And there was nothing there...nada...zilch!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
But there will be a ton in these below that AG Barr will find.
Printable View
And there was nothing there...nada...zilch!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
But there will be a ton in these below that AG Barr will find.
Who cares if he releases them? Hasn’t the FISA applications already been released? The 412 Carter Page one? Cause that one is already out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Nellie Ohr has had a criminal referral sent to DOJ regarding her emails and backdoor feeding of information to her hubby Bruce Ohr.
She's one of many that'll go to prison for the role they played in the failed coup.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
The Dems/DNC of Obama/Hillary and Pelosi are the part of the Deep State.
McConnell scorches Dems from Senate floor, accuses them of rooting for ‘national crisis’
Well of course they did. Look who was in charge trying to protect their own arses!Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Duh. As they should have based on the various explanations coming out of the administration for the firing of Comey in the context of the FBI’s investigation of Trump’s campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Oh BS! All of the socialist Dems wanted Comey fired. He lied and leaked. I'm surprised Hillary and Bill Clinton haven't killed him yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
We were talking about the FBI.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
And you brought up Comey.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
That is because that is what you article was talking about. It was his firing, and the conflicting explanations in the context of the FBI’s investigation of Russian meddling, that triggered the FBI’s obstruction investigation prior to Mueller’s appointment.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Hum... no..And again I sayQuote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
House Judiciary Committee votes to hold Attorney General Barr in contempt 24-16.
So Congressional Democrats are holding Barr in contempt for abiding by a law, Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure 6(e), passed by Congress
Under the FRCP, AG Barr is forbidden to disclose grand jury information.
Absolute madness
Exactly! The liberal Dems all have TDS and are frantic as they see any hope for a 2020 Dem. win is almost gone. America sees their hypocritical double standards (see Hillary, Lynch, Holder, Pelosi and Obama including their and his "Deep State" coup attempt) and scrambling after their huge lies magnified by the commie media per "collusion and obstruction".Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
"Republicans called the move a politically motivated effort to "destroy Barr," noting that existing law prevented Barr from releasing grand jury materials and other sensitive information currently redacted from the public version of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report."
Wrong. In Haldeman v Sirica, the court held it was lawful for the House Judiciary Committee to receive grand jury information.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Nadler said on camera that they wanted the full unredacted report released to Congress.. he did not specify the House Judiciary Committee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
This is about creating a path to leak the redacted portion of report back to the drive by media. Accuracy and reading comprehension is out the window at that point.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Even that wouldn’t matter. In the only case on point, a circuit court of appeal held that they wouldn’t impose confidentiality obligations on the Judiciary Committee because it would impinge Congress’s constitutional authority. The Judiciary Committee is free to share the grand jury materials with Congress and even the public.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...33/1438/80111/
Congress has the inherent authority to see these materials because of their impeachment power, and for a similar reason the courts of held that the Judiciary Committee’s receipt of the materials falls into the “judicial proceeding” exception of FRCP Rule 6e.
And if Congress decides to release it, it is within their authority.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
You know I don’t recall of any of you guys making being strong proponents of grand jury secrecy in the past.
Speaking only for myself, I never knew grand jury secrecy was an issue until recently. And I can't recall a case where I held an opinion such that I would have expressed an opinion, pro or con.
And for me, here's the very bottom line: I want EVERYTHING revealed re: this whole "mess." The libs don't share that desire. They want ONLY something that might hurt Trump revealed. I also want ALL documents revealed re: obummer's crap, Holder's, Lynch's, and especially Krooked Killary's. Isn't it amazing that there is a Congressional "gag" order on all things related to the most corrupt administration in history, and no one says a word.
What's good for the goose...or in this case, the Goosey...is good for the gander. I say release the full Mueller Report, Trump's tax returns, and any other documents the salivating left wants...but ONLY AFTER...all documents are released re: the crooked obummer et al. Now, that's a good deal, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
so you don't disagree. As D80 said, I don't recall it ever coming into play before. Can you give me an example of us white supremacist being upset about such a thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
The senate will never vote to impeach Trump. The only Republican that might vote to impeach him would be dumbass Romney. All you need to do is take a look at Romney's religion to figure out how batshit crazy he is. He dug up his Father-in-law so he could baptize him into his fake religion over a year after he died.
As I understand it, Barr did release the full unreacted report to Congress in that special building and room for all of them to go read and see. However not a single Democrat went to read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
And then all smit broke loose when he called their bluff, words flew back and forth and none of them came to read it. Now the Dems are holding him in political contempt just for theater.
Exactly, you only care now because you think it might work to help hide things Trump wants hidden.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Fine with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
No, like D80 I don't care. I want it all out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
What I do care about is the real reason they want the redacted 10% released.
To do their job of oversight. What does Trump have to hide?Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Nothing to hide for Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Oversite a lie that you are regurgitating for your fellow socialist/liberals. They'll leak information (illegally), claim they didn't, but use it in the socialist media as propaganda.
House impeaches, Senate convicts.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
Trump is actively trying to goad the House into impeaching, but they are unlikely to do it unless they think the Senate would actually convict. Republicans are spineless so that is probably not going to happen. But that isn’t going to stop the House Democrats from attempting to do their oversight, even if that only means they can “investigate” until such time as the Republicans might have a change of heart.
It wouldn’t be illegal for them to leak it. And that is what oversight entitles them to do. That is how oversight works.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
I am guessing you didn’t read the case I cited earlier. This issue has been settled:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...33/1438/80111/
Quote:
Thus, applying the requirements of rule 6(e) in this context, we hold, taking into account the doctrine of separation of powers, that a merely generalized assertion of secrecy in grand jury materials must yield to a demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending impeachment investigation. This conclusion is strengthened all the more when the "invading" branch acts to "serve broad public interests-- ... not in derogation of the separation of powers but to maintain their proper balance, ... or to vindicate the public interest in an ongoing [investigation]." Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 754, 102 S. Ct. at 2703 (citing Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 72 S. Ct. 863, 96 L. Ed. 1153 (1952) (Steel Seizure case)).
An additional reason for disclosing the grand jury materials to the Committee under rule 6(e) is found in the principles of comity that inform the relationships between the branches of government. Under a proper conception of the separation of powers, there should be a degree of cooperation between the legislative and judicial branches. The Constitution does not contemplate silence, or hostility, or a total separation of authority among the three branches of government. Instead, the framers contemplated a dynamic interaction among the branches, in which a system of checks and balances serves to prevent overreaching by any one branch. See Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. at 442-43, 97 S. Ct. at 2789-90 (citing Steel Seizure case, 343 U.S. at 635, 72 S. Ct. at 870 (Jackson, J., concurring), and The Federalist No. 47 (J. Madison)).
Judge Hastings' argument is not based on the dispersion and sharing of power envisioned by the framers and by Montesquieu. It is based on a strict tripartite division of governmental territory unconnected by bridges, roads, rail, or any other means of intercourse. The framers did not contemplate that the branches would communicate by smoke signals from distant mountain tops. Rather, a number of functions were mixed between the legislative and the executive, e.g., the war power, the treaty power, the appointive power, the budgetary process, the spending power. In all of these areas of government, the two branches check each other and there must be cooperation if government is to function.
Judge Hastings' absolutist argument for strict separation is particularly inappropriate with respect to the function of grand juries. A mixing of functions and the need for intercourse between the executive and the judicial branch is clearly present in the operation of grand juries. The grand jury as an institution has one foot in the judicial branch and the other in the executive. The judicial branch has certain functions in instructing and controlling grand juries, and the executive submits evidence and makes recommendations to the grand jury. The two branches check each other in the enforcement of our system of criminal justice and thereby deter in part the possible abuse of power in the investigation and charging of criminal offenses. As in other areas where the framers allocated a function or institution to two branches of government, a high degree of cooperation is needed if the system is to function.
A prior instance of the type of cooperation contemplated by principles of interbranch comity is the cooperation extended to the judiciary by the House in litigation stemming from the Watergate scandal. In 1974, the District Court for the District of Columbia, in connection with the criminal prosecution of former Attorney General John W. Mitchell, subpoenaed certain evidence gathered by the Committee on the Judiciary in its inquiry into the impeachment of President Richard M. Nixon. The House adopted a resolution granting such access to the evidence as would not violate the privileges or constitutional powers of the House. See 3 Deschler's Precedents of the U.S. House of Representatives, ch. 14, Sec. 6.13. Although in the instant case the Committee requested rather than subpoenaed records, this Court should grant such access to the House as will not violate our privileges or constitutional powers. Deference to principles of comity does not entail simply giving the House any materials it requests. Comity is, however, a factor to be weighed in favor of disclosure when making the Rule 6(e) analysis.
The Committee asserts in its brief that "without full access to the grand jury materials, the public may not have confidence that the Congress considered all relevant evidence. To deny access to these materials would be nothing short of denying Congress--and the public--the right to information that may shed light on the truth." Public confidence in a procedure as political and public as impeachment is an important consideration justifying disclosure.
Judge Hastings also argues that the House's request is too broad. While requests for grand jury disclosure usually are limited to the testimony of specific witnesses, the Committee's request for disclosure of the entire grand jury record is appropriate in this case.
A unique aspect of the Committee's inquiry is its undertaking of what is essentially a de novo review of facts which have already been the subject of more traditional judicial proceedings. In order to conduct a full and fair investigation, the Committee needs to have access to all of the evidence which is available. The recommendation of the judicial branch concerning impeachment of Judge Hastings was based on access to the whole grand jury record, and that same access should not be denied Congress.
Judge Hastings argues that the Committee must rely on the report and record forwarded to it by the Judicial Conference unless it can show that the report and record are insufficient. This argument misapprehends the relationship between the Judicial Conference and the House of Representatives. Although the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act provides for the transmission of the Judicial Conference's report and determination that impeachment may be warranted to the House of Representatives, it in no way limits the investigatory power of the House in impeachment proceedings. Such a holding would clearly violate separation of powers principles.
Judge Hastings also argues that the order granted disclosure to too many people. Judge King's order noted that the Committee intended to receive the materials in executive session "in accordance with the confidentiality procedures agreement attached hereto...." (App., p. 13). The confidentiality procedures provide for access by "Members of Congress." Judge Hastings contends that members of the Senate are not within the class of persons to whom disclosure could properly be approved in connection with an impeachment inquiry. He also contends that allowing senators to have access to the materials conflicts with the separation of the impeachment and removal powers between the House and the Senate, as well as undermining his interest in preserving his right to a fair trial in the Senate.
Our response to this argument is that by this order we grant disclosure only to the body that made the request: namely, the House of Representatives. The Constitution assigns the House and Senate separate functions and powers in the impeachment and removal process. The House holds the sole power of impeachment.3 It also holds investigative powers that are ancillary to its impeachment power. Only the House may decide whether to investigate, impeach, and prosecute public officials upon allegations that they have committed high crimes or misdemeanors in office. These powers are in the sole domain of the House and are not shared with or exercised by the Senate.
The Senate, on the other hand, holds the sole power to try impeachments and to order removal from office upon conviction. If the House approves and transmits articles of impeachment, the Senate must exercise its judicial power and convene as a court of impeachment. The Senate must then sit as judges and jurors to hear such evidence as is admissible and arguments as are made to decide the case.4
In seeking disclosure of the grand jury record, the Committee on the Judiciary based its request upon the investigative powers that the House holds ancillary to its power of impeachment. This court should not grant disclosure of the grand jury materials to persons other than those covered by this power. Because the sole discretion to decide whether articles of impeachment are to be approved lies with the House, the Senate has no constitutional role in that decision. The Senate has not requested disclosure, and our order is limited to the House.
The argument that our order should specifically require the Judiciary Committee to adopt confidentiality procedures that deny senators access to the materials is without merit. Judge Hastings acknowledges that once the materials are disclosed, the court cannot enforce the Committee's confidentiality procedures. Thus, even assuming that the court could withhold disclosure until procedures were adopted which limited access, Congress would be free to amend or abandon the procedures at any time.
I see what you guys are doing now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
As it stands now they can't leak it legally, but once it get's out of the "secret room" and contains no redactions it is an open propaganda piece.
You're fighting a losing battle. No collusion and no obstruction. No way the democrats get enough votes in the senate to impeach. Why hasn't Nadler read the 98% unredacted report. I'll tell you why, there's nothing there he can get Trump on. He's nothing but a little weasel that lies out his butt. He knows the democrats don't have anything to run against Trump on. Trump will kick their butts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
You sound like someone that hasn’t read the report. Because that is not what the report says.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
If they decide to disclose it, they can. Why do you want it hidden?Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
This is what it means for Congress to be a co-equal branch of government with oversight responsibilities. This report was always meant for Congress. They are the only ones with the power to hold Trump responsible for his crimes while he is in office.
I don't. I've said I didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Barr believes he will be breaking the law by revealing GJ testimony. Congress doesn't care and has jumped on the fact that Barr did not ask for a court ruling before denying the bogus requests.
He is either lying or incompetent. Given his track history of lying, my bet is on the former.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Whatever. Your fellow socialist didn't have a problem with him until your most hated person nominated him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
What a totally stupid and egotistical thing for a two bit lawyer like you to say. I know you are full of yourself, but you made a total ass of yourself with this post. William Barr is the Attorney General of the United States. What the hell have you ever accomplished that would qualify you to judge a great American like William Barr.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
He shouldn’t lie if he doesn’t want to be called out for lying.Quote:
Originally Posted by brtransplant
You never called out Holder?!Quote:
Originally Posted by brtransplant
You poor little boy!!! Has Mr. Barr hurt your feelings too, and you're calling him a liar makes you feel better!!! Don't that make you feel big and important. Mr. Barr has accomplished a lot more in his life than a little punk like you will ever accomplish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Have I hurt your feelings?Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
I love Joe Digenova!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owjtF67DQzk
How could a little punk like you hurt my feelings?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
It is amazing how many talking head Trump defenders have not actually read the report.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
Mueller explains why he didn’t make a determination that Trump obstructed justice. He said that he specifically “determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes" (Mueller report). To do so and then reach a conclusion on the ultimate issue would be highly improper. He detailed his findings and then said it was for Congress (not the AG) to decide. “With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has the authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice." (Mueller report)
The selective quoting of the Mueller report in the Barr 4 page summary was a clear signal what Barr’s actual agenda was - and that is to run political cover for his boss, even if that meant distorting the facts and misleading the public. Most notable, in quoting the report he left off (for obvious Trump protecting reasons) an important aspect of the conclusion:
"Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts..." (Volume I, Page 1-2). This kind of intentional, selective quotation would get an ordinary lawyer torn apart by a judge.
The facts of the report on “collusion” show that (1) Russia wanted to help Trump win and did take actions to that end, and (2) the Trump
campaign wanted to secure such help. The fact that they did not achieve an actual agreement, such as a quid pro quo, might relieve Trump campaign officials from criminal liability under the “conspiracy” statute - the actions detailed in this report indict the character of Trump and his family. They had criminal aspirations and wanted Russia to violate US law to help him win. That is conduct unfitting for the POTUS.
I don’t know. It never occurred to me that someone should ever feel threatened or hurt by the success of someone else. The way you jumped directly to this assumption, made it seem like you might have experience with these kind of feelings or how else would you have such an illogical idea ever occurred to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
Since you routinely attack me personally, similar to my attack on Barr, I was only drawing the obvious inference.
I actually think you need psychiatric help. You're so obsessed with Trump that it takes up all of your time. Do you still have a job?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Trump “takes up” only a little more of my time than any other president. I multitask. Thanks for your concern.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
That's awesome!Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
He needs to be on every CNN and MSNBC news and talk show as they always lie to the public and conspire against America and conservatives in general. They are spreading pure propaganda on a daily basis. And their websites are even worse if you can imagine that one.
And he will collapse and turn states evidence against Obama/Hillary/USAG Lynch and theCIA's John Brennan who served as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from March 2013 to January 2017. Obama could be in serious doo doo!
Comey had some at FBI 'quite worried' about possible blackmail of Trump,
bureau's ex-counsel says
It's starting!!Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Obama spymasters ‘throwing each other under the bus’ amid Russia probe review
https://a57.foxnews.com/hp.foxnews.c....jpg?tl=1&ve=1POINTING FINGERS
POINTING FINGERS
Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
It's starting to snowball now.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Secret FBI transcripts from Russia probe could be 'game-changer': Gowdy
:laugh: Finger pointing everywhere now.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Obama AG accuses Comey of mischaracterizing key Clinton probe conversation during House testimony
Some of my FB buds have started a pool, they are placing bets on who will be the first to make a deal to protect his/her own azz and turn state's evidence. Right now John Brennan leads the pool...but it's still early. :D
You FB buds are probably dead on with their bets. That sleaze ball Brennen has been lying through his teeth at every turn throughout this entire sorry affair. He belongs in prison for the rest of his life.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Sorry to say but I'm thinking one of these clowns is going to attempt their own life.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
I pray not but these high ego types that totally crash are profile types for that ending.
If any of these clowns can implicate Krooked Killary, I GUARANTEE we'll see "suicides."Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Quote:
Originally Posted by brtransplant
Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Brennan, Clapper and the "Deep State" are feeling the squeeze now! They are going down along with Comey, Lynch, Holder, that IRS bi$ch and the others. Maybe they will get Clinton as well but I doubt they ever touch Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Brennan, Clapper lash out at Trump for declassifying 2016 election intel
https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxne....jpg?tl=1&ve=1
James Comey is a named-defendant in a sexual harassment/discrimination lawsuit filed against the FBI. Comey also tried to obstruct the investigation into the allegations brought by 16 women, some are current FBI agents.
Just another feather in his cap for the scumbag society of which he is a prominent member.
What a great guy!
More and more truth is starting to come out about just what a POS Comey really is. He's going to go to prison for his actions in this, the largest political scandal in our nation's history.
This is going to be so much fun to watch as it rebounds all over the liberal Deep State Dems. And of course very sad as well.
Lots of establishment crooks are going to be going to jail.
When? And for what?
Once the AG Barr led DOJ finishes its investigation of this entire Russian hoax, I predict that many officials that served under Obama in the FBI, CIA, and DOJ will go to prison for treason and other high crimes. It's just a matter of time now. The jig is up, and they know it.
I hope you're right. And I don't doubt for a minute they are all guilty as hell. But we've seen too many times hardcore lefties escape prosecution and prison. Just look at the Klintons, obummer, Holder...Quote:
Originally Posted by brtransplant
We'll see.
You can’t really be that stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by brtransplant
Quote:
Originally Posted by brtransplant
Quote:
Originally Posted by brtransplant
:shocked2: Look who's finally saying at least one thing true!! The rest of his comments about Obama and his Deep state crap are totally false as usual. This is just the tip of the iceberg!Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Bill Maher says Hillary Clinton 'committed obstruction of justice' in email scandal
Bill Maher makes surprising admission about Hillary email scandal
In a surprising admission Monday, 'Real Time' host Bill Maher revealed that he thought former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did in fact 'commit obstruction of justice' in regards to the email scandal that rocked the 2016 election. While Maher did complain that the email scandal was 'overcovered' by the media during the election, he conceded that Clinton's behavior may have been unlawful.
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...ructed-justice
I'm not gonna let you make me mad Guisslapp. I know this is the only place you can try to bully people and not get your ass handed to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Good! My only goal here is to make you smarter.Quote:
Originally Posted by brtransplant
I appreciate your concern, and I look forward to the day you post something other than whatever the liberal talking points of the day are. Your posts are about as predictable as a CNN or MSNBC broadcast, and I've not read one that's had anything worth remembering in it yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
They all tune in to a meeting before each broadcast to make sure that every MSM network uses the exact same language in their talking points. Would be easier to just put one reporter/anchorperson on every one of those networks.Quote:
Originally Posted by brtransplant
Quote:
Originally Posted by brtransplant
So true. In fact the liberal/socialist congressional and senator Democrats listen in and have the same talking points as well. They are in lock-step like Hiltler's ilk EVERYDAY SINGLE DAY!!Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
You right wingers definitely do that. Us independents just consume information from many different sources and make obvious conclusions.
Truth! I've mentioned before those montages Hannity does, showing all the Dems and the lamestream media repeating the same talking point(s) verbatim, is comical. And all in the same day!Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
I love you man but you're no independent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
That is what my voter registration has always said. I don’t support the Republican or Democrat party.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
http://www.latechbbb.com/forum/image...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Guisslapp http://www.latechbbb.com/forum/image...post-right.png
You right wingers definitely do that. Us independents just consume information from many different sources and make obvious conclusions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
It doesn't matter what your voter registration states. We all know who and what party you 100% support on BB&B.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
No, you know who I believe is the biggest mistake for POTUS ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
I can support any politician or party that is willing to fix it.
I bet you're really looking forward to everything getting declassified and we'll all get to see exactly what went on in the 2016 presidential election. That ought to really help you with that case of TDS you have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I am not concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by brtransplant
Quote:
Originally Posted by brtransplant
Then you've been rambling, accusing and arguing for nothing and for zero reason the last 2 1/2 years and wasting the time of those of us that are concerned and care about our country dearly; especially per the title of this thread "Another FBI and/or Obama "Deep State" screw-up" and others (multiple Hillary scandal and coverup threads, Comey threads, CIA/FBI threads, DNC computer hacked and coverup thread, Russia threads).Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Or are you just not concerned that you will be proven wrong again per brtransplant's comments above?
I am not concerned I will be proven wrong. I very concerned about how Trump is destroying our country.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Speaking of deep states and stuff, your pride and joy AG Barr wants to be able to spy on you and Big Tech seems to be the only thing standing in his way...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnb...tigations.html
Well hey, I guess if its alright to spy on a presidential candidate it should be alright to spy on us, right? I guess Barr will do what Comey did, and just make up shit to get a warrant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
That's an interesting one. They can get phone records and ransack your house and belongings, it seems like being able to see your communications is in line with that. On the other hand, it seems like it would be ripe for abuse. Seems like if they have a warrant they should be able to gain access. I don't like the idea of a "master key" system that would give them access any time they are fishing for info.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
It's about to get really stick for the "Deep State". Barr is going to expose all of it!!!!
No Russia collusion or obstruction and no impeachment after the pitiful and sorry Democrats and Mueller showing today.
You Socialist Dems are about to bite the freaking big one.
Pretty sure the overwhelming point of today is that there are facts supporting obstruction of justice and that Republicans don’t care.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
The other point was that Trump can be indicted when he leaves office.
The overwhelming point of today was that Mueller has a 400+ page report with his name at the TOP of the report and he had no idea what was inside it. Mueller was just a figure head.. So who was actually running the investigation??
You must have missed the introduction.
Good luck as Trump will still be in office way past the 5 years allowed to do that at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by GuisslappPretty sure the overwhelming point of today is that there are facts supporting obstruction of justice and that Republicans don’t care.
The other point was that Trump can be indicted when he leaves office.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
So you don’t want Trump to be accountable for breaking the law?Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
That was the closest thing to a bombshell that came out of the hearing. Mueller didn't seem to know what was in the report. Must have been an ACA type deal that they had to release the report to find out what was in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
From Guisslapps comments and what I have read on some more left leaning sites, it sounds like the Democrats felt like it was a mixed bag, some are saying it was a big win and they laid the hammer down while others are saying it wasn't what they needed. Republicans seem pretty happy with how it went.
As expected, most people saw what they wanted to see unless they were looking for clear cut path to impeachment in which case it fell short.
It went how I expected. Mueller said in his press conference previously his testimony would not go further than the report. His introductory comment said the same.
He was clearly trying to avoid embellishing or expanding his testimony behind the report.
This played out like typical Congressional testimony - members of Congress grandstanding.
But it definitely puts a dagger through Trump’s lies once again and the idea that Mueller is a deep state hack. He could have roasted Trump and made the Dems job easy if he wanted to. The facts and his report support it. He understands how important it is not to politicize the investigation, because he believes the Russian election meddling threat should be taken very seriously. Wish Trump would get on board with taking it seriously.
YepQuote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
TrueQuote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
YepQuote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
And that is where you saw what you wanted to see. Mueller didn't seem to hold back when he felt like he could say something contrary to the president, but he definitely seemed to want to avoid the grandstanding the R's and D's were doing. Pretty sharp contrast with Comey.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Nobody has proven he has broken any law. Period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
He has only tried to defend himself against bogus accusations.