President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

Originally Posted by Hugh

But to be given a Presidential Pardon, someone has to have been found guilty of a Federal crime, so the only time Trump could pardon himself would be if he had been found guilty of a Federal crime...

If Trump isn’t going to pardon himself because he won’t need to pardon himself, why say he could in the first place?

It's Trump being Trump, he's a player and he is using twitter as a tool, to play others with and it's working. He's clearly pissed off with the never ending "Witch Hunt" and to coin his phrase the "Fake News Media".

BREAKING: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell cancels Senate's August recess due to "the historic obstruction by Senate Democrats of the president’s nominees, and the goal of passing appropriations bills prior to the end of the fiscal year."

---------- Post added at 20:02 ---------- Previous post was at 19:43 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

Do you think she should be?

No, I do believe in the "Magna Carta" Charter that set out the following three main principles:

1) Noone is above the law including the King/Queen.
2) Right to fair trial
3) People have the right to representation, i.e in Parliament.

That said however, should the Queen go out and commit a crime today, she would not be arrested, but she could be forced out by an act of Parliament... She could turn up in person though while they are sitting in the Commons and attempt to dissolve parliament and attempt to take control of the country.

The last monarch to do this was King Charles I. The result was a civil war between Parliament and the Crown, he was tried and sentenced to death for treason against the people of England and beheaded in January 1649. What an era to be alive in back then.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

I think Rudy is losing his ability...

That would be my summary of this whole episode. I think he just seems to be acting very below par at the moment.

Originally Posted by Mick

It's Trump being Trump, he's a player and he is using twitter as a tool, to play others with and it's working. He's clearly pissed off with the never ending "Witch Hunt" and to coin his phrase the "Fake News Media".

BREAKING: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell cancels Senate's August recess due to "the historic obstruction by Senate Democrats of the president’s nominees, and the goal of passing appropriations bills prior to the end of the fiscal year."

---------- Post added at 20:02 ---------- Previous post was at 19:43 ----------



No, I do believe in the "Magna Carta" Charter that set out the following three main principles:

1) Noone is above the law including the King/Queen.
2) Right to fair trial
3) People have the right to representation, i.e in Parliament.

That said however, should the Queen go out and commit a crime today, she would not be arrested, but she could be forced out by an act of Parliament... She could turn up in person though while they are sitting in the Commons and attempt to dissolve parliament and attempt to take control of the country.

The last monarch to do this was King Charles I. The result was a civil war between Parliament and the Crown, he was tried and sentenced to death for treason against the people of England and beheaded in January 1649. What an era to be alive in back then.

The "never ending witch hunt" has been underway just more than a year, with the Special Counsel being appointed in May 2017.

The Nixon investigation (Watergate) took from June 17 1972 (when 5 men were arrested trying to bug the DNC HQ at the Watergate) until August 8 1974 when Nixon resigned (over two years)

The House Clinton Benghazi hearings were initiated May 8 2014 (following previous House and Senate Committee hearings the previous year), with the final Committee Report published December 7 2016 (two and a half years)

The Whitewater Special Counsel was appointed January 20 1994, and the report was issued (the Starr Report) September 1998 (four and three quarters year later).
Just over one year is not very long in comparison to previous investigations.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

The "never ending witch hunt" has been underway just more than a year, with the Special Counsel being appointed in May 2017.

The Nixon investigation (Watergate) took from June 17 1972 (when 5 men were arrested trying to bug the DNC HQ at the Watergate) until August 8 1974 when Nixon resigned (over two years)

The House Clinton Benghazi hearings were initiated May 8 2014 (following previous House and Senate Committee hearings the previous year), with the final Committee Report published December 7 2016 (two and a half years)

The Whitewater Special Counsel was appointed January 20 1994, and the report was issued (the Starr Report) September 1998 (four and three quarters year later).
Just over one year is not very long in comparison to previous investigations.

Agreed. I think Trump has fooled many into thinking it's gone on for so long because he's always mentioning it.
If he let the investigation go on without constant sniping, we'd all have forgotten about it by now, bar the odd house arrest.

Actually the Witch hunt started 3 years ago, when they (The Obama DOJ) put spies in Trump campaign. The funding of the dossier by HRC and DNC happened in 2016.

Originally Posted by Mick

Actually the Witch hunt started 3 years ago, when they (The Obama DOJ) put spies in Trump campaign.

I know this keeps getting said but you are simply not telling the truth when you say the 'Obama DOJ' put spies in Trump's campaign. Undercover FBI agents spoke to people that were working in Trump's campaign that were targets of an investigation - some of whom were subsequently indicted - but Obama did not order the Justice department to put people into Trump's actual campaign.

That's not necessarily true, we got two "Rogue agents, former lovers" texting each other saying "President Obama wants to know everything they were doing"... That's the same Obama who in 2016, had explicitly stated on national tv that "I don't talk to the FBI on pending cases, period, ever."

[Chloé Palmas]

Meh he also said that he had no clue about Hillary's server while he had corresponded messages with her about information he later deemed to be retrospectively classified, to her e-mail address at her domain. Either wreaks of incompetence or he is a liar.

The Strzok / Page affair was one thing (I suppose inter-office relationship ethics are something that I have no desire to get into) but yeah, their texts could have screwed up the entire counsel due to stupidity due to their nature.

---------- Post added at 03:07 ---------- Previous post was at 03:04 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

That would be my summary of this whole episode. I think he just seems to be acting very below par at the moment.

You would be surprised - my theory is that one day Rudy is going to turn around and tell Trump "sorry I made you squirm / everything worse, but when I said that I wanted to be Secretary of State..."

---------- Post added at 03:14 ---------- Previous post was at 03:07 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

But to be given a Presidential Pardon, someone has to have been found guilty of a Federal crime, so the only time Trump could pardon himself would be if he had been found guilty of a Federal crime...

More to the problem (for Trump) though here, is that Rudy has all but ruled out any other way for holding Trump to account other than Impeachment, at which point pardoning is thrown out of the window.

If he is acquitted (by being impeached and then put on trial by the Senate) then he does not need to pardon himself (unless like with Clinton he is later prosecuted once leaving office as DJ does not apply) and if he is convicted, then he would expelled from office (as punishment) and would no longer have the power to pardon himself.

He can't do it through the period / tenure of the trial or process of articles being filed / impeachment hearings. OOLC have said in the past that it would warrant a secondary wrap of OOJ charges almost instantaneously.

Rudy has all but guaranteed that Trump can not even claim to pardon his way out of this, by (correctly) asserting that he cannot be charged with a crime while sitting as President.

With friends like Rudy who needs.....(you get the idea).

---------- Post added at 04:49 ---------- Previous post was at 03:14 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

Mueller himself is a Republican who was appointed by another Republican after the collapse of the FBI investigation heading by another Republican.

Yup, with a Republican President / AG etc. This is all Republican through and through and even though some are the staff lower down are Democrats they all answer to Republicans. This though, has its pitfalls and unfortunately falls into Trump's narrative. (Will get to that below).

Party affiliation in the US is a lot looser than it is here too. Just because someone is a registered Democrat or Republican doesn't mean they're uncontrollably partisan.

That also (imo) speaks the preposterous nature of British stiff upper lipped nonsense. Just because someone is a member of the LP does not mean that as a judge he or she cannot independently look at case law or a case at all, involving a corporate dispute with workers.

Britain is horrible at this - female nurses for female patients (upon request) - as if every guy is some kind of pervert first, medical practitioner second. The comfort of one cannot be at the discrimination of another.

Do you remember the case where a police officer was marched out of his station and suspended following revelations that his name appeared on a BNP mailing list? He lost his badge and the whole thing was over an accident but even if he was actually on the list (which he wasn't) the BNP was not outlawed as a party so if he chose to become a member I am not sure what stopped him.

All female candidate selection committees...just today PwC are announcing that all male boards are coming to an end. Not that they only recruit male candidates but women need to become quotas, to sit on the board. What a joke.

The reason that this is different in the US per voting stipulations is that you have to be registered to vote. That means that in order to vote you need to rely on registering with a major party - that does all the leg work for you.

Then again, they don't have the government regulating every part of their life for you the way they take care of everything for you here - even getting you to the ballot box, registration, etc etc. It is dreadful - ethics and oversight is done with integrity there. So if anyone saw a need to recuse (like McCabe), they would.

So take the Supremes. We would rely on them to adjudicate the most important cases, yet we can't trust them to recuse if there is a conflict of interest?

Most of the country is not like that. The paranoid mindset of Trump and his supporters, a mindset that divides the world into good (Republican) and evil (Democrat), blinds them to that fact.

Even more so, if any single Republican is opposed to him the person in question is just a "RINO" / member of the establishment / media darling, etc etc.

And then they will turn on their own guy and it will border on the preposterous (if he or she doesn't do as he or she is supposed to, or win). So we all know what happened to Sessions (and how he was treated, post recusal) but look at the race to succeed him.

Strange was their guy all the way through, then Trump deleted any mention of the guy - was backing Moore all the way (after Moore shattered him in the primary).

Then, Moore got allegation after allegation thrown his way (mostly involving sexual assault / predatory action on minors) and everything under the sun was "fake news" according to Trump's team.

Then, when he lost and on election night (yes, they lost Alabama) what did the pathetic apologists he had in the media do? (Everyone from Hannity to Ingraham to Calson etc)...they all said that he was never really a good pick / not really Trump's choice, etc etc. It is like full circle - from start to finish.

Nothing sums that up more than the fact whenever he meets any opposition from the institutions that are meant to act as a check against the executive that it's construed as illegitimate and sinister. All opposition to Trump is somehow corrupt it seems, any investigation into his allies should be stopped.

It's the language of tinpot dictators: Lock up the rivals, pardon the allies.

Oh it is worse...even among his supporters, the only time he is happy with anyone is if they do exactly what he says, when he says it, and to whom. If they deviate even the slightest, then they're not good enough for him - look at the way that he berates his own cabinet members. His own staff, his own nominee for the high court. He even boasts about how he likes a fight club mentality.

Heck, he denigrated the mother of a fallen servicemen, got Kelly to defend him and invoke Kelly's own dead son, then turned on Kelly (after he got Kelly to fire Tillerson and tell everyone Rex was on the toilet at the time)...why do people keep licking this guy's feet???

Yours was an outstanding post btw, -mod edit- - hope my rant wasn't too painful to read.

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Mick

Actually the Witch hunt started 3 years ago, when they (The Obama DOJ) put spies in Trump campaign. The funding of the dossier by HRC and DNC happened in 2016.

Not quite yet three years as he declared on the 16th of June or so (day after JEB) but the conspiracy theories about his candidacy have been running God knows how long now...

That is all they are though.

Today, this is what Paul Ryan just said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/power...=.35e89339268e

(Given the GDPR issue, I will copy some of the article in case posters can't view it).

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan has joined those disputing President Trump’s assertion that federal law enforcement planted a spy inside his campaign, telling reporters Wednesday that he has seen “no evidence” to support such claims.

Ryan (R-Wis.) described as “accurate” an initial assessment offered last week by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, who told Fox News that “the FBI did exactly what my fellow citizens would want them to do” in investigating information alleging certain Trump campaign advisers had suspicious ties to Russia.

Now not only is he saying that he saw no evidence of spying on the campaign but he is also saying that the FBI absolutely did the right thing in investigating the potential ties to Russia.

This, I might add is the Republican speaker of the house (and like with all politicians like I said in the other thread, is finally free to speak his mind as he is standing down as Speaker).

Now, Trump is the most butt sore / thin skinned President in history (and the biggest whiner you will ever see try play the tough man act) so he'll say that Ryan is the establishment / never supported him after the AH tapes surfaced etc etc.

So let's look at more of this:

“I think Chairman Gowdy’s initial assessment is accurate,” Ryan said, adding that “we have some more digging to do. We’re waiting for some more document requests. . . . We still have some unanswered questions.

“But I have seen no evidence to the contrary of the initial assessment that Chairman Gowdy has made,” Ryan continued. “But I want to make sure that we run every lead down and make sure we get final answers to these questions. I’ll leave it at that.”

So Trey Gowdy...now he supported Rubio for President, so I can see more excuses being lined up here by Trump.

Now Trump's initial response was to say all this before an investigation even started. Now the investigation is on going Ryan doesn't want to say too much, because, well...it is classified.

We know there is only one guy constantly leaking classified info...

Anyway, let's carry on...let's find someone that did support Trump, let's see...how about Richard Burr. I wonder what he thinks....hmmm

Following Ryan’s comments Wednesday, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) told CNN that he also endorses Gowdy’s take on the evidence.

“I think that Trey Gowdy’s description of the process was correct,” Burr said, according to CNN, though he left open the possibility that Trump may not be referring to Halper when he alleges his campaign was infiltrated.

Now Burr I might add, was not just a campaign adviser but advised on...wait for it, national security! Even he thinks that there was no "there there".

No response from the WH on...well, any of this.

The Democrats are also suggesting that the WH shouldn't be briefed on any of this, either:

Democrats also have eyed the Trump legal team warily. On Tuesday, Democratic members of the Gang of Eight sent a letter to the top officials at the FBI and the Justice Department seeking assurances that neither the president nor any members of his staff or legal team had or would be briefed on the classified information pertaining to the FBI’s confidential informant, “outside of an appropriate judicial proceeding.”

That makes sense given the clear conflict of interests and the fact that members of the oversight committee (chairmen then, in Nunes) raced to the WH to report the issue and given that justice is under the executive's purview knowing Trump, he would want to know how the investigation into his own campaign, was going.

Every member of his party / supporter of his / people with clearances that serve on the hill, that have read the report have said the Obama team did not spy on the Trump team / his campaign etc etc.

Trey Gowdy, who authored the original report is a former federal prosecutor and a guy that Trump was tapping up to be AG ; what Trump doesn't seem to get is that their oath is to be uphold the constitution, not to service his requests. Gowdy may not have had to recuse (assuming that he didn't meet with Kislyak) but he would have done exactly what Sessions did.

Trump just doesn't get it - they are in the right, not him.

And the report tells us what we already know:

1. The investigation into Russian meddling was absolutely spot on

2. There was no spying on Trump's campaign by the Obama DOJ, period. IT DID NOT HAPPEN.

Yes it did. Your analysis is way out.

Burr is not on Team Trump, Ryan never was, which is why he is quitting as House Speaker.

There are several Republican Chairman’s on several Oversight Committees who has the President’s back, Burr isn’t one of them, they’ve seen no evidence of Russian Collusion, they have seen a lot of stonewalling by the DOJ. They have seen FISA abuses undertaken by the Obama DOJ.

I really don’t think the DNC/Democrats have any right to dictate who sees what, given their actions in the 2016 Election, i.e funding of the Dossier.

Originally Posted by Mick

Yes it did. Your analysis is way out.

Burr is not on Team Trump, Ryan never was, which is why he is quitting as House Speaker.

Which is the problem isn't it? Anyone who isn't on 'Team Trump' is somehow suspect.

Originally Posted by Mick

Yes it did. Your analysis is way out.

Burr is not on Team Trump, Ryan never was, which is why he is quitting as House Speaker.

There are several Republican Chairman’s on several Oversight Committees who has the President’s back, Burr isn’t one of them, they’ve seen no evidence of Russian Collusion, they have seen a lot of stonewalling by the DOJ.

I really don’t think the DNC/Democrats have any right to dictate who sees what, given their actions in the 2016 Election, i.e funding of the Dossier.

Well, considering it was initially contracted for, and funded by, a Republican political journalism website (Washington Free Beacon), does that mean the Republicans don’t have any right to dictate who sees what?

They have seen FISA abuses undertaken by the Obama DOJ.

They say they have, but haven’t shown any proof (just like Trump) - it’s just like Trump’s "I’m being wire-tapped"; no evidence was ever shown to prove this was true (an investigation showed it wasn’t), but Trump and the Republicans are just making smoke screens to create doubt.

Oh Hugh. Take your ‘For her’ glasses off for a bloody minute. The Obama DOJ, was in the tank for Hillary. The IG report due imminently will show that, why do you think in the last day or so, former No. 2 of the FBI, Andrew McCabe has begged for Immunity from Prosecution, in exchange for a plea deal?

He will have seen what’s in the IG report that was sent to him, Comey and others before final version is released to public.

Found link for you Mick.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/05/p...ley/index.html

Originally Posted by Mick

Oh Hugh. Take your ‘For her’ glasses off for a bloody minute. The Obama DOJ, was in the tank for Hillary. The IG report due imminently will show that, why do you think in the last day or so, former No. 2 of the FBI, Andrew McCabe has begged for Immunity from Prosecution, in exchange for a plea deal?

He will have seen what’s in the IG report that was sent to him, Comey and others before final version is released to public.

Why does anyone who doesn’t think Trump is wonderful "for her" - once again, you use the "what about Hillary?" attack.

It could be just that people think he devalues the office of the President, with his constant unfounded Twitter attacks, his endless narcissistic egomaniacal "I am the best President ever", his inability to take criticism or dissent, his use of Fox News to inform himself rather than the 17 agencies that make up the US Intelligence Community with a budget of $55 billion, he has shifted back and forth and back again on his policies often contradicting Cabinet officials along the way, his inability to understand that he is not The Supreme Leader but one leg of tripartite Government, his incessant use of his properties for government business (he has monetized the presidency by linking it to his personal business interests), and his incessant lying. He does not believe in a free press or free speech - uncontrolled, he would crack down on both. He does not believe in the rule of law, a Justice Department free of political interference, or the separation of powers or an independent judiciary. He doesn’t understand compromise or even believe anyone else understands some things better than him, so if he doesn’t get his way, he attacks everyone - NFL teams, Democrats, Republicans, his own senior appointees.

Not one of those things is about "for her" - she’s history, but Trump and his acolytes just keep using her as a distraction.