world

Trump blasts 'witch hunt' but lawyer insists no probe

116 Comments
By Olivia HAMPTON

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2017 AFP

©2017 GPlusMedia Inc.


116 Comments
Login to comment

The lawyer also suggested Twitter's character limit may be partly to blame.

Then stop using twitter.

Now his lawyer is spouting the nonsense regarding Comey's statement that at the time the statement was made, Trump was not under investigation. However, as many of us looney left liberals repeatedly pointed out; just because Trumo wasn't under investigation then, does not mean he won't be under investigation in the future.

14 ( +14 / -0 )

And, cue the Trump Trolls/Putin Posters ranting about things irrelevant to this story such as Lynch, the Clinton's, and Obama's top-notch presidency. Predictable like an atomic clock, just not accurate like that clock.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

Has anybody asked the lawyer's lawyer what the lawyer meant to say or didn't say when the lawyer said what the lawyer either said or meant to say, according to the lawyer's lawyer?

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Keep going in circles, to no avail.

This will never end, it's just of waste of time and taxpayer money.

-17 ( +0 / -17 )

Trump just cant shut his mouth.Now bring on his screwball hardcore supporters as they must defend the master.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

This post is doing the rounds at the moment, lifted from The Guardian:

"Yeah. I don’t know – it’s hard for me to see any U.S. ties to Russia…

  • except for the Flynn thing and the Manafort thing*

  • and the Tillerson thing*

  • and the Sessions thing*

  • and the Kushner thing*

  • and the Carter Page thing*

  • and the Roger Stone thing*

  • and the Felix Sater thing*

  • and the Boris Ephsteyn thing*

  • and the Rosneft thing*

  • and the Gazprom thing*

  • and the Sergey Gorkov banker thing*

  • and the Azerbajain thing*

  • and the “I love Putin” thing*

  • and the Donald Trump, Jr. thing*

  • and the Sergey Kislyak thing*

  • and the Russian Affiliated Interests thing*

  • and the Russian Business Interests thing*

  • and the Emoluments Clause thing*

  • and the Alex Schnaider thing*

  • and the hack of the DNC thing*

  • and the Guccifer 2.0 thing*

  • and the Mike Pence “I don’t know anything” thing*

  • and the Russians mysteriously dying thing*

  • and Trump’s public request to Russia to hack Hillary’s email thing*

  • and the Trump house sale for $100 million at the bottom of the housing bust to the Russian fertilizer king thing*

  • and the Russian fertilizer king’s plane showing up in Concord, NC during Trump rally campaign thing*

  • and the Nunes sudden flight to the White House in the night thing*

  • and the Nunes personal investments in the Russian winery thing*

  • and the Cyprus bank thing*

  • and Trump not releasing his tax returns thing*

  • and the Republican Party’s rejection of an amendment to require Trump to show his taxes thing*

  • and the election hacking thing*

  • and the GOP platform change to the Ukraine thing*

  • and the Steele Dossier thing*

  • and the Leninist Bannon thing*

  • and the Sally Yates can’t testify thing*

  • and the intelligence community’s investigative reports thing*

  • and Trump’s reassurance that the Russian connection is all “fake news” thing*

  • and Spicer’s Russian Dressing “nothing’s wrong” thing*

  • so there’s probably nothing there*

  • since the swamp has been drained, these people would never lie*

  • probably why Nunes cancels the investigation meetings*

  • all of this must be normal*

  • just a bunch of separate dots with no connection.*
19 ( +21 / -2 )

Thanks, Toasted. I loved Trumps tweet re: how irked he is about “the Russia thing with Trump and Russia” because it sounds so much like an American TV show name - like Captain and Tennile or Sonny and Cher.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

  • except for the Flynn thing and the Manafort thing

  • and the Tillerson thing

  • and the Sessions thing

  • ...

Yeah, other than all those things, there's nothing.

11 ( +13 / -2 )

Somebody buy Trump a broom to ride.....

11 ( +11 / -0 )

The usual Trump apologists must be waiting for their talking points. They are unusually quiet at the moment.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Sekulow made an interesting observation:

Before you get to an investigation, you have to get to, ‘Does the constitution allow the prosecution of this type of matter.’ If there is going to be an investigation, which right now there is not, you would of course raise the constitutional issues first.

So basically, he's claiming that, because the president cannot be prosecuted (other than by congress, which will likely not do so), there's no need for an investigation.

Talk about cart before horse. Russian meddling in the election fully deserves detailed forensics, as does the Administration's response (or lack thereof). The American people deserve to know what Trump and his clique knew and how they acted. This is entirely unrelated to prosecuting the president.

Not a very smart statement for a lawyer, and it will be ignored. It does signal desperation.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Trump's, his lawyer's, and his supporters' diatribes signal desperation.

All of those living in reality are waiting patiently for the investigations to run their courses.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Just watched Meet the Press and the poor lawyer going on the program trying to defend Trump's actions was laughable.How can you defend he's not under investigate when the joker actually tweeted that he was? And then say you're looking too much into the tweet.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

The lawyer also suggested Twitter's character limit may be partly to blame.

The GOP®: the party of personal responsibility.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

The usual Trump apologists must be waiting for their talking points. They are unusually quiet at the moment.

The realization that Trump's tweets too often disagree with what is fact, even within his own people, is hard to argue against. No apologist can argue that Trump's tweets and thus his communication within the White House and his crew, including lawyers, are so often wrong, that he should just quit tweeting false information.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Ok. So in as the desperate left hopelessly Ling on to a glimmer of hope that there might be something to hang the president with, the smoking gun they need isn't smoking at all, in fact, there's no wood. Oh, I keep forgetting, the main reason for the vast deforestation is the fact that the left need all that tissue.

I used to shake my head in amazement at how desperate and whiny the left have become, but now it's rather amusing as well as entertaining to see how many of them insist on running down rabbit holes. Having said that, I do think Trump should limit his tweeting, but at the same time, this "witch hunt" (and let's not kid ourselves) is doing nothing but giving the American people a huge migraine.

-22 ( +0 / -22 )

at the same time, this "witch hunt" (and let's not kid ourselves) is doing nothing but giving the American people a huge migraine.

For those of us who live in reality:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/06/15/poll-61-americans-think-trump-has-tried-obstruct-russia-investigation/102884748/

9 ( +10 / -1 )

bass4funk: I wouldn't mind Trump tweeting if he kept it factual and would quit using words like 'witch hunt' or the many derogatory comments of arrogance you wouldn't want your six year old using. Pretty much, if he keeps it civil, it'd be bearable, but he has no use for manners or compassion, and the messages he sends are so blatantly mean, petty and sophomoric, he tweets moronically and often gives unhinged comments that consequently do give people a very negative view of him, not to mention he lies, often. It's natural to want your president to be a role model, not the guy you absolutely do not want kids acting like.

13 ( +13 / -0 )

Cute list! Ive seen this cut and pasted all over the internet. Easy to call each of them a thing so you dont have to say what you are actually referring to. Yet none of those things on that list have been proven as crimes. But hey maybe one thing will stick on one person who is barely connected to Trump and success can be celebrated and we can move on.

and the Sally Yates can’t testify thing*

Oh she didnt testify? hmmm ok then.....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/sally-yatess-senate-testimony-in-three-minutes/2017/05/08/a7b37572-3445-11e7-ab03-aa29f656f13e_video.html

-17 ( +1 / -18 )

For those of us who live in reality:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/06/15/poll-61-americans-think-trump-has-tried-obstruct-russia-investigation/102884748/

The poll was conducted from June 8 to 11 and surveyed 1,068 people with a error margin of 4.1 points. According to the poll, 46% of those surveyed identified as Democrats or leaning Democratic, 33% identified as Republicans or leaning Republican

Reminds me of all the polls that said Hillary was gonna win.

-17 ( +0 / -17 )

Reminds me of all the polls that said Hillary was gonna win.

Like the Rasmussen poll Trump is so fond of? That one also said Hillary would win the EC.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

Yet none of those things on that list have been proven as crimes.

No one is saying they have been. What's being said is that with all those 'things', you'd have to be pretty unpatriotic to think that there is no valid basis behind an investigation.

The poll was conducted from June 8 to 11 and surveyed 1,068 people with a error margin of 4.1 points. According to the poll, 46% of those surveyed identified as Democrats or leaning Democratic, 33% identified as Republicans or leaning Republican

So the number of people who think Trump has tried to impede the investigation is between 57% and 65%. A pretty solid number.

According to the poll, 46% of those surveyed identified as Democrats or leaning Democratic, 33% identified as Republicans or leaning Republican

You realize that they weight for this, which is:

A) Why they state it

B) Why they have a margin of error.

Reminds me of all the polls that said Hillary was gonna win.

The final polls were pretty accurate as to the number of votes she got. They just didn't get the electoral college right.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

You guys have selective memories. Remember the Trump has no path to 270 graphics. He was supposed to lose all those toss up states that he won. ALL of them. Somebody forgot that winning New York and California by +5 million votes doesnt mean the other 48 states dont matter.

As far as this USA today poll, here is the math

46% Dems (ALL Dems will say he did something wrong)

11% of the 22% (half) of independents/none surveyed.

2% of the 4% (half) margin of error

2% of Republicans

There is your 61%. ALL Dems, half of independents and a very few open minded Republicans. So if it were not so heavily weighted Dem in the responses, it would be HALF, not 61%

-13 ( +0 / -13 )

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/19/these-pollsters-got-the-election-right-according-to-rcp/

Rasmussen poll was the 2nd most accurate according to Real Clear Politics. Number 1 was the IBD poll which actually showed Trump winning most of the election. Everyone on the Dem side laughed at, until it was proven correct.

So basically polls are useless, we saw that in the election. But if you are going to say that Trump only has 36% approval and base it on a poll, you also have to accept Rasmussen too which says 50%. Cant just accept the one which proves your point, while the one that proves Trump's was independently verified to be from a more accurate source.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

Yeah, that's not actually how polling works.

its how math works though

You cant just oversample one side that you know is going to give you 100%. Is your position that ANY Dem would say Trump is doing a good job or that Trump didnt collude with Russia? He has a 4% approval rate with Dems in a poll with a margin of error of 4%.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

100% of Dems negative, 100% of Repubs positive and half of everyone else split positive/negative. If all 3 groups have equal members, thats 50%.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

Yeah, that's not how polling works.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Thats what I heard when they were printing magazine covers congratulating Hillary as the new President. Yet here we are with President Trump. Despite every poll oversampling Dems because there are supposedly more of them. Yet, President Trump.

So Trump is guilty of collusion in public opinion just because there are more Dems than Republicans so more Dems are asked? I dont think so....election proved that.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

The desperation of certain posters is almost overwhelming. Instead of waiting for results from the numerous investigations, they are discussing polls and trying to convince themselves that there is nothing to the investigations. Remember that the rupub-es control congress, which means they control the investigations, which means it's not the democrats.

Also, keep in mind that the reasons for the investigations emanate from the actions of Trump and his people. This is to say that the investigations are a result of Trump and his team, not democrats. I know some of you wouldn't be able to sleep at night if you accepted these facts, so feel free to continue your intellectual dishonesty. That said, it's a lot like a comb-over; you're only fooling yourself.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

So Trump is guilty of collusion in public opinion

Oh, now I see where the issue is coming from. You're going off what you think the poll reported, and condemning that, rather than what it actually reported.

Hard to discuss the issue with you when one of us is discussing reality, and the other just made up some stuff in their head.

dont think so....election proved that.

Um, you realize which candidate got more votes, right?

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Im not going to get into polls or relive the election. We saw how inaccurate polls were by the results we got in the election. It showed that oversampling of one group to get the desired result is not only dishonest, it isnt accurate either.

Trump won by the system that was in place. If its so important that the person with the most popular votes becomes President why havent the Dems even mentioned anything about changing the electoral college? Had a chance after Gore/Bush too, so its not the first time. But nothing.

100% of people in a poll could say they think there is collusion or obstruction. Doesnt mean it doesnt have to be proven. The guy Schiff today said he is sure there was collusion. When asked to provide facts or evidence, he said he has nothing he could take to a jury. So why say there is collusion if you cant prove it? But Russia! the narrative! these guys are ridiculous.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

We saw how inaccurate polls were by the results we got in the election.

As I always said, even before the election, polling is an inaccurate science. It's people attempting to make predictions of the future, based on current thoughts. That's why different pollsters come up with different figures.

However, the polls were quite accurate as to the number of votes each candidate got - just not the way the electoral college would go. They got it part right and part wrong.

And this current poll isn't a prediction of the future, it's a reflection of the present.

It showed that oversampling of one group to get the desired result is not only dishonest, it isnt accurate either.

I know you guys haaaaaate polls, because they show the hatred of Dear Leader by the people. But face it, the people hate Dear Leader. He's a failure. Maybe the poll is off by 4.1%. Maybe it's off by even more. But if you think that at least half the people don't think he did anything wrong, you're kidding yourself.

Anyways, the poll was to disprove Bass' claim that the people didn't want this to happen. The poll clearly shows that people think Trump was in the wrong. And even if you don't like polls, more people voted for Hillary than Trump, and that's not a poll. So even if you're right about only the democrats on the poll I linked to above thinking that Trump did something wrong, that's still more people than Republicans.

100% of people in a poll could say they think there is collusion or obstruction. Doesnt mean it doesnt have to be proven.

You're right, it does need to be proven. Yet you keep trying to say there is no basis behind the investigation, even with all those points that someone listed earlier. Why are you so desperate to shut down an investigation into Dear Leader? Afraid that it may end up proving what people suspect?

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Yet you keep trying to say there is no basis behind the investigation, even with all those points that someone listed earlier. 

You mean that things cut and paste job? Where half of the things are inaccurate or not even a crime? Then the other half is just a person's name with no explanation of what they even did and which has no connection whatsover to Trump?

Been saying for 6 months now. What's the crime and where is the evidence that proves it? There are things that people have supposedly done yes, but none of them have been proven and Dems are still trying to match each action with an actual crime. For an example, Trump didnt release his taxes, not crime. Sally Yates DID testify and was never told she couldnt, etc. That list is lazy, inaccurate, cut and paste garbage.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

Where half of the things are inaccurate or not even a crime?

Oh, I didn't realize you're part of the investigation. Why are you leaking that information after being so public about leaks being bad? Pretty hypocritical. When other investigators leak info you compliant, but here you are, part of the investigation, leaking information. How do you justify that?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Oh, I didn't realize you're part of the investigation. Why are you leaking that information after being so public about leaks being bad? Pretty hypocritical. When other investigators leak info you compliant, but here you are, part of the investigation, leaking information. How do you justify that?

Yeah yeah. Please identify from that overly long cut and paste list which thing is (a) an actual crime (b) directly related to Trump and (c) has been proven as actually happened. I dont see any, and I see several that are false or not crimes, so someone should at least update the list by now.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

For those of us who live in reality:

Reality?! I'm surprised you would quote a paper that has a very left leaning editorial page, but ok, I'm not surprised.

  • I wouldn't mind Trump tweeting if he kept it factual and would quit using words like 'witch hunt' or the many derogatory comments of arrogance you wouldn't want your six year old using. Pretty much, if he keeps it civil, it'd be bearable, but he has no use for manners or compassion, and the messages he sends are so blatantly mean, petty and sophomoric, he tweets moronically and often gives unhinged comments that consequently do give people a very negative view of him, not to mention he lies, often. *

I have NEVER met a politician that didn't lie.

It's natural to want your president to be a role model, not the guy you absolutely do not want kids acting like.

I didn't want my kids to act like tha previous president as well.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

Hee hee. Polls. Trump obsesses with them. His latest tweet:

The new Rasmussen Poll, one of the most accurate in the 2016 Election, just out with a Trump 50% Approval Rating.That's higher than O's #'s!

Ha ha! Seriously deep belly chuckle. It's not just his obsession with his (rapidly-vanishing) popularity; it's not just the inaccuracy of his statement (Obama was at 56% at five months); it's his desperate clinging at the straw of a Rasmussen Poll.

As others have pointed out, and as Hillary certainly knows (and knew before the election - that's why she'd cancelled her planned NY fireworks show a few days beforehand), reality has a way of biting one in the butt. Mechanisms are in movement over which Trump has no control, and boy, does he hate that.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

I'm surprised you would quote a paper that has a very left leaning editorial page

Why would you be surprised about partisanship? You yourself admitted you don't care about what the rest of the world thinks about America, even though you regularly criticized Obama for making America look bad in the eyes of the world - a very partisan action.

Please identify from that overly long cut and paste list which thing is (a) an actual crime (b) directly related to Trump and (c) has been proven as actually happened.

Why would I point out any of those? As I've pointed out, all of those things point at the need for an investigation. Please explain how even with all of those things, there is no need for an investigation? And before you try to claim that none of those things prove anything illegal has happened, remember I'm not saying any of them do prove anything illegal has happened, only that they show an investigation is necessary to prove whether something illegal has happened or not.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Please explain how even with all of those things, there is no need for an investigation?

Because several of them already proven as untrue. Many others are misleading or have no information what they are even talking about?

Why dont we just find out what crime has been committed than investigate it? Rather than investigating in order to find a crime to investigate? Generally someone is murdered before a murder investigation is opened, right? So what is the crime in this criminal investigation?

]Well in the case of Seth Rich, someone WAS murdered but they dont want to investigate that one for sure.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

Because several of them already proven as untrue.

Ahh sorry, I keep forgetting you're part of the investigation. Can you please once again tell me how you are justifying these leaks?

Many others are misleading or have no information what they are even talking about?

Ok, so it appears that you are saying that because there isn't enough information, we should definitely not have an investigation to investigate further. How exactly does that work?

Why dont we just find out what crime has been committed than investigate it?

Um, an investigation is exactly how we figure out if a crime may have been committed. Your comment literally makes no sense. You're saying that we need to investigate whether a crime has been committed so we can investigate whether a crime may have been committed.

If the investigation shows the possibility of a crime having been committed, then there is a trial that definitively determines whether or not one has been committed.

Generally someone is murdered before a murder investigation is opened, right? So what is the crime in this criminal investigation?

Murder investigations happen before a body has been found sometimes, based on facts that make it appear that there has been a murder. And often, they won't even announce that there is an investigation into a murder while they are investigating what they believe to be a murder.

You keep putting forward the 'logic' (notice the quotes), that because no one has been found guilty of anything, we shouldn't even be investigating whether there is the possibility of anyone being guilty of anything.

So what is the crime in this criminal investigation?

You're one of the investigators, right? You tell us, what exactly are they investigating?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

You know good and well that several things on that list are false, while others are just a person's name with no information about the crime they have supposedly committed. Im done with this topic as comments are starting to be censored.

You're one of the investigators, right? You tell us, what exactly are they investigating?

I know what they are supposed to be investigating, but they only seem to want to investigate one side of a two sided election.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

It is a obvious witch hunt and it is amazing that there are people who buy into this ridiculous "Russia at my homework" nonsense concocted by the DNC and perpetrated by the media. That there are still people who uncritically consume this cheap propaganda is truly disappointing.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

Why dont we just find out what crime has been committed than investigate it? Rather than investigating in order to find a crime to investigate? Generally someone is murdered before a murder investigation is opened, right? So what is the crime in this criminal investigation?

The GOP broke your brain.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

I changed my mind, I will try one last time.

Ok, the investigation is Russian interference in the 2016 election. So lets start with:

HOW did the Russians interfere? what did they actually DO?

Ok, seems they hacked some stuff. Anything else they did? If so what and who?

Ok got it. Did anyone on the Trump side or Hillary side help them or did they do it by themselves?

Ok someone on Trump side helped? Who and how? Can you prove it? Prosecute after proof.

Someone on Hillary side helped? Who and how? Can you prove it? Prosecute after proof.

No one helped? Ok, then they did it by themselves. What can we do to prevent them from doing it by themselves again?

Then its all done. In no way should this start with a person or group of people and work itself backwards.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Because several of them already proven as untrue. 

Uhh, a Senator said they were only about 20% through with the investigation.

I know what they are supposed to be investigating

Crimes?

Or, is it just Democrats?

Or, is it anyone except the GoP and Trump?

The truth are there is a lot of questions that have not been adequately answered. Jared offered to testify and respond to questions, but nobody is asking him anything. The reason from my perspective, they (FBI, senators, special counsel) are still gathering information to develop questions. It makes me very suspicious about Jared and what someone has on him.

Remember, the Russia thing is basically a counter intelligence investigation that needs to change into a criminal investigation. That is not easy. Russian collusion will be hard to prove in a court of law.

Doing really stupid things in the public eye that happen to be criminal (like obstruction of justice) is easier to prove in a court of law. Trump's mistake: he has done and said some really stupid things in public that could result in criminal charges.

The smart move would have been to stay low and keep their mouth shut. That is too much to ask of a braggart like Trump.

Swift: JD97.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Generally someone is murdered before a murder investigation is opened, right? So what is the crime in this criminal investigation?

The president himself said in public he fired Comey for the whole Russia thing, which points to a crime that happens to be tied to the Russia investigation.

Then you have Comey getting fired for not letting Flynn go (a subject of the Russia investigation), which points to a crime that happens to be tied to the Russia investigation.

Then you have Trump potentially instructing the DNI and head of NSA to intervene in the FBI's investigation of Russia, which points to a crime that happens to be tied to the Russia investigation.

Yes, these are facts (like a dead body) that points to a crime that needs to be investigated. See, not so hard.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

I know what they are supposed to be investigating, but they only seem to want to investigate one side of a two sided election.

I know; it's a witch hunt, right?

What's the legalities regarding investigators and say, commenting online about the investigation that you're investigating?

Sounds like the investigation could be compromised. Do the investigators need to be investigated?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Blacklabel

Like it or not, it does not look good for Trump and that is based only on what we know so far. The US is well-known for its comprehensive investigations of dodgy politics, dodgy deals, dodgy people and Trump is in for it based on his stupid comments and stupid tweets and stupid behavior. Dodgy Donald will need to lawyer up very soon.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

You know good and well that several things on that list are false, while others are just a person's name with no information about the crime they have supposedly committed.

How have they been proven false without an investigation? You keep trying to say that we don't need to investigate because conclusions have already been made, but how can conclusions have been made without an investigation? You're using faulty logic.

I know what they are supposed to be investigating, but they only seem to want to investigate one side of a two sided election.

And you keep trying to shut down that one side. Seems pretty suspicious that you want to shut down an investigation into wrongdoing. Sounds very Trumpy.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

It is a obvious witch hunt and it is amazing that there are people who buy into this ridiculous "Russia at my homework" nonsense concocted by the DNC and perpetrated by the media.

You realize the Democrats literally have no power or position to cause these investigations to happen, don't you? That only the Republicans can do it, and that in fact the Republicans are the ones that are doing it.

I know you guys want to think this is a democratic conspiracy, but if it's a conspiracy, it's a Republican one.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

It is a witch hunt because everyone involved wants to start at a point that Trump did something and prove that it is illegal so that he can be impeached.

Trump fired the FBI Director, Trump obstructed justice, Trump colluded with the Russians.

But the investigation is RUSSIAN interference in the 2016 Presidential election. So why not find out what they did, how they did it and who if anyone helped them do it? Then you will find your guilty parties (if any). If you start with Trump in every situation you are already admitting you dont even care what Russia supposedly did or how they did it.

But ok, I guess we just have to wait until Mueller and his Clinton donating lawyers decide to start at the beginning with Russian interference or just skip right to a personal investigation into Trump.

There is also a report saying that Mueller hasnt decided whether to even look into Trump or not yet, so maybe he will actually start at the right place:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/robert-mueller-hasnt-decided-whether-to-actually-investigate-trump-report/article/2626336

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Ok, the investigation is Russian interference in the 2016 election. So lets start with:

Is it? Because Trump is being investigated for interfering in the investigation, not for Russian interference (unless we just haven't heard about his also being investigated for Russian interference, but let's assume he's not).

You criticize leaks, but the only way you could know that they aren't also investigating other things is either if you are part of the investigation and leaking, or if the entire list of things being investigated were leaked. So how can you know that the only investigation is into interference, and that they aren't investigating other things as well?

HOW did the Russians interfere? what did they actually DO?

Um, that's for an investigation to determine.

Ok, seems they hacked some stuff. Anything else they did? If so what and who?

More stuff for an investigation to determine.

Someone on Hillary side helped? Who and how? Can you prove it? Prosecute after proof.

Prosecute after investigation. You cannot prosecute after proof, as the proof is determined during the prosecution, and the evidence used to make the determination is found during investigation.

The truth are there is a lot of questions that have not been adequately answered.

Which is what an investigation is for - to find answers to the questions.

No one helped? Ok, then they did it by themselves. What can we do to prevent them from doing it by themselves again?

We don't know whether anyone helped, as they haven't yet finished the investigation. Until that is finished, there can be no way to help someone to prevent someone from doing something, as it hasn't yet been determined if they did anything that needs help preventing.

Then its all done. In no way should this start with a person or group of people and work itself backwards.

It's not. The investigation is literally the first step, and you (and Trump) keep trying to shut down that first step.

I'm sure now even you can understand why the investigation needs to be shut down, and how trying to shut it down is literally attempting to bypass due process.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

How have they been proven false without an investigation? 

By me seeing Sally Yates testify when one of the things on the list is *and the Sally Yates can’t testify thing **

That requires no further investigation to prove it false, beyond Googling the video of her testimony. It also requires no further investigation to prove that Trump not releasing his taxes is not a crime, therefore has nothing to do with a criminal investigation. Is Spicer's Russian salad dressing remark criminal? no And many more in that list, just comments of a non criminal nature that require no investigation whatsoever. Yet that list is presented as reasons why a criminal investigation is warranted.

And you keep trying to shut down that one side. Seems pretty suspicious that you want to shut down an investigation into wrongdoing. Sounds very Trumpy.

Seems very suspicious that the Dem side not only wants to but HAS shut down the investigation into their own side. I havent seen any of their people in the public hearing and no, Comey doesnt count because he was only being questioned about dirt on Trump, not about his own dirt.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

There is also a report saying that Mueller hasnt decided whether to even look into Trump or not yet, so maybe he will actually start at the right place:

So when Joffrey said he's under investigation; he was lying. Trump's lawyer has said that the PotUS is not under investigation but he's also said he IS under investigation.

"“He’s being investigated for taking the action that the attorney general and the deputy attorney general recommended him to take, by the agency that recommended he take the action. That’s the constitutional threshold issue,”

6 ( +6 / -0 )

The investigation is literally the first step,

yes, but this is not the investigation of TRUMP. It is the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Why would that start with Trump obstruction of justice that happened after the election? Or firing the FBI Director that happened after the election? Or collusion after the election?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

From NY Times, this is what Mueller's investigation was established to do:

Rod Rosenstein’s Letter Appointing Mueller Special Counsel

The deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, appointed former F.B.I. Director Robert S. Mueller III as the special counsel to oversee the investigation into Russian tampering in the 2016 presidential election. MAY 17, 2017

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

By me seeing Sally Yates testify when one of the things on the list is *and the Sally Yates can’t testify thing **

So if your logic is that everything on the list is wrong, because one looks to be wrong, then you would agree everything on the list is right, since some of them appear to be right, right?

Seems very suspicious that the Dem side not only wants to but HAS shut down the investigation into their own side.

That's not what this article is about. It's about investigations into Trump's people and their actions. So again, it seems very suspicious that not only are you trying to shut down investigation into Trump's campaign, you are trying to shut it down by referring to something that wouldn't justify even if what you are saying is 100% true.

No deflections please.

but this is not the investigation of TRUMP.

You keep dodging the question - how are you judging these leaks by you, an investigator, after previously criticizing leaks? Are leaks alright only when the investigator leaking these things is you?

6 ( +6 / -0 )

The deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, appointed former F.B.I. Director Robert S. Mueller III as the special counsel to oversee the investigation into Russian tampering in the 2016 presidential election.

Let's look at a hypothetical. Suppose they came across evidence in their investigation that a murder occurred. Are you saying that they wouldn't and shouldn't expand the investigation to look at this murder, because it wasn't part of the initial reason for the investigation? Now assuming you don't think that a murder should be swept under the carpet, how would I, who unlike you is not part of the investigation, know that there was an investigation of this murder, without a leak? And leaks are bad, right?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

So if your logic is that everything on the list is wrong, because one looks to be wrong, then you would agree everything on the list is right, since some of them appear to be right, right?

No, I said at least some of them are false and you challenged me on it. Some of them are false.

You keep dodging the question - how are you judging these leaks by you, an investigator, after previously criticizing leaks? Are leaks alright only when the investigator leaking these things is you?

Because I am obviously not an investigator, so you can stop the attempted mockery, its beneath you.

Once again look at what Mueller was appointed to do.  investigation into Russian tampering in the 2016 presidential election. That is pretty clear.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

When I see Susan Rice and Loretta Lynch testifying, I will retract my comment that this is a very one sided witch hunt. Did Loretta Lynch not tamper with the 2016 election? James Comey said she did.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

No, I said at least some of them are false and you challenged me on it.

And you are trying to use those which you claim to be false as a reason why there should be no investigation at all.

So I'm pointing out that if by your logic, that because some of them are wrong the investigation must not happen, then also by your logic, because some of them are right, the investigation must happen.

Because I am obviously not an investigator

Then how can you say "this is not the investigation of TRUMP", since the only people who know whether or not it is are the people doing the investigation?

Once again look at what Mueller was appointed to do.  investigation into Russian tampering in the 2016 presidential election.

So apparently you think that they would not investigate other crimes if they came up during the investigation. Tell me, do you feel that crimes should be swept under the carpet and left uninvestigated simply because the evidence of the crime was not part of the scope of the original reason for which the investigation was started? And next, even if you feel that these other crimes should not be investigated, what exactly shows you that the wouldn't be? Do you have evidence of this? And finally, if you don't have this evidence, then how can you know that other crimes are not and/or will not be investigated, if you are not part of the investigation?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

When I see Susan Rice and Loretta Lynch testifying, I will retract my comment that this is a very one sided witch hunt.

This is a strawman, in that I've never asked you to retract your comment on this being a one-sided witch hunt, nor even said it wasn't a one-sided witch hunt. Not being part of the investigation, I have no idea if it is one-sided or not. What I'm unclear is on how you would know, seeing as you yourself have even admitted you're not part of the investigation. Was there a leak somewhere in which they outlined everyone and everything being investigated?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Was there a leak somewhere in which they outlined everyone and everything being investigated?

Yep, read the paper or turn on the TV and you will easily see the only topic and the only person of conversation. As I said, investigation into Russian tampering in the 2016 presidential election.

That is the designated scope yet we dont hear a word about that either from the media or through leaks. So if they actually are investigating that at all, its strange that doesnt leak like every single thing involving Trump or his people does.

I am not against this investigation. I am against its existence being used by people in the media and others as proof of any guilt. I am also against lists with false bullet points being presented as the reason why an investigation is needed.

Mike Pence got a lawyer. He's guilty too! Of something, we will figure out what later! its ridiculous.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Why would you be surprised about partisanship? You yourself admitted you don't care about what the rest of the world thinks about America, even though you regularly criticized Obama for making America look bad in the eyes of the world - a very partisan action.

Hmmm....is Hillary president? Where are the Democrats these days?

Why would I point out any of those? As I've pointed out, all of those things point at the need for an investigation.

I'm sorry, maybe you misunderstood me, I want a thorough investigation to shut the Dems up once and for all and then we can go about and focus on the country again.

Please explain how even with all of those things, there is no need for an investigation? And before you try to claim that none of those things prove anything illegal has happened, remember I'm not saying any of them do prove anything illegal has happened, only that they show an investigation is necessary to prove whether something illegal has happened or not.

By all means, let's do it. In the meantime, Wake me up when the Dems finally come to their senses

The president himself said in public he fired Comey for the whole Russia thing, which points to a crime that happens to be tied to the Russia investigation.

Oh, about that, you have one of THE most liberal and highly praised and respected lawyer in the US that says something very different.

https://youtu.be/bkp_Bmab07w

Well, that explains everything. Good to hear it from a true legend.

Then you have Comey getting fired for not letting Flynn go (a subject of the Russia investigation), which points to a crime that happens to be tied to the Russia investigation.

Then you have Trump potentially instructing the DNI and head of NSA to intervene in the FBI's investigation of Russia, which points to a crime that happens to be tied to the Russia investigation.

But it doesn't amount to obstructionism

Yes, these are facts (like a dead body) that points to a crime that needs to be investigated. See, not so hard.

Ok, but there's no smoke.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Yep, read the paper or turn on the TV and you will easily see the only topic and the only person of conversation.

Ok, and how does that prove that nothing else has come up in the investigation?

That is the designated scope yet we dont hear a word about that either from the media or through leaks.

The media would only know if there were leaks. You have condemned leaks. Are you now saying that they should be leaking that there are other investigations if they exist?

I am not against this investigation.

So please clarify, you agree that there should be an investigation based on the things that have happened so far, correct?

I am against its existence being used by people in the media and others as proof of any guilt.

Please provide some links to show where this is happening.

I am also against lists with false bullet points being presented as the reason why an investigation is needed.

So point out which points are false, that's entirely valid. But you seem to be trying to say the whole list is invalid because some points may be (I say may be, only because I haven't actually fact checked myself).

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Once again look at what Mueller was appointed to do.  investigation into Russian tampering in the 2016 presidential election. That is pretty clear.

Black, you are always making so-called "clear" statements that are just partial statements and are absolutely wrong.

Look closely, the following is pretty clear.

Mueller is authorized to investigate:

1) Comey's investigation confirmed in testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on March 20, 2017 [basically, Russian interference, Collusion, no information on Obama wiretapping claim by Trump], including:

(a) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Trump; and

(b) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(c) any other matters within the scope of 28CFR600.4(a).

The last part refers to the following language: The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted. [Emphasis added]

7 ( +7 / -0 )

So please clarify, you agree that there should be an investigation based on the things that have happened so far, correct?

I agree there needs to be an investigation due to the amount and content of leaks as well as the ferocity of the accusations and the narrative that the media has built from it all.

Anything other than an investigation would look like something is being hidden. I dont however, see any actual facts that required investigation. Just an investigation into unproven allegations that absent any evidence being found, will fully clear everyone involved. If Mueller and 13 Hillary lawyers cant get any prosecutable evidence on Trump, then there is no doubt he is clean.

Please provide some links to show where this is happening.

Nearly every newspaper, TV network and most all of Twitter. Trump is guilty, but what dont know of what yet. But once we find out, he will be impeached! The narrative and insinuations and innuendo are everywhere but no one can give me any facts.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/15/huffpo-scrubs-jason-fullers-ultimate-punishment-tr/

“Trump’s impeachment and removal from office are no longer enough,” the HuffPo contributor wrote. “Draining the swamp means not only ejecting Trump from the presidency, but also bringing himself and everyone assisting in his agenda up on charges of treason. They must be convicted (there is little room to doubt their guilt). And then — upon receiving guilty verdicts — they must all be executed under the law.

Mitch McConnell, Steve Bannon, and Paul Ryan should also share Donald Trump’s fate, for they have done more than practically anyone to protect him and to throw our country under the proverbial bus.

So we are executing at least 4 government officials based on what exactly?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Normally Trump's underlings are embarrassed by contradictory tweets and rants from the flying toupee AFTER they have gone on record defending the official line, only to find out in the most uncomfortable way that they official line was something utterly different. This time, the lawyer's claim was made despite the twitter rant contradicting it having been made BEFORE! So leaving aside that Trump's tweet had two huge logical and factual errors in it within a very few short syllables (Rosenstein is not the one investigating him and couldn't be; Rosenstein didn't 'tell' Trump to fire Comey since he had already decided to do that), what on earth was the lawyer doing trying to re-write history when Trump has already sprayed dandruff to the effect that he is indeed being investigated. Monty Python was never this good!

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Stranger:

お疲れ様。You definitely put in some work to bring logic and clarity to someone that appeared to lack both.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

 in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted. [Emphasis added]

None of those things have happened during the course of the Special Counsel's investigation. if they even happened at all, they happened before the Special Counsel was formed. So unless Trump is planning on firing Comey again somehow, its out of scope.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

None of those things have happened during the course of the Special Counsel's investigation. 

Please, More Cherry Picking.

The scope of the investigation includes Comey's old investigation.

So, any obstruction involved with Comey's investigation is covered by the CFR.

Plus, there is the blanket statement: any matters that arose [in the past] or may arise. . .

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Another person who took the Advanced Obfuscation course at Trump University.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Oh well, guess need to wait for the Monday leaks to start coming out to see what are the talking points for tomorrow's impeach Trump crowd. Too soon for Sessions or Kushner again, so who will it be?

Oh by the way, now the Comey memos cant be released to any news organization under Freedom of Information Act requests. Even though Comey's friend already gave them to one specific news organization to have an article leak their contents. Even though the Special Counsel was formed based on Comey's public testimony about these same memos. But we still cant see them. Thought there were not government documents and were not classified so why is the FBI withholding them? This gets stranger by the day.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/18/fbi-denies-request-for-james-comey-memos/

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Withholding evidence related to an active investigation is standard operating procedure. It would be lovely if some posters did research before commenting.

Some posters are dying for information that can only be obtained through leaks whilst excoriating leakers. Cognitive dissonance anyone?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Just an investigation into unproven allegations that absent any evidence being found, will fully clear everyone involved.

Yeah, the same as literally every investigation that has ever happened anywhere. Investigations exist for the purpose of investigating unproven allegations, and if there is no evidence found, clears everyone involved. You basically just expressed the definition of 'investigation'.

Nearly every newspaper, TV network and most all of Twitter.

I nicely asked for some links. You provided a comment. A comment is not a link.

None of those things have happened during the course of the Special Counsel's investigation.

And once again you are claiming to know information that would only be known to investigators, unless the information has been leaked. So how do you claim to know this.

Thought there were not government documents and were not classified so why is the FBI withholding them?

You realize things can change status, right? Or maybe you don't, seeing as that comment seems to not realize that possibility.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Even though Comey's friend already gave them to one specific news organization 

NO, the memos were never given to the NYT. Instead of pleading for sympathy for unsympathetic scum like Trump, at least get your facts straight.

Portions that quoted Trump were read to the NYT reporter.

The law professor had a copy, and Mueller has a copy. The FBI may have a copy. At this point, Mueller is likely to have the only copy. It is that way by design. Trump defamed a career prosecutor, and more importantly, the FBI. Payback is a trip.

The memos are evidence in an ongoing investigation, so they will not be disclosed to anyone, even Trump. Prosecutors don't show criminals what evidence they have so that they can build a case against the criminals without the criminal hiding things. After you charge them with the crime or they are arrested for a crime, then prosecutors have to disclose.

Trump may get a copy eventually . . . if he is charged with a crime.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Withholding evidence related to an active investigation is standard operating procedure. It would be lovely if some posters did research before commenting.

Oh just like Comey withheld the same evidence in the same active investigation? You all told me it was perfectly fine what he did. But once he did it and got maximum damage from it, now it wasnt ok? Shouldnt he then face charges? he did interfere with an active investigation by providing information to an unauthorized source, no? The FBI is saying newspapers are not authorized to have this so.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Payback is a trip.

Ah yes, payback. Now we are getting somewhere.

I guess none of you will ever admit that its wrong what Comey did. When it was a leak investigation into Comey it was just his own handwritten notes read over the phone to the newspaper by a friend. No problem! Then when he testified he was just saying what he remembered, even though he admitted to using the memos in preparing for his testimony. No problem!

But now that it might be used to prosecute Trump, they are super secret protected documents that no one might ever see because they have all this damning evidence in them. His professor friend must not have red those parts out loud over the phone and Comey must have forgotten to testify about that same evidence. Got it.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Oh just like Comey withheld the same evidence in the same active investigation?

Um, Comey's reports, and his so-called "leak" of them led to the investigation of Trump. How could they have been evidence in the investigation before the investigation began? Seems you've got a bit of a timeline paradox there.

You all told me it was perfectly fine what he did.

It was. They were not classified documents when he "leaked" them.

Shouldnt he then face charges?

For what? He didn't do anything wrong.

he did interfere with an active investigation by providing information to an unauthorized source, no?

No, for two reasons. The first is that the investigation didn't exist at that time, so there was nothing to interfere with. The second is that the for the releasing of documents to be interfering with an investigation, the documents need to have been declared classified and not allowed to be released. His documents were not declared classified, so even if there was an investigation, his "leak" of them would not be interference.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I guess none of you will ever admit that its wrong what Comey did.

Because it wasn't.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Because it wasn't.

Ok, I am glad the completed investigation into this matter confirmed that. Oh wait.....

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Some of us are really struggling today.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The second is that the for the releasing of documents to be interfering with an investigation, the documents need to have been declared classified and not allowed to be released. His documents were not declared classified, so even if there was an investigation, his "leak" of them would not be interference.

but yet the FBI wont allow them to be released now. Reason why is release of the information in these responsive records could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.

Ok so when Comey leaked them they weren't interfering but they interfere now. Yet somehow the investigation has been going on since last year, but you say there was no investigation then. I give up. Too many investigations and timelines and leaks that are ok compared with leaks that are bad. I guess just any leak that is anti-Trump is fine, and anything that supports him is just never leaked, lets just stay with that to keep it simple.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Ok, I am glad the completed investigation into this matter confirmed that. Oh wait.....

Dude, you're trying to say he did something by releasing documents that weren't classified, about an investigation that didn't exist when he released them.

And you're complaining that we aren't following your lack of logic.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Maybe this will help: Comey's private memos are related to the investigation of possible obstruction of justice, which was an aspect added to the existing investigations AFTER Comey had portions of those private memos published. Once the obstruction aspect began, those private memos became evidence, which, as has been repeatedly pointed out, is not routinely released by investigators.

Don't give up! We're obviously happy to walk you through this.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Um, Comey's reports, and his so-called "leak" of them led to the investigation of Trump. How could they have been evidence in the investigation before the investigation began? Seems you've got a bit of a timeline paradox there.

You told me the other day that the investigation into the obstruction of justice related to the Comey firing started the day he was fired. But now you say it hadn't started until after he leaked the memos days later. Which is it?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Anyway, I give up. Just going to wait until the next Trump hit job released tomorrow and go from there.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

You told me the other day that the investigation into the obstruction of justice related to the Comey firing started the day he was fired.

Comey was not part of the FBI anymore at that point, so how could he have known that there was an investigation instigated as a result of his firing? That information was not leaked until this month. So Comey could not have known there was an investigation for which classified documents could be leaked. Conversely, the investigation would not have known about Comey's documents as he hadn't "leaked" them yet, and therefore the documents could not be classified, and therefore able to be leaked.

You're really having a hard time with this whole timeline aren't you. Let me spell it out for you:

1) Comey takes notes of meetings with Trump

2) Comey fired

3A) FBI begins confidential investigation into Trump's actions in firing Comey. Comey does not know this

3B) Comey "leaks" notes of meetings to press. FBI does not know about the documents until they are "leaked"

4) Comey testifies about documents

5) FBI makes documents classified

Hopefully it's all a little clearer to you now.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Anyway, I give up.

As you should, since nothing you've tried to claim in this entire conversation has actually panned out, other than maybe that a woman testified whom some on the left said couldn't testify.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Stranger:

I would only encourage you to include "private/personal" before notes when referring to the Comey documents.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I know what they are supposed to be investigating, but they only seem to want to investigate one side of a two sided election.

Black I went ahead and saved this post I made earlier in case it comes in handy again:

The purpose of the investigation by the FBI, from Comey:

“The F.B.I., as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election. And that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”

Why did it start? That was asked when Comey testified:

Question: Don't you need some action or some information besides just attending a meeting, having been paid to attend a conference, that a picture was taken, or that you traveled to a country before your open to investigation for counterintelligence by the FBI?

Answer: The standard is, I think there's a couple different at play. A credible allegation of wrongdoing or reasonable basis to believe that an American may be acting as an agent of a foreign power.

What about Clinton?

“If this committee comes to you with information about the Clinton campaign, will you add that to your investigation?” Mr. Nunes asked Mr. Comey. Mr. Comey said he was not prepared to comment on the particulars of contacts between Russians and any campaigns. But “if people bring us info,” he said, “we will evaluate it.”

So....from the top.

The FBI is investigating Russia's meddling in the election. They received information they deemed credible about possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, so they are including that in their investigation. There hasn't been any evidence that Trump himself acted improperly. If someone brings information about Clinton that they also deem to be credible, they will include that in their investigation as well.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Super:

Gotta love that cut and paste. No sense in re-inventing the wheel.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Im not going to get into polls or relive the election. We saw how inaccurate polls were by the results we got in the election.

The accuracy of election polls have the added layer of voter turnout. Clinton could have 80% support but if they don't show up to vote then the 20% who support Trump could get him elected. Simply asking, "Is Trump trustworthy?" is just a question. That's to say you shouldn't be using the accuracy of pre-election polls as evidence that all opinion polls must be wrong (when the mood strikes you.)

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Super for the unanswered hat trick.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Trump's lawyer is AMAZINGLY consistent -- he can be relied on at all times to state the EXACT OPPOSITE of the truth! So funny!

4 ( +4 / -0 )

The 1-5 timeline is quite convenient with coney not knowing 3A while at the same time the FBI doesn't know 3B. Trump supposedly obstructed justice in step 1 but it was not reported as the law requires. Then conveniently the documents in 4 are private notes that can be leaked but then are reclassified and can't be released again by step 5.

Anyway yes the Seth Rich murder investigation seems to have been stalled. Yes, the FBI is looking to pin something on Trump himself and yes crimes can be found while investigating other things.

Still want to know what crime all of you are expecting to find to support this impeachment though. I don't see trump collusion and don't see obstruction either. Mueller will have to prove those not just by innuendo and speculation. Let's see what he can find.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

It's amazing the mental contortions some are willing t to subject themselves to in an attempt to deny that their guy and/or his campaign did something wrong. However, just like Lynch, the Clintons, and Obama's amazing eight are irrelevant to the investigations; so are these people's mental contortions.

The investigations exist for good reason, the republicans are leading at least two of them, and Donny D-Bag is in the hotseat. No amount of denial will change this.

Can someone please explain to me how investigations work? You'd think we'd somehow have heard about evidence, not through leaks, obviously, if there were any. It had been several months. Since there haven't been any leaks, the investigations must be a witch hunt.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Anyway yes the Seth Rich murder investigation seems to have been stalled.

OK, well that's different than saying the police have intentionally not investigated the murder.

Yes, the FBI is looking to pin something on Trump himself

So again, to confirm, you're saying the FBI is corrupt and is making up investigations in order to find something that will stick on Trump, which is their goal. Again, very serious accusation. What evidence do you have?

Still want to know what crime all of you are expecting to find to support this impeachment though. I don't see trump collusion and don't see obstruction either.

Why would you, unless you had access to the FBI's files and investigation team? This is the part that confuses a lot of us. You seem to think that if no information is put in front of you regarding the investigations then they must not be necessary, as if you have some kind of right or it's standard operating procedure for the FBI to open their books to anyone who asks. When Clinton was being investigated did you demand to see the evidence and demand an end to the investigation when no one responded?

Mueller will have to prove those not just by innuendo and speculation.

Is the Special Council also like the DC police and FBI in that they are corrupt and just looking to pin anything on Trump?

Let's see what he can find.

Exactly. Let's let him do his investigation and see what he finds. But at the very least let him do his job, unless you think he is corrupt.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Still want to know what crime all of you are expecting to find to support this impeachment though. I don't see trump collusion and don't see obstruction either.

Some of the potential crimes that may come out of the investigation that supports impeachment:

Money Laundering

International Wire Fraud

Immigration Fraud (just for Jared and his family, expect not to be related to impeachment. They may escape this charge.)

Securities Fraud

Lying to the FBI in the course of an investigation (so far, just Flynn, but Trump is yet to be interviewed in an official investigation)

Perjury (Not happened yet that I know of, but I expect it to happen if Trump is ever sworn to testify)

Conspiracy

Racketeering

Obstruction of Justice

Trump only need sone to be an impeachable offense. Of course, the GoP may just give him a pass even though he is found to be a criminal. How the GoP handles it depends on GoP politics. Others who are not elected will get hammered and need a pardon.

There is already sufficient facts to make an obstruction case in any other situation.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Trump only need sone to be an impeachable offense. Of course, the GoP may just give him a pass even though he is found to be a criminal. How the GoP handles it depends on GoP politics. Others who are not elected will get hammered and need a pardon.

There is already sufficient facts to make an obstruction case in any other situation.

That was a long list and a very tall order to fill. At this point, everyone knows this is not about seeking the truth or justice, this is about toppling the president and anyone else thinks otherwise, you are in a galaxy of your own making. This is the left at the bottom of the barrel and at their weakest again, Prof. Alan Dershowitz was going over that proven all these alleged allegations might show to be very difficult prove and the agency knows that. Yeah, they might get someone in the Trump administration as far as maybe members in his cabinet, but Trump himself? If the Feds had something, it would have already been revealed. If Mueller has to hire 12 other lawyers, you know that some fish you shouldn't be eating and you know because they can't find anything, they want to do everything in their power to find something and that's so far proven to be extremely difficult because they know there's nothing, but they have to try, right? More holes to dig and run down. Smh.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

bass4funk: "Reality?! I'm surprised you would quote a paper that has a very left leaning editorial page, but ok, I'm not surprised."

You have no ground to stand on given that you literally cut and paste from The National Review and try to defend FOX as "fair and balanced" despite them dropping the label and admitting they are anything but.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

"Reality?! I'm surprised you would quote a paper that has a very left leaning editorial page, but ok, I'm not surprised."

No, I was referring to what Dershowitz was saying, the man is one of THE best lawyers in the entire country, definetly in the top 5 Harvard professor, you really can't get someone better, more qualified, more knowledgeable than this man. So yeah, considering his history in law, track record and some of the most difficult cases he won, I believe him over anything or anyone else at this point and time.

You have no ground to stand on given that you literally cut and paste

You guys do the same, don't go there.

from The National Review and try to defend FOX as "fair and balanced" despite them dropping the label and admitting they are anything but

Ok, that's your opinion, the company and the Murdoch brothers can do what they want, the pundits still use it, so No, it's not gone. Kudos!

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Some many hunts. Maybe he mis-typed "which hunt".

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Again, very serious accusation. What evidence do you have?

None, YET. But I am sure if we open a Special Counsel into it for 3-4 years we might find some. Sound familiar?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Is the Special Council also like the DC police and FBI in that they are corrupt and just looking to pin anything on Trump?

They have the potential to be based on some of the people they have hired, yes.

Exactly. Let's let him do his investigation and see what he finds. But at the very least let him do his job, unless you think he is corrupt.

We wont know that until he is done and we see his report concerning what/who he decided to look into and what/who he decided to ignore.

When Clinton was being investigated did you demand to see the evidence and demand an end to the investigation when no one responded?

Obama did. He said it was obvious that she didnt INTEND to do anything wrong. Then when she was let go after Comey read off all her crimes that had evidence, he said the same thing. No intent was found.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us/politics/obamas-comments-on-clinton-emails-collide-with-fbi-inquiry.html?_r=0&mtrref=townhall.com

Investigators have not reached any conclusions about whether the information on the server was compromised or whether to recommend charges, according to the law enforcement officials. But to investigators, it sounded as if Mr. Obama had already decided the answers to their questions and cleared anyone involved of wrongdoing.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

They have the potential to be based on some of the people they have hired, yes.

Well everyone has the potential to be. Are you softening your stance?

Obama did.

And you? Did you demand an end to the investigation when you did not personally see any evidence linking Clinton to a crime?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Did you demand an end to the investigation when you did not personally see any evidence linking Clinton to a crime?

No I wanted the investigation to turn into an actual criminal proceeding after listening to Comey talk for 10 minutes about all the proof he had of all the crimes she committed. You seriously didnt hear any evidence of any crimes when Comey talked? What i heard was a whole lot of evidence of at least 4 felonies, but then Comey saying there was no intent, so it was not prosecutable.

Well everyone has the potential to be. Are you softening your stance?

From the beginning, I thought Mueller would be fair. But based on the leaks already and who he has hired, Im concerned. I just want a fair investigation that clears people once and for all or puts them on trial for the crimes that evidence shows they committed. Regardless of what I think of Hillary, at least she was given the courtesy of being officially cleared so that she could continue her Presidential campaign.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

But it is a witch hunt. And such witch hunts occur whenever a politician lives and works outside the political box. If Bernie had won, there would also have been a witch hunt. The political establishment does not suffer outsiders, or those who are not at the beck-and-call of the establishment.

Trump is the greatest outsider since Eisenhower to be president. On inauguration day he called the political establishment (all of whom were standing about him) liars and thieves, who had gotten richer as the rest of America had become worse off. And he was right.

But the establishment controls the power and wealth of the country. It is the multinational corporations, the financial institutions, the media, the permanent political bureaucracy, and the semi-permanent politicians. This establishment controls almost everything you read, buy, watch, and listen to. It monopolizes most of the nation's economy, it is the quintessential top 1%. And this establishment hates Trump.

And because the establishment hates Trump, it manipulates it's followers into hating Trump. The republican party is not actively opposing Trump, but it is passively opposing him. It is standing in the way of tax reform, Obamacare repeal, and other things which Trump wanted to deal with. There are no real conservatives within the republican party in Washington, they are as eager to tax, spend, and regulate as democrats are, because this is how they increase their power and wealth.

Tax reform would remove much of the leverage they have over businesses and individuals and lobbyists, who pay vast sums for loopholes and exemptions. Repealing or even modifying Obama care (which was the greatest middle class tax increase in history) would do the same, but even worse, because not only can politicians extract money and favors as they can with taxation, but they can also create graft from the myriad contractors necessary for the system to work.

Democrat voters think that the more the state controls, the less power corporations will have over the economy. In fact, this is the opposite. The more power the state has over the economy, the more power corporations have, because only extremely large corporations can operate in a heavily regulated environment. They support this because it makes it nearly impossible for smaller companies to grow and compete against them. In the past, America had countless small and medium size banks, but no really large ones. Now we have a handful of large once, and few small or medium size ones. In the past America had numerous large-scale makers of cars, motorcycles, airplanes, and bicycles. Now only a handful exist. In the past America had countless newspapers, independent radio and television stations, and now a handful of companies own nearly all of them. This is what the establishment, republican and democrat, has done to America. It is all-powerful, or at least it was until Trump came along.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

All in the same morning, on camera, Trump's lawyer said that there is no probe, that there is a probe, and that he does not know if there is a probe. At this rate, Putin will be giving Trump political asylum before the year is out.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

No I wanted the investigation to turn into an actual criminal proceeding after listening to Comey talk for 10 minutes

So you waited for the investigation to finish, then you listed to what he had to say? You didn't demand an end to the investigation while it was happening because you didn't have proof put in front of you?

But based on the leaks already and who he has hired, Im concerned.

And what concerns you?

Regardless of what I think of Hillary, at least she was given the courtesy of being officially cleared so that she could continue her Presidential campaign.

Do you remember the Fox News coverage during the event? Cut-ins to live TV shows with "bombshell information" about the Hillary investigation? Seems a bit different for Trump.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Do you remember the Fox News coverage during the event? Cut-ins to live TV shows with "bombshell information" about the Hillary investigation? Seems a bit different for Trump.

I always am amazed at how liberals go on an anti-FNC tirade and how they despise the network and yet, they know every show and everything that was played and said and who said what, even if you watch the highlights, it doesn't go that far into detail. Hmmm......

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Allow me to translate: "he is not under investigation" is a lie, a falsehood, an untruth -- it means "he is under investigation."

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Allow me to translate: "he is not under investigation" is a lie, a falsehood, an untruth -- it means "he is under investigation.

...or maybe not.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

This will never end, it's just of waste of time and taxpayer money. oh a bit like the two Gulf Wars, Afghanistan war started by the Republicans, except they cost the taxpayer $Trillions

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Russia probably would not have been herself if she did not interfere with other states. I have not read the twiths of Potus lately. But there are a number of characters and not write too much. As for the election, Hilary Clinton unfortunately lost her health problems too. Is Russia involved in the election? Let's wait for the situation..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites