politics thread

[skinsdad62]

Former FBI Director James Comey avoided answering a lot of questions during his testimony on Friday before Congress on the Clinton email investigation and Trump Russia probe.

Even so, he made several critical admissions, such as that the FBI never verified the dossier either before or after it was used to help get FISA warrants while he was director.

That’s a huge admission given that when you apply for warrants and in particular FISA warrants, you are vouching for the accuracy of everything in your application. And Comey signed off on three of those applications personally.

But there was another critical piece of information that came out that hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves.

And it wasn’t something that Comey said, but information that came out during smart questioning by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC). In the transcript at pages 130-140:

Mr. Meadows. Let me ask one clarifying question… you were saying that you had no knowledge that Perkins Coie was actually involved with the Democrat National Committee and involved in this particular investigation that ultimately was initiated. Is that correct?

Mr. Comey. I, when I was FBI Director, don’t remember ever being told anything about Perkins Coie. I think I’ve since read stuff in the media, but not when I was Director.

Mr. Meadows. So are you saying that James Baker, your general counsel, who received direct information from Perkins Coie, did so and conveyed that to your team without your
knowledge?

Mr. Comey. I don’t know.

Mr. Meadows. What do you mean you don’t know? I mean, did he tell you or not?

Mr. Comey. Oh, I — well —


Mr. Meadows. James Baker, we have testimony that would indicate that he received information directly from Perkins Coie; he had knowledge that they were representing the Democrat National Committee and, indeed collected that information and conveyed it to the investigative team. Did he tell you that he received that information from them?
Whoa.

So basically, they’re saying that Baker, the FBI general counsel, testified the FBI was getting information directly from the Democrats (i.e. Perkins Coie who represented both the DNC and the Clinton campaign). They are the folks who hired Fusion GPS to get info on Donald Trump.
They’re literally getting info directly from Democrats and passing it on to the investigative team.

This raises the question if Democrats was seemingly providing info which is then used to go after political opponents.

If Democrats ultimately paid Russians for information on Trump, that’s the real “collusion.” And then if they passed it on to the FBI, that in essence makes the FBI a party to it, and compromises them.

And Comey pretended he didn’t know about Perkins Coie, but was burnt by Baker already testifying to it.

This is why Comey got fired amongst other reasons dealing with the HRC investigation

 

[BSC911]

Aetna Has Revealed Obamacare's Many Broken Promises

The truth comes out about this healthcare fiasco and the accompanying falsehoods. Truth is they sold us this lie to usher in national single payer health care in which the govt decides what is best for you without your input

Don’t you have free government healthcare?

 

[BSC911]

Like I said if the FBI would go on a fishing trip against all positions, it would be mind blowing I’m sure, especially the clintons. This is an unlawful investigation

So you admit he is guilty. You just think he should never have been investigated. I can understand that.

 

[skinsdad62]

Robert Mueller has operated for 19 months as a law unto himself, reminding us of the awesome and destructive powers of special counsels. About the only possible check on Mr. Mueller is a judge who is wise to the tricks of prosecutors and investigators. Good news: That’s what we got this week.

Former national security adviser Mike Flynn a year ago pleaded guilty to one count of lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation about his conversations with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. Mr. Flynn’s defense team this week filed a sentencing memo to Judge Emmet Sullivan that contained explosive new information about the Flynn-FBI meeting in January 2017.

It was arranged by then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who personally called Mr. Flynn on other business, then suggested he sit down with two agents to clear up the Russia question. Mr. McCabe urged Mr. Flynn to conduct the interview with no lawyer present—to make things easier.
The agents (including the infamous Peter Strzok) showed up within two hours. They had already decided not to inform Mr. Flynn that they had transcripts of his conversations or give him the standard warning against lying to the FBI. They wanted him “relaxed” and “unguarded.” Former Director James Comey this weekend bragged on MSNBC that he would never have “gotten away” with such a move in a more “organized” administration.

The whole thing stinks of entrapment, though the curious question was how the Flynn defense team got the details. The court filing refers to a McCabe memo written the day of the 2017 meeting, as well as an FBI summary—known as a 302—of the Flynn interview. These are among documents congressional Republicans have been fighting to obtain for more than a year, only to be stonewalled by the Justice Department. Now we know why the department didn’t want them public.


They have come to light thanks to a man who knows well how men like Messrs. Mueller and Comey operate: Judge Sullivan. He sits on the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, and as he wrote for the Journal last year, he got a “wake-up call” in 2008 while overseeing the trial of then-Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska. Judge Sullivan ultimately assigned a lawyer to investigate Justice Department misconduct.

The investigator’s report found prosecutors had engaged in deliberate and repeated ethical violations, withholding key evidence from the defense. It also excoriated the FBI for failing to write up 302s and for omitting key facts from those it did write. The head of the FBI was Mr. Mueller.


Judge Sullivan has since made it his practice to begin every case with a Brady order, which reminds prosecutors of their constitutional obligation to provide the defense with any exculpatory evidence. On Dec. 12, 2017, days after being assigned the Flynn case, Judge Sullivan issued such an order, instructing Mr. Mueller’s team to turn over “any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.” Had any other judge drawn the case, we likely would never have seen these details of the FBI’s behavior.

It’s clear that something has concerned the judge—who likely sees obvious parallels to the Stevens case. The media was predicting a quick ruling in the Flynn case. Instead, Judge Sullivan issued new orders Wednesday, demanding to see for himself the McCabe memo and the Flynn 302. He also ordered the special counsel to hand over by Friday any other documents relevant to the Flynn-FBI meeting.

Given his history with the FBI, the judge may also have some questions about the curious date on the Flynn 302—Aug. 22, 2017, seven months after the interview. Texts from Mr. Strzok and testimony from Mr. Comey both suggest the 302 was written long before then. Was the 302 edited in the interim? If so, by whom, and at whose direction? FBI officials initially testified to Congress that the agents did not think Mr. Flynn had lied.

Judges have the ability to reject plea deals and require a prosecutor to make a case at trial. The criminal-justice system isn’t only about holding defendants accountable; trials also provide oversight of investigators and their tactics. And judges are not obliged to follow prosecutors’ sentencing recommendations.

That is the honorable Mueller

 

[skinsdad62]

I just saw where the illegals in the caravan have now demanded $50,000 each to leave Tijuana and to return home.
I would then counter with another option. Tell them to return home to their nation and demand from their government where the $50 million to $150 million in aid the USA gives that nation went.

 

[Stymietee]

Sty, this tape you refer to, what exactly does Trump say? Does he specifically state that the money is to stop her from talking about their affair? Its an important distinction and the wording is very important.

CNN Airs Secret Cohen-Trump Tape Discussing Payment to ...
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/michael-cohen-tape-karen...

 

[Stymietee]

But thats the real problem isnt it. He didnt pay the money. Cohen and AMI did. They did it to bury the stories to prevent them from affecting the election. That makes them campaign donations that were not reported. Even if he did pay them back. Now the problem comes in because he knew about them ahead of time.

I hope you don't mind but I'm going to cut and paste this in answer to a question.

 

[Sharkinva]

I hope you don't mind but I'm going to cut and paste this in answer to a question.

Roll with it

 

[Stymietee]

Can you show me where it says it is illegal to pay hush money? Congress has a fund for exactly that. I think you are mistaken. The issue is whether or not it was with campaign finances. The audio tape you are referring to explicitly shows Trump not trying to do anything illegal.

As for Constitutionality of prosecution, it is questionable because it would impede the executive branch from doing its job. The obvious answer is it doesn’t matter. If there was out and out evidence of the POTUS committing a crime, the legislative branch would immediately impeach the POTUS which allows him to be prosecuted.

As for comparisons with Bill, Bill was much worse. He blatantly lied to Congress, under oath, about an affair which is illegal under the UCMJ. Whether or not the POTUS is subject to the UCMJ is questionable at best, but I don’t understand why the CIC wouldn’t be if laws are supposed to be applied equally.

Now, what crimes have Trump’s cohorts been indicted for?
Flynn for lying to Congress, which he never actually lied.
Cohen for tax crimes, lying to a bank (seriously WTF), and campaign finance violations.

All of these indictments came through an investigation into the non-crime of collusion with Russia. This is why it is a witch hunt. The reason Mueller is questioned for integrity is how this whole thing has been done. He aligned himself with Clinton cronies, all of them. He has dug up dirt on everybody in the most questionable and flimsy circumstances to apply pressure on a political outsider in Trump. That is why people such as myself have an issue with this entire investigation. I have no delusions on the kind of man Trump is. I hate Trump and think he is a total dick. I also believe he is being treated this way because he is a political outsider and isn’t acting in the manner others believe he should. I believe the crimes the Clintons committed are far worse. I believe Obama committed several offenses that were covered up with the terms, “I plead the fifth.”

All in all, I can’t stand Washington. I truly believe we need a commoner in office, that served in the military and never made it above O-4. When election time rolls back around, if the republicans put forth a decent candidate, I will be voting against Trump, just like I did in the last primary. If Trump is the candidate selected by Republicans, I will be voting for Trump because I differ fundamentally by far to great a distance on economics, sovereignty, and individualism to vote for the dems.

1. I'm not mistaken at all, in fact I know that you've read @Sharks response to this, however just in case:

But thats the real problem isnt it. He didnt pay the money. Cohen and AMI did. They did it to bury the stories to prevent them from affecting the election. That makes them campaign donations that were not reported. Even if he did pay them back. Now the problem comes in because he knew about them ahead of time.

2. The 25th amendment is in place for just such occurrences. An indicted president as you've stated correctly would not be able to do the job, the vice president would in such a case take over. It's not questionable at all. No one is above the law, no one, period.

3. Here are the comparisons:

Bill lied to cover up a affair, it's a terrible thing and he was rightly impeached.

Trump lied to the voters of this country in order to gain office, which is fraud.

I'll not debate which is worse but for the record to me, it's a false equivalence. Men and women lie everyday to cover their dalliances. Trump is by far worse, because he purposefully didn't give the voter the opportunity to decide if what he was doing mattered. (I suspect not, but now we will never know)

4. Ever hear of the mafia? As is true with Trump, there's a web of unlawful things at play. Disagreeing with them doesn't make them go away.

5. You wrote: "All in all, I can’t stand Washington." This is by far the most enjoyable thing that I read in your post. Why? well, because it brings us back to football and one of the major reasons why our team is detested throughout the country. I call it hate by association. Everything that followed that line is your choice and right as a voting citizen of this country.

 

[Stymietee]

Nah...this is what Trump always did. He did not try to commit a crime and like Comey said, “there was no intent.” Or does that only work with Hillary?

Let's roll with what you've written here and release every current prisoner that didn't try to commit their crimes. Does this really make any sense?

 

[Stymietee]

Former FBI Director James Comey avoided answering a lot of questions during his testimony on Friday before Congress on the Clinton email investigation and Trump Russia probe.

Even so, he made several critical admissions, such as that the FBI never verified the dossier either before or after it was used to help get FISA warrants while he was director.

That’s a huge admission given that when you apply for warrants and in particular FISA warrants, you are vouching for the accuracy of everything in your application. And Comey signed off on three of those applications personally.

But there was another critical piece of information that came out that hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves.

And it wasn’t something that Comey said, but information that came out during smart questioning by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC). In the transcript at pages 130-140:

Mr. Meadows. Let me ask one clarifying question… you were saying that you had no knowledge that Perkins Coie was actually involved with the Democrat National Committee and involved in this particular investigation that ultimately was initiated. Is that correct?

Mr. Comey. I, when I was FBI Director, don’t remember ever being told anything about Perkins Coie. I think I’ve since read stuff in the media, but not when I was Director.

Mr. Meadows. So are you saying that James Baker, your general counsel, who received direct information from Perkins Coie, did so and conveyed that to your team without your
knowledge?

Mr. Comey. I don’t know.

Mr. Meadows. What do you mean you don’t know? I mean, did he tell you or not?

Mr. Comey. Oh, I — well —


Mr. Meadows. James Baker, we have testimony that would indicate that he received information directly from Perkins Coie; he had knowledge that they were representing the Democrat National Committee and, indeed collected that information and conveyed it to the investigative team. Did he tell you that he received that information from them?
Whoa.

So basically, they’re saying that Baker, the FBI general counsel, testified the FBI was getting information directly from the Democrats (i.e. Perkins Coie who represented both the DNC and the Clinton campaign). They are the folks who hired Fusion GPS to get info on Donald Trump.
They’re literally getting info directly from Democrats and passing it on to the investigative team.

This raises the question if Democrats was seemingly providing info which is then used to go after political opponents.

If Democrats ultimately paid Russians for information on Trump, that’s the real “collusion.” And then if they passed it on to the FBI, that in essence makes the FBI a party to it, and compromises them.

And Comey pretended he didn’t know about Perkins Coie, but was burnt by Baker already testifying to it.

This is why Comey got fired amongst other reasons dealing with the HRC investigation

Once more, Farkin' Republicans huh?

 

[Stymietee]

I just saw where the illegals in the caravan have now demanded $50,000 each to leave Tijuana and to return home.
I would then counter with another option. Tell them to return home to their nation and demand from their government where the $50 million to $150 million in aid the USA gives that nation went.

I have an even better idea. How about our government make conditions of said payment, better treatment of their people. Just a thought!

 

[Sharkinva]

Let's roll with what you've written here and release every current prisoner that didn't try to commit their crimes. Does this really make any sense?

I mentioned on another site.. if a Democrat President had 10% of the questionable shit around him that this current President does, and the GOP had the house... they would have started impeachment proceedings before he was even sworn in.

 

[Stymietee]

I mentioned on another site.. if a Democrat President had 10% of the questionable shit around him that this current President does, and the GOP had the house... they would have started impeachment proceedings before he was even sworn in.

Completely agree, and with a Republican controlled Senate that President would be referred to as "former..."

 

[Sharkinva]

Completely agree, and with a Republican controlled Senate that President would be referred to as "former..."

Who are we kidding, if they had even remotely found cause, with a GOP House and Senate, they would treat it like a marriage and have annulled it so that said person would not even be able to be called former President.

 

[Stymietee]

Yep, BTW; good suggestions from you and @Sportster with respect to separating the forums. Glad that @dad decided to keep our political forum and hopefully everyone adheres to the limitations that he has imposed on it. Good call to you and @ Sportster.

 

[Sharkinva]

Yep, BTW; good suggestions from you and @Sportster with respect to separating the forums. Glad that @dad decided to keep our political forum and hopefully everyone adheres to the limitations that he has imposed on it. Good call to you and @ Sportster.

If we cant agree to disagree in a civil manor on here... how the hell can we ever expect our "leaders" to do that in situations that really count and affect all of our lives?

 

[gkekoa]

I mentioned on another site.. if a Democrat President had 10% of the questionable shit around him that this current President does, and the GOP had the house... they would have started impeachment proceedings before he was even sworn in.

The previous POTUS had every bit the questions surrounding him. That is the problem. There is a huge difference between how the prior POTUS was treated and this one. There are two reasons for it. The first is Obama was a member of the swamp. The second is his race.

 

[gkekoa]

Let's roll with what you've written here and release every current prisoner that didn't try to commit their crimes. Does this really make any sense?

None at all. I completely agree. Why is Hillary not in prison when Comey admitted she committed a crime?

 

[gkekoa]

1. I'm not mistaken at all, in fact I know that you've read @Sharks response to this, however just in case:



2. The 25th amendment is in place for just such occurrences. An indicted president as you've stated correctly would not be able to do the job, the vice president would in such a case take over. It's not questionable at all. No one is above the law, no one, period.

3. Here are the comparisons:

Bill lied to cover up a affair, it's a terrible thing and he was rightly impeached.

Trump lied to the voters of this country in order to gain office, which is fraud.

I'll not debate which is worse but for the record to me, it's a false equivalence. Men and women lie everyday to cover their dalliances. Trump is by far worse, because he purposefully didn't give the voter the opportunity to decide if what he was doing mattered. (I suspect not, but now we will never know)

4. Ever hear of the mafia? As is true with Trump, there's a web of unlawful things at play. Disagreeing with them doesn't make them go away.

5. You wrote: "All in all, I can’t stand Washington." This is by far the most enjoyable thing that I read in your post. Why? well, because it brings us back to football and one of the major reasons why our team is detested throughout the country. I call it hate by association. Everything that followed that line is your choice and right as a voting citizen of this country.

Every person who has ran for office has lied to get elected. First term, Obama stated he was against same sex marriage. Second term, he stated he was for it.