Jump to content


DOJ Initial Russia Hearings


Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said:

“Really? Show which conviction had anything to do with Trump” 

 

You went from which conviction had anything to do with Trump to which conviction benefited him or his campaign.  

 

According to Barr's summary, the Mueller report concludes that there was Russian interference in the election and the Russians did attempt to get the Trump campaign to coordinate with them. 

 

There are a number of people on Trump's campaign that had contacts with these Russian's and later lied about doing so.

 

Agreed?

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

5 minutes ago, QMany said:

Barr's Letter is very specifically crafted. Read it very carefully.

 

We need the full report plain and simple. Congress needs to bring in Mueller to testify. If there really is not much there then great but Barr is not to be trusted in the slightest. 

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment
1 hour ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said:

They have been investigated and completely exhonerated. 

 

Donald Trump's former campaign manager is going to jail for 7 years, one of several indictments of people acting on behalf of our current President. 

 

Weird extrapolation of the facts. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

Wow! I knew about Barr's memo with preconceived conclusions regarding Mueller's Investigation, but I didn't realize the extent he's been stumping as Trump's  defense attorney.


James Comey did the right thing (throwing the election for Donald Trump)

Quote

 

By William Barr

October 31, 2016

William Barr was U.S. attorney general from 1991 to 1993. He is supporting Donald Trump in the presidential election.

 

 

Trump made the right call on Comey (firing)

Quote

 

By William Barr

May 12, 2017

 

In short, responsibility for the integrity of the Russia investigation is vested in the hands of two highly regarded Obama veterans.

 

 

Trump was right to fire Sally Yates

Quote

 

By William Barr

February 1, 2017

 

On Monday, things reached their nadir when acting attorney general Sally Yates, an Obama holdover with a few days left in office, issued a directive that the Justice Department should not defend the president’s order in court. While an official is always free to resign if she does not agree with, or has doubts about, the legality of a presidential order, Yates had no authority and no conceivable justification for directing the department’s lawyers not to advocate the president’s position in court. Her action was unprecedented and must go down as a serious abuse of office.

 

And when the president determines an action is within his authority — even if that conclusion is debatable (which I don’t think it is here) — the president is entitled to have his position presented to the courts. It is the duty of the department to present them.

 

 

The bolded is bone-chilling. He opined that, regardless of legality, the AG's options are resign or advocate for the president's position. That is exactly what I presume he is doing here.

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

32 minutes 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. 

@45timesbetterthanemptysuit

Link to comment

1 minute ago, FrankWheeler said:

That there was evidence of collusion.

 

 

We don’t know that’s a lie, and as such the full report should come out. Here’s his quote; not that people who think Schiff should go to jail will care.

 

Quote

There's a difference between compelling evidence of collusion and whether the special counsel concludes that he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt the criminal charge of conspiracy

  • Plus1 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, QMany said:

Wow! I knew about Barr's memo with preconceived conclusions regarding Mueller's Investigation, but I didn't realize the extent he's been stumping as Trump's  defense attorney.


James Comey did the right thing (throwing the election for Donald Trump)

 

Trump made the right call on Comey (firing)

 

Trump was right to fire Sally Yates

 

The bolded is bone-chilling. He opined that, regardless of legality, the AG's options are resign or advocate for the president's position. That is exactly what I presume he is doing here.

 

$20 says Barr didn't hold those opinions when Obama was President.

  • Plus1 5
Link to comment
1 hour ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said:

Hep me out here, what were they convicted for? And how did that benefit Trump or his campaign?

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.  

  • Plus1 1
  • Fire 2
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, 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.  

Didn't the Washington Free Beacon get the ball rolling on the dossier? https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/website-with-gop-ties-funded-research-on-trump-dossier

 

How exactly has the investigation stopped Donald Trump from doing his job?

 

Did Russia try to influence our elections? 

 

Why haven't you answered my question about Donald Trumps statements about women? 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
3 hours ago, 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?

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.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...