President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

Originally Posted by Mick

You’re late posting this Hugh. Either way.... Thought it has been established Russia interfered in U.S Election...This is Old news.

---------- Post added at 06:52 ---------- Previous post was at 06:38 ----------

BREAKING: Special Counsel Robert Mueller has informed Trump legal team he won’t indict the president-this following the precedent that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Source: AP.

Of course not..but impeachment? Maybe.

Originally Posted by Hugh

The President's lawyer disagrees with you.

And you suddenly give a shit what he thinks?

You are not proving anything to me so don't take the piss with silly petty winks. I know exactly where he coming from and what he is talking about, doesn't mean I have to agree with him.

Originally Posted by Hugh

Do you also think it's wrong for a candidate to ask a foreign country that is technically an adversary, for information or dirt on Clinton? Is that plainly illegal on any front?

You know, like when Donald Trump asked Vladimir Putin's ace hackers to "find the 30,000 emails that are missing" from Hillary Clinton's mail server?

Or when Donald Trump Jr, Kushner, and Manafort met with Russians to get dirt on Clinton*?

Or when Papadopolous, a member of the Trump Campaign team, met with a Maltese professor and a Russian woman who had "dirt" on Clinton?

Were those actions plainly illegal?

*Trump Jr's testimony states

Sorry I don't answer hypothetical questions. Such questions holds no basis due to lack of evidence, second year and counting etc!

We sure as hell needed to know all the scandals on that horrible candidate they had running, AKA Hillary Clinton. Dare I say the "Crooked" one, oops just said it, silly me.

They should have stuck with Bernie but oh no, they cheated him out of it in the primaries by giving her the questions to the debate, they backed the wrong horse, she was and still is largely a terrible candidate, who LIED to a Benghazi victims mother!!!

---------- Post added at 15:21 ---------- Previous post was at 15:16 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Of course not..but impeachment? Maybe.

Nope, the numbers do not stack in the Senate and it's the Senate that it really matters. 66 Yay's needed,. there is currently 49 Democratic Senators, in the Mid terms, 10 Republican seats are up for re-election. Even if the Dems managed to pick all them up, there is still NOT enough to convict and remove Trump from office, not to mention that even if they tried that his base would literally take to the streets and riot and cause massive civil unrest, the removal of Trump would cause a civil war, because there is this stupid Coup to illegitimately remove the legitimate elected President of the United States, all because one evil, crooked candidate, cannot accept she rightfully lost the race.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Of course not..but impeachment? Maybe.

Fox News legal expert thinks Trump can be indicted.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...esident-is-not

Judge Andrew Napolitano pushed back against Rudy Giuliani’s claims that President Trump cannot be indicted in the Russia investigation, saying Thursday on Fox Business Network that the president is “not above the law.”

Giuliani, a member of Trump’s legal team, told CNN on Wednesday that special counsel Robert Mueller’s team told Trump’s lawyers that they cannot indict a sitting president, which Napolitano said was not explicitly true.

“The president is not above the law,” he said. “He can be indicted like anybody else.”

And bear in mind, the "President cannot be indicted" is coming from Guiliani repeating something that one of Mueller's team is supposed to have said - it has not been confirmed by anyone else...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.35846ef0e770

Mueller indicated in a meeting a few weeks ago that he concurred with the view that a sitting president cannot be indicted under past legal opinions issued by the Justice Department, Giuliani told The Washington Post.

Giuliani said that Mueller at first tried to be “coy” when Giuliani asked the special counsel for his stance on the issue. One of Mueller’s aides responded that the special counsel would follow Justice Department guidelines, he said.

A spokesman for the special counsel declined to comment.

I would take Guiliani's statement with a large pinch of salt.

---------- Post added at 18:08 ---------- Previous post was at 17:50 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

And you suddenly give a shit what he thinks?

You are not proving anything to me so don't take the piss with silly petty winks. I know exactly where he coming from and what he is talking about, doesn't mean I have to agree with him.



Sorry I don't answer hypothetical questions. Such questions holds no basis due to lack of evidence, second year and counting etc!

We sure as hell needed to know all the scandals on that horrible candidate they had running, AKA Hillary Clinton. Dare I say the "Crooked" one, oops just said it, silly me.

They should have stuck with Bernie but oh no, they cheated him out of it in the primaries by giving her the questions to the debate, they backed the wrong horse, she was and still is largely a terrible candidate, who LIED to a Benghazi victims mother!!!

---------- Post added at 15:21 ---------- Previous post was at 15:16 ----------



Nope, the numbers do not stack in the Senate and it's the Senate that it really matters. 66 Yay's needed,. there is currently 49 Democratic Senators, in the Mid terms, 10 Republican seats are up for re-election. Even if the Dems managed to pick all them up, there is still NOT enough to convict and remove Trump from office, not to mention that even if they tried that his base would literally take to the streets and riot and cause massive civil unrest, the removal of Trump would cause a civil war, because there is this stupid Coup to illegitimately remove the legitimate elected President of the United States, all because one evil, crooked candidate, cannot accept she rightfully lost the race.

OED definition of hypothetical - "Supposed but not necessarily real or true."

1. Trump said the words at a rally, then tweeted them
2, Trump Jr actually gave this as evidence at the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing
3. Papadopolous pled guilty to making false statements to the FBI about the contacts he had with the Russian Government.

They're not hypothetical, they actually happened.

Originally Posted by Hugh

I would take Guiliani's statement with a large pinch of salt.

That's an interesting assertion that you say this when the last couple of posts you don't appear to have taken what he said with a pinch of salt and started blabbing on about what he's said in the last 24 hours.

Make your mind up.

Originally Posted by Hugh

1. Trump said the words at a rally, then tweeted them
2, Trump Jr actually gave this as evidence at the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing
3. Papadopolous pled guilty to making false statements to the FBI about the contacts he had with the Russian Government.

They're not hypothetical, they actually happened.

And still none of that links back to any actual collusion with Trump and Russia which was my whole point about there being hypothetical questions on non-existent crimes, so enough of the silly childish memes, this is a discussion forum, not Twitter.

Bottom line is, there is STILL no evidence after nearly two years of investigations, of possible collusion with Trump and Russia, but there is documented evidence between DNC, Hillary, funding the Dossier with Fusion GPS and Steele and the Russians, a point you keep trying to gloss over (and failing).

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Mick

That's an interesting assertion that you say this when the last couple of posts you don't appear to have taken what he said with a pinch of salt and started blabbing on about what he's said in the last 24 hours.

Make your mind up.



And still none of that links back to any actual collusion with Trump and Russia which was my whole point about there being hypothetical questions on non-existent crimes, so enough of the silly childish memes, this is a discussion forum, not Twitter.

Bottom line is, there is STILL no evidence after nearly two years of investigations, of possible collusion with Trump and Russia, but there is documented evidence between DNC, Hillary, funding the Dossier with Fusion GPS and Steele and the Russians, a point you keep trying to gloss over (and failing).

Hillarys Crime Syndicate Inc still roans free to reek havoc though Mick. Why hasn't Trump put her in Guantanamo ? Shes still at large, he's failed on law and order, he promised to lock her up. Another failure.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Hillarys Crime Syndicate Inc still roans free to reek havoc though Mick. Why hasn't Trump put her in Guantanamo ? Shes still at large, he's failed on law and order, he promised to lock her up. Another failure.

I doubt he ever intended to lock her up but the promise helped get him elected.

Originally Posted by Mr K

Hillarys Crime Syndicate Inc still roans free to reek havoc though Mick. Why hasn't Trump put her in Guantanamo ? Shes still at large, he's failed on law and order, he promised to lock her up. Another failure.

Patience.

Office of Inspector General for DOJ has his long report ready in draft form and is scheduled for release very soon, within days so I have seen said, sources claim, Horowitz reports that DOJ/FBI broke the law under Obama Administration, trying to protect Hillary Clinton during her investigation and has recommended criminal charges to Huber the federal prosecutor, who was tasked to work along side him.

As we reported earlier Thursday, a long-awaited report by the Department of Justice's internal watchdog into the Hillary Clinton email investigation has moved into its final phase, as the DOJ notified multiple subjects mentioned in the document that they can privately review it by week's end, and will have a "few days" to craft any response to criticism contained within the report, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Now, journalist Paul Sperry reports that "IG Horowitz has found "reasonable grounds" for believing there has been a violation of federal criminal law in the FBI/DOJ's handling of the Clinton investigation/s and has referred his findings of potential criminal misconduct to Huber for possible criminal prosecution."

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...efers-criminal

The report is expected to be very critical of several top DOJ officials, including former FBI Director James Comey’s announcement in July 2016 that Mrs. Clinton had been “reckless” with the nation’s secrets but he was recommending against prosecuting her.

Investigative reporter Sara Carter said on her website Thursday that Horowitz’s draft is described by one source as “extremely long and thorough.”

“It’s not going to be good, it’s just a question of how bad it’s going to be,” a former Justice Department official told CNN of what’s expected to be in Horowitz’s report.

A tweet last week by CNN law enforcement analyst James Gagliano was more blunt, saying sources tell him to expect “a damning indictment” of Comey and the FBI’s upper echelon.

https://www.westernjournal.com/repor...n-email-probe/

It's also important to note that Inspector General, Michael Horowitz went to war with the Obama Administration to restore the OIG's powers - and didn't get them back until Trump took office.

Hillary Clinton's actions were never fully investigated either in regard to the emails or benghazi and the F.B.I were completely incompetent in their so called investigation with so many immunity deals dished out that it gutted the entire process. Obama also has serious questions to answer as his public statements and what he did in the background are completely contrary and could amount to obstrucion of justice. There's no ifs or buts Trump has so far failed to do what most who voted for him wanted and that was to clear out the washington political system of the corruption that's rampant and has been rampant for some time now.

Just recently he has stabbed the 2nd amendment community in the back by appointing an anti gun judge on the 9th circuit and the reaction to that is already gaining momentum and if it isn't sorted out will cost him that support in future.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Trump has so far failed to do what most who voted for him wanted and that was to clear out the washington political system of the corruption that's rampant and has been rampant for some time now.

.

That will take a long time. It's a good start with the evidence coming out about Comey and the rest of his ilk. Kudos to people like John Solomon and Sara Carter.


I believe ex CIA people like Kevin Shipp, who have been part of the deep state/Shadow Government. And that is going to take a long time to fix, if it ever does get fixed. The globalists won't give up. In fact, they win.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQou...sXWN-cDZ-&t=0s

No Mr K, I am not going to put up with that remark, deleted.

No member(s) should be using phrases that infers a member is stupid or mental, this is not appropriate, if any member has nothing of value to contribute to the discussion, then stay out of the thread.

[pip08456]

Quite an interesting and informative read on the difference between the Clinton/Trump investigations.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...ble-standards/

Originally Posted by pip08456

Quite an interesting and informative read on the difference between the Clinton/Trump investigations.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...ble-standards/

And you're not a particular great fan of Trump and even you can tell the absolute disgrace the imbalance of justice has been here between the two investigations.

The for her, Hillary team destroys emails, smashes up storage devices blah blah and her key people get immunity deals. She gets cleared when clear legal statutes were violated.

Trump uses his Constitutional Authority as the head of the Executive Branch to fire FBI Director, James Comey and gets Obstruction of Justice thrown his way (Despite him personally not being under investigation at the time, so how one can obstruct justice in this respect, is beyond me).

The Clinton email investigation will be shown for what it was, a sham, to clear her to the Presidency, had she been indicted, it would have invalidated her candidacy for President and if Trump still won, there was an 'Insurance Policy' to illegitimately remove the legitimately elected President of the United States. This IG Report is expected to be damning on the Clinton FBI probe and is expected next few weeks.

And just this weekend, it's been fairly big news in the U.S, not so much here, that an FBI informant was implanted in to the Trump campaign in 2016, as a method to spy/surveil on Trump.

A couple of hours ago Trump tweeted an angry tweet saying he was going to demand his Justice department investigate if this was the case (as NYT and WaPo have reported it) and who ordered that in the Obama White House.

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes - and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!

Generally the White House doesn't direct FBI operations. So it's a big leap to order an investigation into that accusation without there being any proof.

Also just for some context to the 'FBI agent implanted into Trump's campaign to spy on Trump':

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pres...ry?id=55309163

The tweet is the latest escalation by the president in fueling an assertion that the Trump campaign may have been spied on by the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the DOJ. President Trump has sent out a series of tweets in recent days advancing the accusation first voiced by some conservative commentators that the FBI had a spy in the Trump campaign.

The Washington Post and New York Times have reported in recent days that the FBI sent an informant to talk to several Trump campaign aides during the 2016 election. The Times cited unnamed sources that these contacts were made only after the FBI had gathered information that the informant’s targets had made suspicious contacts with Russians during the campaign.

The reports do not assert that there was an informant embedded inside the campaign or that the informant ever acted improperly.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Everything about this is making me want to vomit.

Trump is covering his own backside. IF there is proof and it can be found he has lied to the American people and should be impeached.

As for Clinton, l believe that she is the innocent victim in this matter. The FBI has found NOTHING to take her through the courts. Whereas when it was brought up during the elections it DID harm her election. Whereas with Trump - he stated he was surprised that he had won.

When he was asked during the election. He was asked ' do you think you will win' His return remark was ' we shall see'. He said that several times during the elction.

Since he won, he had employed most of his family to the White House. So who is running his vast company.

I think the biggest problem in America is that, there are big buck lawyers ready to pull strings. Its already been said on in thread that Trump knew about the money paid to the hooker. Remember what Bill Clinto said ' I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH LOWINSKI' what happened he DID.

Trump is a lie, and should be impeached

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

Generally the White House doesn't direct FBI operations. So it's a big leap to order an investigation into that accusation without there being any proof.

Also just for some context to the 'FBI agent implanted into Trump's campaign to spy on Trump':

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pres...ry?id=55309163

It's all very strange. I think it's just the technique he uses of sewing doubt in peoples' minds so they think there's no smoke without fire to promote his credentials in the Republican Party. I doubt he seriously believes that Obama's government would have interfered in the running of the FBI.