Thread: Mueller's Russian Interference investigation

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

when the dnc reported they thought there server had been hacked, they weren't just thinking about "russian intervention in america's democracy",

they were thinking that trump was conspiring with the russians to defeat hillary?

Perhaps they were, but that has nothing to do with the FBI investigating WHO attacked the DNC server and more importantly WHY.

When the DNC emails that were hacked by Russia started leaking out the inference was pretty fucking obvious.

So I would imagine that that's when the logical questions started being asked like: Did the Trump campaign know about it, and did they offer something in return for Russia doing it?

Which essentially is what the investigation is all about.

The dossier may or may not contain relevant facts, but I think it's quite critical for the American people to know that their President isn't beholden to a foreign power, don't you?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

but I think it's quite critical for the American people to know that their President isn't beholden to a foreign power, don't you?

fair point.

Originally Posted by CSFFan

Reports now suggest Jared ordered Flynn to contact the Russians.

if true, then what will jared be convicted of, IYO?

Originally Posted by CSFFan

You seriously don't get it yet

well, clinton wasn't impeached because it came down to a blue dress with cum on it.

so, you're saying that congress will want to impeach trump, not because he was conspiring with the russians, but because he was caught lying or obstructing?

dershowitz: "in stalinist russia, give me a man and i'll show you the crime":

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

so, you're saying that congress will want to impeach trump, not because he was conspiring with the russians, but because he was caught lying or obstructing?

Or all three....only time will tell. I'm guessing obstruction of justice will be the start, at this time it's obvious that he fired Yates and Comey because they wouldn't let Flynn go.

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

well, clinton wasn't impeached because it came down to a blue dress with cum on it.

so, you're saying that congress will want to impeach trump, not because he was conspiring with the russians, but because he was caught lying or obstructing?

dershowitz: "in stalinist russia, give me a man and i'll show you the crime"

FFS Booners how many times do you have to be told?

He will not be impeached unless he's committed a crime.

Interfering with a federal investigation because it might end up exposing you for something is a crime.

How hard is it?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

FFS Booners

are you 15 years old? grow up, harry.

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

yep, not investigating a crime, just looking around for one.

some more dershowitz, this time explaining more eloquently than me what i meant by the above quote:

"if you find evidence of a crime, then you appoint the special counsel":

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/11/0...n-or-democrats

You know what would be really cool?

If Comey brought a defamation case against trump as a private citizen for saying he's a liar on Twitter. It would mean that Trump would have to prove that Comey is a liar and that alone would be enough comic relief to last a lifetime.

Right behind Comey, I like to see Hillary do the same. That fookin' Crooked Hillary shit is getting old. If she's crooked, where's the crime? Let's get her into court as well.

Oddsmakers bumped up the odds of impeachment to 63% after Flynn's deal was announced last week.

fred:

Originally Posted by uncle junior

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

yep, not investigating a crime, just looking around for one.

You've lost the plot. Go back to why the investigation was initiated.

watch dershowitz and then tell me if you understand what i was saying:

"if you find evidence of a crime, then you appoint the special counsel":

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/11/0...n-or-democrats

I'm guessing evidence of a crime was found. Two people have already plead guilty.

Originally Posted by CSFFan

I'm guessing evidence of a crime was found. Two people have already plead guilty.

what point do you think dershowitz was making here, topper?


"if you find evidence of a crime, then you appoint the special counsel":

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

"if you find evidence of a crime, then you appoint the special counsel":

That whoever appointed the special counsel thought there was evidence of a crime?

Admittedly it was a difficult question, did I pass?

topper:

Originally Posted by CSFFan

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

yep, not investigating a crime, just looking around for one.

Read what you've posted and then ask yourself if you're not a idiot.

watch dershowitz and then tell me what you think (agree or disagree with him):

"if you find evidence of a crime, then you appoint the special counsel":

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/11/0...n-or-democrats

for those preferring the written word (last week from dershowitz):

full article at:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/o...tion%2Fopinion

When Politics Is Criminalized

By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ

NOV. 28, 2017



But elastic criminal laws should not be stretched to cover Mr. Trump’s exercise of his constitutionally authorized power. When the president asked the director of the F.B.I. to drop its investigation into Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser, or fired James Comey from the F.B.I., or provided classified information to the Russians, he was acting within his constitutional powers.

Those actions may deserve opprobrium, but they should not be deemed criminal. The proper place to litigate the wisdom of such actions should be at the ballot box, not in the jury box.


Even if it were to turn out that the Trump campaign collaborated, colluded or cooperated with Russian agents, that alone would not be a crime, unless the campaign asked them or helped them to commit criminal acts such as hacking.

Today the target for politically tinged investigations is Donald Trump and his campaign. Last year (and again today) it was Hillary Clinton — as it was her husband before her. Next up are Bernie Sanders and his wife, who are being investigated at the behest of a Republican Party official in Vermont.


An overly flexible, easily expanded criminal statute is a loaded weapon capable of being fired by zealous prosecutors at almost any target. It’s time to store the weapon until it is really needed — and not the next time someone wants to wound his political enemies.

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

But elastic criminal laws should not be stretched to cover Mr. Trump’s exercise of his constitutionally authorized power.

Why shouldn't they be stretched?

Originally Posted by CSFFan

Why shouldn't they be stretched?

good question: we'll see.

so, if the laws are stretched to investigate hillary (emails, clinton foundation), etc.

or the obama admin (unmasking trump campaign officials so they can be spied on by the us government).

fair game?

A crime was committed you clueless fucker. Someone hacked a DNC server.

That's what started the FBI investigation.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

A crime was committed you clueless fucker. Someone hacked a DNC server.

That's what started the FBI investigation.

that would start an investigation into russia interfering into american democracy.

that's not what started the investigation into the conspiracy theory of the trump campaign colluding with the russians to defeat hillay, you fucking stupid chav with terrible manners (just kidding)

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

that's not what started the investigation into the conspiracy theory of the trump campaign colluding with the russians to defeat hillay,

What did then?

the "dodgy dossier"

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_..._investigation

On July 5, 2016, Comey announced the FBI's recommendation that the United States Department of Justice file no criminal charges relating to the Hillary Clinton email controversy.[92] During a 15-minute press conference in the J. Edgar Hoover Building, Comey called Secretary Clinton's and her top aides' behavior "extremely careless", but concluded that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case"

The same day as Comey's July press conference, the FBI acquired the Donald Trump-Russia dossier by Christopher Steele.[7] The FBI opened an investigation into the Trump campaign in late July.[7]

Originally Posted by CSFFan

If I was Comey, I'd be filing a defamation lawsuit

Originally Posted by CSFFan

Right behind Comey, I like to see Hillary do the same. That fookin' Crooked Hillary shit is getting old. If she's crooked, where's the crime? Let's get her into court as well.

I agree. Seriously.
As an aside....those defamation laws are great, eh

Now K.T. McFarland will have to cut a deal like Flynn.

It's been uncovered she has lied to Congress about what she knew regarding Kislyak and Flynn.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/u...testimony.html

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

so, if the laws are stretched to investigate hillary (emails, clinton foundation), etc.

or the obama admin (unmasking trump campaign officials so they can be spied on by the us government).

fair game?

What are you talking about 'unmasking Trump campaign officials'?
Meanwhile manafort goes and shoots himself in the foot.