow Fox News.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 7, 2019 6:22:10 GMT -5
Happy to see that non-partisan “former prosecutors” like Danang Dick Blumenthal and Trump primary challenger Bill Weld signed on and that objective observer Adam Schiff tweets his support. Once again this proves that the entire Mueller affair was a political operation from start to finish. Yawn...
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 6, 2019 16:57:18 GMT -5
Not sure. But Mueller found no crimes and you know he was ready willing and able to do so. This incident has been litigated in the media for 2 years and the investigation is over with no criminal charges. I am ready to move on as are I suspect the vast majority of the America people have as well. I was hoping you'd say because they knew taking the meeting was the wrong thing to do or because they felt foolish about being played but no such luck... Actually you raise a good point. I think that they realized after the fact that they were played. I do not think Don Jr. is very swift. Dopey, but not crooked. The suggestion of being played raises the issue of why Simpson of Fusion GPS met with the Russian attorney before and after the infamous meeting. Was this set up in coordination of the spy operation — or “cloaked investigator” operation, if you object to the term “spy” — that the Obama Administration was running n the Trump campaign? P.S.: Re: the New York Times new term for a spy, are you old enough to remember Mad Magazine? www.google.com/search?q=cloaked+investigator&client=safari&prmd=insv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZwrDW84fiAhUGqlkKHUAlDVEQ_AUoAXoECAwQAQ&biw=1024&bih=671#imgrc=jzwi1AcnKlyBkM
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 6, 2019 12:45:57 GMT -5
Mueller found no crime. The Russian pulled a bait and switch and talked about adoptions. I think the meeting was a set up by Fusion and the dopey son took the bait. But as they say, no harm no foul... The meeting was set up by Rod Goldstein on behalf of . There are emails back and forth between him and Don Jr. I mean here's an article in the Washington Post written by him saying he set up the meeting www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-set-up-the-trump-tower-meeting-i-had-no-idea-what-it-would-come-to-mean/2019/03/28/5b727ea2-517a-11e9-8d28-f5149e5a2fda_story.html?utm_Mueller found a crime. Again this is from the Mueller report. He said the reason he didn't charge Don Jr is because it would be hard to prove the men violated the law “willfully” or that the assistance they were hoping for was a “thing of value,” both of which are requirements for conviction. There's a difference finding "no crime" and believing you can't prove the necessary requirements from a conviction. I'm going to ask one more time. I've answered all of your questions in good faith, can you answer mine? When is it ok to meet with and adversarial government to obtain dirt on your political opponent, and then subsequently lie to cover it up and conceal the purpose of the meeting? Is that action something law enforcement should look into? Is that something a campaign should be engaged in? I'm legit curious to hear your opinion on this as a Conservative. If you are asserting that Mueller found a crime that is patently false. I do not intend to get into a back and forth with you — my initial question merely sought clarification on your initial post and I am now being interrogated. No dice.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 6, 2019 12:37:20 GMT -5
Mueller found no crime. The Russian pulled a bait and switch and talked about adoptions. I think the meeting was a set up by Fusion and the dopey son took the bait. But as they say, no harm no foul... So why did the Trump campaign lie about the meeting in your opinion? Not sure. But Mueller found no crimes and you know he was ready willing and able to do so. This incident has been litigated in the media for 2 years and the investigation is over with no criminal charges. I am ready to move on as are I suspect the vast majority of the America people have as well.
|
|