Jump to content
Paulding.com
Sign in to follow this  
CitizenCain

Trump says water tankers need to be used on Notre Dame Fire

Recommended Posts

What evidence do you have to support your allegation he ordered his people to do anything illegal?

What grounds are there to impeach him?

There are over 400 pages with thousands of pages of supporting evidence in the Mueller Report.

 

Here is one:

 

 

I. The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel

Overview

In late January 2018, the media reported that in June 2017 the President had ordered McGahn to have the Special Counsel fired based on purported conflicts of interest but McGahn had refused, saying he would quit instead. After the story broke, the President, through his personal counsel and two aides, sought to have McGahn deny that he had been directed to remove the Special Counsel. Each time he was approached, McGahn responded that he would not refute the press accounts because they were accurate in reporting on the President's effort to have the Special Counsel removed. The President later personally met with McGahn in the Oval Office with only the Chief of Staff present and tried to get McGahn to say that the President never ordered him to fire the Special Counsel. McGahn refused and insisted his memory of the President' s direction to remove the Special Counsel was accurate. In that same meeting , the President challenged McGahn for taking notes of his discussions with the President and asked why he had told Special Counsel investigators that he had been directed to have the Special Counsel removed.

Evidence

I. The Press Reports that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel

On January 25, 2018, the New York Times reported that in June 2017, the President had ordered McGahn to have the Department of Justice fire the Specia l Co unsel.777 According to the article, "[a]mid the first wave of news media reports that Mr. Mueller was examining a possible obstruction case, the president began to argue that Mr. Mueller had three conflicts of interest that disqualified him from overseeing the investigation."778 The article further reported that "[a]fter receiving the president's order to fire Mr. Mueller, the White House counsel . . . refused to ask the Justice Department to dismiss the special co un sel, saying he would quit inste ad."779 The article stated that the president "ultimately backed down after the White House counsel threatened to resign rather than carry out the directive." 780 After the article was published, the President dismissed the story when asked about it by reporters, saying, "Fake news, folks. Fake news. A typical New York Times fake story."781

The next day, the Washington Post reported on the same event but added that McGahn had not told the President directly that he intended to resign rather than carry out the directive to have the Special Counsel terminated.782 In that respect , the Post story clarified the Times story, which could be read to suggest that McGahn had told the President of his intention to quit, causing the President to back down from the order to have the Special Counsel fired.783

 

2. The President Seeks to Have McGahn Dispute the Press Reports

On January 26, 2018, the President's personal counsel called McGahn 's attorney and said that the President wanted McGahn to put out a statement denying that he had been asked to tire the Special Counsel and that he had threatened to quit in protest.784 McGahn's attorney spoke with McGahn about that request and then called the President's personal counsel to relay that McGahn would not make a statement.785 McGahn 's attorney informed the President's personal counsel that the Times story was accurate in reporting that the President wanted the Special Counsel removed.786 Accordingly, McGahn's attorney said, although the article was inaccurate in some other respects, McGahn could not comply with the President ' s request to dispute the story.787 Hicks recalled relaying to the President that one of his attorneys had spoken to McGahn ' s attorney about the issue.

 

Also on January 26, 2017, Hicks recalled that the President asked Sanders to contact McGahn about the story.789 McGahn told Sanders there was no need to respond and indicated that some of the article was accurate.79° Consistent with that position, McGahn did not correct the Times story.

On February 4, 20 l 8, Priebus appeared on Meet the Press and said he had not heard the President say that he wanted the Special Counsel fired.791 After Priebus's appearance, the President called Priebus and said he did a great job on Meet the Press.792 The President also told Priebus that the President had " never said any of those things about" the Special Counse l.793

The next day, on February 5, 2018, the President complained about the Times article to Porter.794 The President told Porter that the article was "bullcheeze" and he had not sought to terminate the Special Counsel.795 The President said that McGahn leaked to the media to make himselflook good.796 The President then directed Porter to tell McGahn to create a record to make clear that the President never directed McGahn to fire the Special Counsel.797 Porter thought the matter should be handled by the White House communications office, but the President said he wanted McGahn to write a letter to the file "for our records" and wanted something beyond a press statement to demonstrate that the reporting was inaccurate.798 The President referred to McGahn as a "lying bastard" and said that he wanted a record from him.799 Porter recalled the President saying something to the effect of, "If he doesn't write a letter, then maybe I'll have to get rid of him." also.

Later that day, Porter spoke to McGahn to deliver the President's message .801 Porter told McGahn that he had to write a letter to dispute that he was ever ordered to terminate the Special Counsel.802 McGahn shrugged off the request, explaining that the media reports were true.803 McGahn told Porter that the President had been insistent on firing the Special Counsel and that McGahn had planned to resign rather than carry out the order, although he had not personally told the President he intended to quit. 804 Porter told McGahn that the President suggested that McGahn would be fired ifhe did not write the letter. 805 McGahn dismissed the threat, saying that the optics would be terrible if the President followed through with firing him on that basis.806 McGahn said he would not write the letter the President had requested.807 Porter said that to his knowledge the issue ofMcGahn's letter never came up with the President again, but Porter did recall telling Kelly about his conversation with McGa hn.

The next day, on February 6, 2018, Kelly scheduled time for McGahn to meet with him and the President in the Oval Office to discuss the Times article.809 The morning of the meeting , the President's personal counsel called ,McGahn's attorney and said that the President was going to be speaking with McGahn and McGahn could not resign no matter what happened in the meeting.

The President began the Oval Office meeting by telling McGahn that the New York Times story did not " look good" and McGahn needed to correct it.811 McGahn recalled the President said, "I never said to fire Mueller. I never said ' fire.' This story doesn't look good. You need to correct this. You're the White House counsel."

 

In response, McGahn acknowledged that he had not told the President directly that he planned to resign, but said that the story was otherwise acc urate.813 The President asked McGahn, · "Did I say the word ' fire' ?"814 McGahn responded, " What you said is, ' Ca ll Rod [Rosenstein] , tell Rod that Mueller has conflicts and can't be the Special Counsel." '

 

The President responded, "I never said that."816 The President said he merely wanted McGahn to raise the conflicts issue with Rosenstein and leave it to him to decide what to do.817 McGahn told the President he did not understand the conversation that way and instead had heard, " Call Rod. There are conflicts. Mueller has to go."818 The President asked McGahn whether he would "do a correction," and McGahn said no.

 

McGahn thought the President was testing his mettle to see how committed McGahn was to what happened. 82° Kelly described the meeting as " a little tense."

The President also asked McGahn in the meeting why he had told Special Counsel' s Office investigators that the President had told him to have the Special Counsel removed. 822 McGahn responded that he had to and that his conversations with the President were not protected by attorney-client privilege.

 

The President then asked, "What -about these notes? Why do you take notes? Lawyers don' t take notes. I never had a lawyer who took notes." 824 McGahn responded that he keeps notes because he is a " real lawyer" and explained that notes create a record and are not a bad thing.

 

The President said, " I' ve had a lot of great lawyers, like Roy Cohn. He did not take notes. "

After the Oval Office meeting concluded, Kelly recalled McGahn telling him that McGahn and the President " did have that conversation" about removing the Special Counsel.

 

McGahn recalled that Kelly said that he had pointed out to the President after the Oval Office that McGahn In analyzing the President' s efforts to have McGahn deny that he had been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed, the following evidence is relevant to the elements of obstruction of justice:

 

a. Obstructive act.

 

The President's repeated efforts to get McGahn to create a record denying that the President had directed him to remove the Special Counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness ifhe testified consistently with his memory, rather than with what the record said.

There is some evidence that at the time the New York Times and Washington Post stories were published in late January 2018, the President believed the stories were wrong and that he had never told McGahn to have Rosenstein remove the Special Counsel. The President correctly understood that McGahn had not told the President directly that he planned to resign. Tn ad dition , the President told Priebus and Porter that he had not sought to terminate the Special Counsel , and in the Oval Office meeting with McGahn, the President said , "I never said to fire Mueller. T never said 'fire."' That evidence could indicate that the President was not attempting to persuade McGahn to change his story but was instead offering his own-but different-recollection of the substance of his June 2017 conversations with McGahn and McGahn ' s reaction to them.

Other evidence cuts against that understanding of the President ' s conduct. As previously described, see Volume IT, Section ILE, supra, substantial evidence supports McGahn's account that the President had directed him to have the Special Counsel removed, including the timing and context of the President's direct ive ; the manner in which McGahn reacted; and the fact that the President had been told the conflicts were insubstantial, were being considered by the Department of Justice, and should be raised with the President's personal counsel rather than brought to McGahn. In addition, the President's subsequent denials that he had told McGahn to have the Specia l Counsel removed were carefully worded. When first asked about the New York Times story, the President said, "Fake news, folks. Fake news. A typical New York Times fake story."

 

And when the President spoke with McGahn in the Oval Office, he focused on whether he had used the word "fi re," saying, "I never said to fire Mueller. I never said ' fire" ' and "Did T say the word ' fire ' ?" The President's assertion in the Oval Office meeting that he had never directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed thus runs counter to the evidence.

In addition, even if the President sincerely disagreed with McGahn's memory of the June 17, 2017 events, the evidence indicates that the President knew by the time of the Oval Office meeting that McGahn's account differed and that McGahn was firm in his views. Shortly after the story broke, the President's counsel told McGahn ' s counsel that the President wanted McGahn to make a statement denying he had been asked to fire the Special Counsel, but McGahn responded through his counsel that that aspect of the story was accurate and he therefore could not comply with the President's request.

 

The President then directed Sanders to tell McGahn to correct the story, but McGahn told her he would not do so because the story was accurate in reporting on the President's order. Consistent with that position, McGahn never issued a correction. More than a week later, the President brought up the issue again with Porter, made comments indicating the President thought McGahn had leaked the story, and directed Porter to have McGahn create a record denying that the President had tried to fire the Special Counsel. At that point, the President said he might "have to get rid of' McGahn ifMcGahn did not comply. McGahn again refused and told Porter, as he had told Sanders and as his counsel had told the President's counsel, that the President had in fact ordered him to have Rosenstein remove the Special Counsel. That evidence indicates that by the time of the Oval Office meeting the President was aware that McGahn did not think the story was false and did not want to issue a statement or create a written record denying facts that McGahn believed to be true. The President nevertheless persisted and asked McGahn to repudiate facts that McGahn had repeatedly said were accurate.

 

You do know that ordering people to lie to investigators; to try and coerce them to forge official documents and put those documents in the record are federal crimes related to obstruction of justice.

 

And this is memorialized records with a specific chain of evidence that will stand up in any court in the land. It is not what Trump calls "fake news" although he wishes.

 

But like most things, I'm sure he thinks it is fake news and in Trump's world, attorney's never take notes and are there to counsel a boss on how to do what they want to do and stay out of jail (the main reason attorney's like Roy Cohn never took notes ... it is evidence.)

 

This is but one instance of dozens and dozens detailed in the Mueller report.

 

It shows an elected official charged with the faithful execution of the laws instead employs techniques designed to skirt, avoid and subvert the law and instead shows him acting in corrupt and illegal ways ... and it is documented.

 

I can only assume your loyalty to this flawed human being surpasses your loyalty to the constitution.

 

pubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Russian collusion hoax is over.

The Left is now pounding the table...

 

8)

 

How many indictments resulted from...

 

Benghazi again?

 

As Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, France, burned in a horrifying fire that reportedly brought down the iconic spire atop the eight-century-old structure, Donald Trump checked in on Twitter with his own solution to the calamity — “flying water tankers.”

 

 

https://www.inquisitr.com/5393982/donald-trump-calls-for-flying-water-tankers-to-put-out-notre-dame-cathedral-fire-in-paris/

Maybe he'll throw the French some wet paper towels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How many indictments resulted from...

 

 

 

How many indictments will Horowitz and Huber reveal in the coming months ? ? ?

 

8)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How many indictments will Horowitz and Huber reveal in the coming months ? ? ?

 

8)

So far 0? How many guilty pleas and convictions will they have?

Edited by Domestic Violence by Proxy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This mindset that the real concern is to keep any hint of scandal as far away from trumps name as possible instead of supporting that these indictments have named people that have been caught doing illegal activities. In other words, people are putting their party in front of their country. I’m not surprised because they have been doing this for a while now.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are over 400 pages with thousands of pages of supporting evidence in the Mueller Report.

 

Here is one:

 

 

You do know that ordering people to lie to investigators; to try and coerce them to forge official documents and put those documents in the record are federal crimes related to obstruction of justice.

 

And this is memorialized records with a specific chain of evidence that will stand up in any court in the land. It is not what Trump calls "fake news" although he wishes.

 

But like most things, I'm sure he thinks it is fake news and in Trump's world, attorney's never take notes and are there to counsel a boss on how to do what they want to do and stay out of jail (the main reason attorney's like Roy Cohn never took notes ... it is evidence.)

 

This is but one instance of dozens and dozens detailed in the Mueller report.

 

It shows an elected official charged with the faithful execution of the laws instead employs techniques designed to skirt, avoid and subvert the law and instead shows him acting in corrupt and illegal ways ... and it is documented.

 

I can only assume your loyalty to this flawed human being surpasses your loyalty to the constitution.

 

pubby

 

Think about this. We have a president in charge of leading our country that is either so corrupt or so ignorant of the law - or both - that his own cabinet, his own military,advisors,intelligence agencies and legal team are either ignoring or refusing to carry out his orders. So the question you have to ask is who in the hell is steering this ship ?

 

https://www.snopes.com/ap/2019/04/19/former-counsel-may-have-saved-trump-from-himself/

Edited by CitizenCain
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think about this. We had a president in charge of leading our country

who used our intelligence services to spy on his political enemies.

 

8)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think about this. We had a president in charge of leading our country

who used our intelligence services to spy on his political enemies.

 

8)

 

Of course that is an unproven accusation but even if true is that reasonable grounds to ignore the unprecedented and dangerous situation we find ourselves in today ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think about this. We had a president in charge of leading our country

who used our intelligence services to spy on his political enemies.

 

8)

 

What you're spouting here are linguistic gymnastics because the exercise of executing a FISA warrant against a person is, by definition, a legal form of surveillance.

 

Spying is what Russia did in its quest to install Donald Trump in office by BURGLARIZING THE COMPUTERS at the DNC to obtain stolen documents (email) to distribute and influence an election.

 

That the Republicans - and Mitch was very much in on this - chose to back Trump's acceptance of the aid by refusing to call out Russia in early September 2016 means that the Republicans executed a coup with the aid of a foreign power and have, IMO, committed treason.

 

The really sad part, though, is that beginning with at least GWB, the GOP has opted for gaming the system instead of governing with emphasis on the faithful execution of the laws.

 

And what is this about 'political enemies' ... is that like Trump's characterization of the fourth estate as 'enemies of the people' (a notable turn of phrase made famous by Uncle Joe Stalin).

 

You people are frigging sick, manipulative authoritarians who haven't a clue of how to legitimately manage a diverse, educated, democratic society, rather you are laser focused on gaming the system for personal gain. Indeed, because it is hard and problematic to operate under a democratic form of government, I'm reading you're next goal is to take down the constitution and you figure that Trump is just the chump to do that for you.

 

Why else do you put up with such a lying whiny little bitch.

 

pubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What you're spouting here are linguistic gymnastics because the exercise of executing a FISA warrant against a person is, by definition, a legal form of surveillance.

 

Spying is what Russia did in its quest to install Donald Trump in office by BURGLARIZING THE COMPUTERS at the DNC to obtain stolen documents (email) to distribute and influence an election.

 

That the Republicans - and Mitch was very much in on this - chose to back Trump's acceptance of the aid by refusing to call out Russia in early September 2016 means that the Republicans executed a coup with the aid of a foreign power and have, IMO, committed treason.

 

The really sad part, though, is that beginning with at least GWB, the GOP has opted for gaming the system instead of governing with emphasis on the faithful execution of the laws.

 

And what is this about 'political enemies' ... is that like Trump's characterization of the fourth estate as 'enemies of the people' (a notable turn of phrase made famous by Uncle Joe Stalin).

 

You people are frigging sick, manipulative authoritarians who haven't a clue of how to legitimately manage a diverse, educated, democratic society, rather you are laser focused on gaming the system for personal gain. Indeed, because it is hard and problematic to operate under a democratic form of government, I'm reading you're next goal is to take down the constitution and you figure that Trump is just the chump to do that for you.

 

Why else do you put up with such a lying whiny little bitch.

 

pubby

Is it legal to produce manufactured evidence to get a FISA warrant? No. It's illegal and that's exactly what happened.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

... You people are frigging sick, manipulative authoritarians who haven't a clue of how to legitimately manage a diverse, educated, democratic society, rather you are laser focused on gaming the system for personal gain. Indeed, because it is hard and problematic to operate under a democratic form of government, I'm reading you're next goal is to take down the constitution and you figure that Trump is just the chump to do that for you.

 

Why else do you put up with such a lying whiny little bitch.

 

pubby

America is Great. We get to think for ourselves. In many other nations our opinions would be silenced by those who are intolerable to differing opinions. TRUMP 2020!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it legal to produce manufactured evidence to get a FISA warrant? No. It's illegal and that's exactly what happened.

 

The notion that the Mueller investigation began because of the Steele dossier is just more of the lies and misdirection propagated by the Trump administration.

 

Mueller’s team laid out on the first page, the origins of the case that would lead to the appointment of a special counsel ...

 

“In late July 2016, soon after WikiLeaks first release of stolen documents, a foreign government contacted the FBI about a May 2016 encounter with the Trump Campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos. Papadopoulos had suggested to a a representative of that foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton,” the report states. “The information prompted the FBI on July 31, 2016, to open an investigation into whether individuals associated with the Trump Campaign were coordinating with the Russian government in its interference activities.”

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-total-and-complete-exoneration-turns-out-to-be-fake-news-193957445.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"He doesn't have to say, 'go lie for me', for it to be a crime.

“He doesn’t have to say, ‘let’s obstruct justice’ for it to be a crime.”

— Sen. Lindsey Graham, quoted by Now This in 1999, on impeaching President Bill Clinton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"He doesn't have to say, 'go lie for me', for it to be a crime.

 

“He doesn’t have to say, ‘let’s obstruct justice’ for it to be a crime.”

— Sen. Lindsey Graham, quoted by Now This in 1999, on impeaching President Bill Clinton.

 

The real question is...were you as outraged when Bill Clinton did it?

 

I'm pretty sure the answer is no.

 

Ah, the double standards of the left.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real question is...were you as outraged when Bill Clinton did it?

 

I'm pretty sure the answer is no.

 

Ah, the double standards of the left.

You were outraged then but you aren't now? I'm pretty sure staining a dress with DNA and collusion with Russia are on two different levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were outraged then but you aren't now? I'm pretty sure staining a dress with DNA and collusion with Russia are on two different levels.

Are they?

 

I was actually referring to other things. Both Clinton (both Clintons) and Obama likely did actually obstruct justice, not just try. But they got a pass, so far.

 

Stay tuned though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they?

 

I was actually referring to other things. Both Clinton (both Clintons) and Obama likely did actually obstruct justice, not just try. But they got a pass, so far.

 

Stay tuned though.

 

Sounds like you are aware of a radical change in the social/political contract that will allow the victors to indict and convict folks like the Clintons and Obama for 'trumped-up' charges of obstruction sometime in the finite future.

 

Do deny or confirm?

 

pubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it legal to produce manufactured evidence to get a FISA warrant? No. It's illegal and that's exactly what happened.

 

It is illegal to tamper with evidence to obtain any warrant, FISA or not.

 

That is not what happened here.

 

The problem is that it is not expressly illegal to lie and say to the press what ever it is that you might think will let you skate on this or that charge if you say it loud enough, often enough and have the bully pulpit from which to yell it.

 

The act becomes tacitly illegal if the intent of the lies is to create a confidence fraud and it the fraud is perpetrated by a politician it is a class A high crime.

 

In the case of Trump and his 2016 campaign, it also ought to be a high crime for a candidate for the presidency (or congress) to encourage and endorse the dissemination of propaganda from hostile foreign interests (Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel and China).

 

Suggesting that the Mueller Report 'exonerates' DJT, however, has nothing to do with the law; rather it is either a bad joke or a bald-assed lie.

 

Thanks for passing it along.

 

pubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sounds like you are aware of a radical change in the social/political contract that will allow the victors to indict and convict folks like the Clintons and Obama for 'trumped-up' charges of obstruction sometime in the finite future.

 

Do deny or confirm?

 

pubby

If you want to know, please ask me instead of accusing me.

 

Then I'll be happy to answer you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to know, please ask me instead of accusing me.

 

Then I'll be happy to answer you.

 

So ...are you aware of a radical change in the social/political contract that will allow the victors to indict and convict folks like the Clintons and Obama for 'trumped-up' charges of obstruction sometime in the finite future.

 

If yes (you are aware), then please do elaborate.

 

pubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So ...are you aware of a radical change in the social/political contract that will allow the victors to indict and convict folks like the Clintons and Obama for 'trumped-up' charges of obstruction sometime in the finite future.

 

If yes (you are aware), then please do elaborate.

 

pubby

No. All I know is that they should be investigated, and if guilty they should be punished.

 

See, pubby, that wasn't so hard. You should try asking people more often instead of playing your ad hominem game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is illegal to tamper with evidence to obtain any warrant, FISA or not.

 

That is not what happened here.

 

The problem is that it is not expressly illegal to lie and say to the press what ever it is that you might think will let you skate on this or that charge if you say it loud enough, often enough and have the bully pulpit from which to yell it.

 

The act becomes tacitly illegal if the intent of the lies is to create a confidence fraud and it the fraud is perpetrated by a politician it is a class A high crime.

 

In the case of Trump and his 2016 campaign, it also ought to be a high crime for a candidate for the presidency (or congress) to encourage and endorse the dissemination of propaganda from hostile foreign interests (Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel and China).

 

Suggesting that the Mueller Report 'exonerates' DJT, however, has nothing to do with the law; rather it is either a bad joke or a bald-assed lie.

 

Thanks for passing it along.

 

pubby

 

 

How about the press ? ? ?

 

What would you think if I told you that the media is in bed with those hostile foreign interests ? ? ?

 

That they were being paid to disseminate propaganda from hostile foreign governments ? ? ?

 

(Lobbying as an unregistered foreign agent is in fact illegal...)

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is illegal to tamper with evidence to obtain any warrant, FISA or not.

 

That is not what happened here.

 

The problem is that it is not expressly illegal to lie and say to the press what ever it is that you might think will let you skate on this or that charge if you say it loud enough, often enough and have the bully pulpit from which to yell it.

 

The act becomes tacitly illegal if the intent of the lies is to create a confidence fraud and it the fraud is perpetrated by a politician it is a class A high crime.

 

In the case of Trump and his 2016 campaign, it also ought to be a high crime for a candidate for the presidency (or congress) to encourage and endorse the dissemination of propaganda from hostile foreign interests (Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel and China).

 

Suggesting that the Mueller Report 'exonerates' DJT, however, has nothing to do with the law; rather it is either a bad joke or a bald-assed lie.

 

Thanks for passing it along.

 

pubby

It didn't happen? The fake dossier was used to obtain FISA warrants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wanna talk about collusion?

Ted Kennedy really did conspire with Russia to try and beat Reagan. https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html#7cf03b7e359a

 

Lest we forget Obama's statement to outgoing Russian President Medevev that was caught on an open mic

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keXx0zxTarE

But hey, Democrats have no problems with either of these.

Edited by Guard Dad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It didn't happen? The fake dossier was used to obtain FISA warrants.

 

The dossier wasn't fake; it was gossip amongst those in the spy business and the points offered within it were offered with varying degrees of confidence but no full confidence on any point. Because of its 'nature' as a report on gossip, it was not taken by the FISA court as anything other than collaberating data supporting susequent FISA warrant applications. The notion they were instrumental or causative in the issuance of the warrants is at best spin, at worst disinformation.

 

BTW: What process did Trump use to vette the data coming from Wikileaks? Did the process used to get the emails involve a legal process with review by a judge? Hell no.

 

Frankly, the difference between how information was obtained in the two cases is a case study in how to do something (legal process) and how not to do something (partner with a criminal spying institution run by a hostile foreign power who wishes, in the end, the total collapse of the United States of America.) One is a testament to the rule of law and the other a celebration of lawlessness.

 

So tell me, Zorro, how does it feel to champion the cause of criminals?

 

pubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wanna talk about collusion?

 

Ted Kennedy really did conspire with Russia to try and beat Reagan. https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html#7cf03b7e359a

 

Lest we forget Obama's statement to outgoing Russian President Medevev that was caught on an open mic

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keXx0zxTarE

 

But hey, Democrats have no problems with either of these.

 

Ted Kennedy is dead. I'd have condemned any deal and I didn't support Teddy in 1980 and I don't recall him running in 1984 at all. For all I know Kennedy's contact with the Russians was done with the knowledge of and as part of a CIA intelligence effort. One might assume that it not being mentioned in the Russian documents; it was a success.

 

But more to the point, this is just another effort at deflection involving the Whataboutism strategy.

 

Seriously, whatever Kennedy, Clinton, Abraham Lincoln or George Washington did is irrelevant.

 

You are being asked nicely to read the Mueller report and see the inane and patently absurd acts of a man who has no business being the president because he has and occupies the office only for his own aggrandizement. Bottom line he has the civic sensibilities of a leech.

 

pubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ted Kennedy is dead. I'd have condemned any deal and I didn't support Teddy in 1980 and I don't recall him running in 1984 at all. For all I know Kennedy's contact with the Russians was done with the knowledge of and as part of a CIA intelligence effort. One might assume that it not being mentioned in the Russian documents; it was a success.

 

But more to the point, this is just another effort at deflection involving the Whataboutism strategy.

 

Seriously, whatever Kennedy, Clinton, Abraham Lincoln or George Washington did is irrelevant.

 

You are being asked nicely to read the Mueller report and see the inane and patently absurd acts of a man who has no business being the president because he has and occupies the office only for his own aggrandizement. Bottom line he has the civic sensibilities of a leech.

 

pubby

pubby

 

I'm not supporting or condoning any attempts Trump made behind the scenes to obstruct. What I am saying is that he didn't do anything worse than some of your Democrats did and are still doing, and that includes Obama and Hillary.

 

Your double standard is what is so hypocritical.

 

BTW, Trump was exonerated on the collusion issue, which was a hoax to begin with. If the truth ever gets out, we'll find that Hillary, Obama, and some of the DNC bosses did far worse. Not to mention rigging the primaries and conspiring with the media to get advance notice of the questions that would be asked in the debates. Yes, that's al fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heads up... the FBI just testified that Hillary Rodham Clinton is the subject of a grand jury investigation.

 

 

8)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pubby

 

I'm not supporting or condoning any attempts Trump made behind the scenes to obstruct. What I am saying is that he didn't do anything worse than some of your Democrats did and are still doing, and that includes Obama and Hillary.

 

Your double standard is what is so hypocritical.

 

BTW, Trump was exonerated on the collusion issue, which was a hoax to begin with. If the truth ever gets out, we'll find that Hillary, Obama, and some of the DNC bosses did far worse. Not to mention rigging the primaries and conspiring with the media to get advance notice of the questions that would be asked in the debates. Yes, that's al fact.

 

Actually, while I didn't think that Bill Clinton's acts didn't deserve impeachment, I would not have been terribly disappointed had he resigned. Key to that determination is that the institution is much greater than any of the human occupants and if they screw up, they should take responsibility. I will note that a Clinton resignation in 1999 would have been a great example for Trump to follow.

 

But he didn't and he was succeeded by GWB.

 

A few days ago I opined that the GOP will eventually be begging that Trump be impeached. Part of that is based on my reading of what will come from the more than a dozen additional investigations currently underway in the SDNY, NY AGs office and other courts including congress.

 

Also part of that reading was Trump's dominance of the GOP and the derogatory reputational impact of Trump on the GOP. In that context, today's NYT op-ed by Joe Lockhart explains why the GOP, at least ought to be begging for Trump's impeachment.

 

pubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually, while I didn't think that Bill Clinton's acts didn't deserve impeachment, I would not have been terribly disappointed had he resigned. Key to that determination is that the institution is much greater than any of the human occupants and if they screw up, they should take responsibility. I will note that a Clinton resignation in 1999 would have been a great example for Trump to follow.

 

But he didn't and he was succeeded by GWB.

 

A few days ago I opined that the GOP will eventually be begging that Trump be impeached. Part of that is based on my reading of what will come from the more than a dozen additional investigations currently underway in the SDNY, NY AGs office and other courts including congress.

 

Also part of that reading was Trump's dominance of the GOP and the derogatory reputational impact of Trump on the GOP. In that context, today's NYT op-ed by Joe Lockhart explains why the GOP, at least ought to be begging for Trump's impeachment.

 

pubby

I would probably agree that they should not have impeached Bill. However, what he and Hill have done since is very serious and I suspect criminal in some cases.

 

I think you'r wrong about the GOP abandoning Trump. Some individuals will, but not the party as a whole.

 

Honestly, most of the problems you guys have with Trump are almost laughable. Though he's probably pulled some stunts, many in your own party make him look like a boy scout.

 

I will state again; we were given two very imperfect candidates to choose from in the last election. Hillary would have been far worse, she makes Trump look like a boy scout. The woman is cold and evil and would have been very, very bad for this country. Who you should be so pissed off at is your own party for rigging the election and pushing Hillary through. 'Course, Bernie would have also been a disaster. If Democrats were smart they would have nominated Jim Webb. If they would have, you guys would almost certainly had the White House now, and.

Like it or not, Trump is mostly doing the right things. Yeah, he's a rude and crude jerk, but he's done the country a lot of good and we're a lot better off now than we were two years ago, and part of the credit for that lies with Trump. Hate all you want, but the numbers show the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The dossier wasn't fake; it was gossip amongst those in the spy business and the points offered within it were offered with varying degrees of confidence but no full confidence on any point. Because of its 'nature' as a report on gossip, it was not taken by the FISA court as anything other than collaberating data supporting susequent FISA warrant applications. The notion they were instrumental or causative in the issuance of the warrants is at best spin, at worst disinformation.

 

BTW: What process did Trump use to vette the data coming from Wikileaks? Did the process used to get the emails involve a legal process with review by a judge? Hell no.

 

Frankly, the difference between how information was obtained in the two cases is a case study in how to do something (legal process) and how not to do something (partner with a criminal spying institution run by a hostile foreign power who wishes, in the end, the total collapse of the United States of America.) One is a testament to the rule of law and the other a celebration of lawlessness.

 

So tell me, Zorro, how does it feel to champion the cause of criminals?

 

pubby

You really crack me up. You believe gossip is good enough to get a warrant? Gossip is not considered probable cause for a warrant. As it turns out, the "gossip" in that dossier was not even close to the truth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heads up... the FBI just testified that Hillary Rodham Clinton is the subject of a grand jury investigation.

 

8)

 

Source? I haven't been able to find anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.