Thread: Mueller's Russian Interference investigation

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

go on then, ant:

how do you think trump obstructed justice?

Trump's firing of Comey over 'that Russia thing' and the lies that members of his election team and administration were caught in

.....

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Especially as he admitted on national television that he did it to make the investigation go away.

And then followed it up and reinforced it via Twatter.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Firing the person who was leading the investigation was a good start.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Trump's firing of Comey over 'that Russia thing'

we discussed this already:

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

the us has 3 branches of govt and the justice dept is under trump and it's up to him what to do with the justice department.

dershowitz:

Alan Dershowitz: Trump did not obstruct justice in firing James Comey

A dangerous argument is now being put forward by some Democratic ideologues: namely that President Trump should be indicted for the crime of obstructing justice because he fired FBI Director James Comey. Whatever one may think of the president's decision to fire Comey as a matter of policy, there is no legitimate basis for concluding that the president engaged in a crime by exercising his statutory and constitutional authority to fire director Comey.

comey himself:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/james-comey-writes-goodbye-letter/article/2622757

"I have long believed that a President can fire an FBI Director for any reason, or for no reason at all. I'm not going to spend time on the decision or the way it was executed. I hope you won't either. It is done, and I will be fine, although I will miss you and the mission deeply," Comey wrote.

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

A dangerous argument is now being put forward by some Democratic ideologues: namely that President Trump should be indicted for the crime of obstructing justice because he fired FBI Director James Comey. Whatever one may think of the president's decision to fire Comey as a matter of policy, there is no legitimate basis for concluding that the president engaged in a crime by exercising his statutory and constitutional authority to fire director Comey.

Why does it have to be a politcal condemnation by the Dems? Surely a loyal patriot of any colour or persuasion would condemn Trump's decision for the exact same reason as Comey implies with his "whatever one may think"?

^Trumpos forget that Mueller and the investigAtion has bi~partisan support.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Why does it have to be a politcal condemnation by the Dems? Surely a loyal patriot of any colour or persuasion would condemn Trump's decision for the exact same reason as Comey implies with his "whatever one may think"?

It really doesn't matter if there is or is not political condemnation,as Dershowitz says the president has the constitutional right to fire the FBI director with or without reason thus eliminating the case for obstruction.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

as Dershowitz says

yeah, let's listen to the lawyer who represented OJ simpson and claus von bulow...and told anyone who would listen that they were innocent.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

It really doesn't matter if there is or is not political condemnation,as Dershowitz says the president has the constitutional right to fire the FBI director with or without reason thus eliminating the case for obstruction.

He has the right to fire him for a reason or no reason.

But does he have the right to fire him specifically to obstruct a federal investigation, which he admitted?

Let's put it this way, if Obama had done that, the GOP hypocrites would be wetting their pants and squealing like little schoolgirls (again).

Originally Posted by uncle junior

^Trumpos forget that Mueller and the investigAtion has bi~partisan support.

Yes, and the trumpanzees also forget that he was appointed by Rosenstein, who himself was an orange cunto nomination.

Thick as shit they are.

Originally Posted by raycarey

yeah, let's listen to the lawyer who represented OJ simpson and claus von bulow...and told anyone who would listen that they were innocent.

who he has represented has nothing to do with the legality of Trump firing Comey.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

He has the right to fire him for a reason or no reason.

But does he have the right to fire him specifically to obstruct a federal investigation, which he admitted?

Let's put it this way, if Obama had done that, the GOP hypocrites would be wetting their pants and squealing like little schoolgirls (again).

No no let’s put it this way,regardless of who is wetting their pants you better hope they find something more fruitful to run with.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

No no let’s put it this way,regardless of who is wetting their pants you better hope they find something more fruitful to run with.

I'm convinced they will.

Follow the money, that's where the real crimes are.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

who he has represented has nothing to do with the legality of Trump firing Comey.

The legality has little to do with the issue at hand.
It's about the motive.

Funny how you revert to legalities here, when on the Israel issue you ignore all law and focus upon....well, I'm not sure what your basis is for supporting Israel.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

The legality has little to do with the issue at hand.
It's about the motive.

Funny how you revert to legalities here, when on the Israel issue you ignore all law and focus upon....well, I'm not sure what your basis is for supporting Israel.

How is do I ignore the legalities of the Israel Palestinian problems.You are the one reverting to the old who lived there longest line,and it is appearant ,in that aspect you have no idea what you are talking about. You don’t even know the original parameters set up for the state of Israel.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

How is do I ignore the legalities of the Israel Palestinian problems.You are the one reverting to the old who lived there longest line,and it is appearant ,in that aspect you have no idea what you are talking about. You don’t even know the original parameters set up for the state of Israel.

No, I only talk about who lived there longest when Israeli apologists say the worn out and diversionary chestnut, "It was all Jews there 2018 years ago" and "There has been a Jewish presence in the area continually...".
If you support legalities then you would roundly condemn Israel for it's littany of breaches of International Law, the Geneva Convetion, UN conventions and rulings etc. And all those multitude of breaches have been going on for decades and are all breached at the expense of the Palestinians and for the benefit of Israeli expansion and ethnic cleansing.

"Kremlin Connection"

"Russian backdoor overture and dinner invite"

"Russia - Clinton - private and confidential"

"Putin/Trump"


Those are the actual subject lines from the at least four (currently known) emails sent to and/or circulated by Trump campaign and administration officials.

^ Had to look that up.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000...d-be7fce250000

i'm fairly certain i posted this earlier, but wtf....

why is it always russia with these guys?

kushner, flynn, donald jr., page, manafort, trump himself, etc....all have eyebrow raising connections to russia.

and it's always russia.

it's never japan, greece, paraguay or norway...

it's always russia.

Geeezus...the subject lines alone are enough reason to start an investigation

there is nothing to see in Russia,

why don't they investigate the rape allegations of Trump, much more fun ? oh wait that didn't work before

Originally Posted by raycarey

i'm fairly certain i posted this earlier, but wtf....

why is it always russia with these guys?

kushner, flynn, donald jr., page, manafort, trump himself, etc....all have eyebrow raising connections to russia.

and it's always russia.

it's never japan, greece, paraguay or norway...

it's always russia.

I heard it posed in question form today: what would Russia have to gain by interfering in the election to benefit Trump?

The answer was sanctions.

Oh and in other totally unrelated news... it’s being reported that literally within minutes of Trump being sworn in Flynn texted a business colleague about a plan to build reactors with another country that definitely wasn’t Russia (it was Russia) and that the sanctions would be ‘ripped up’.

Originally Posted by CSFFan

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

if an administration wants to see those names, they need to make a request to unmask those names,

which is apparently what susan rice (obama's national security advisor) and samantha power (obama's un ambassador) did after they got the "dodgy dossier" and were curious to see who in the trump campaign were talking to russians.

FRT - The "unmasking" thing isn't even an issue anymore, it was perfectly legal and more importantly, justifiable. .

Originally Posted by CSFFan

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

rather, it'll be who financed the "dodgy dossier" and if/how it was used in a fisa court.

That's wrong. There's nothing that said the piss dossier was used as evidence for a fisa warrant. It has been rumored that it was the direct collection of the US intelligence agencies that led to the fisa investigations. Surely the judges that reviewed the FISA warrants needed to know the people and the circumstances.

imagine before the spring this house judiciary committee will get to bottom of the questions about whether the obama admin used the "dodgy dossier" in a fisa court to spy on the trump campaign:

yesterday's hearing with the fbi director (start at the 2:20 minute mark):

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...er_strzok.html


Rep. Jim Jordan Grills FBI Director Wray About Peter Strzok: Did He Use Steele Dossier To Obtain FISA Warrant?


Rep. Jim Jordan asks FBI director Christopher Wray whether Peter Strzok, the FBI agent who was fired by the Mueller investigation for sending "anti-Trump text messages," was involved with getting a warrant to spy on members of the Trump campaign.

Jordan posits that Strzok was the agent who used the Steele dossier to obtain a warrant from a FISA court to spy on members of the Trump campaign.

That's just more pointless dog whistling for trumpanzees, and the republitard knows it.

Of course Breitbart will be all over it publishing it as a fact in all but name.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

That's just more pointless dog whistling for trumpanzees, and the republitard knows it.

are you a 12-year-old kid, harry?

does your circle of friends use vocabulary like this?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

dog whistling for trumpanzees, and the republitard

anyways, you know what "dog whistling" means, right?

what hidden, coded message do you think is being sent to the "republitards"?