Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Dec 2017, 11:43 am

freeman3 wrote:Comey testified that he did not believe a case could be brought under gross negligence, anyway. So the language did not support a criminal prosecution, at least according to Comey's interpretation. California defines gross negligence as the want of even scant care. That seems to be essentially the same thing as saying extreme carelessness.

So they knew they were not going up prosecute because gross negligence was not enough. And they chose language that while essentially meaning the same thing did not tie directly into the language of the statute, hoping to making their determination cause less political furor.

But that doesn't mean they did not make a legitimate determination. I still believe they did.


I appreciate your faith. I do.

Riddle me this: if, as is apparently is the case, Abedin and Miller lied to the FBI, why were they not prosecuted a la Flynn? https://hotair.com/archives/2017/12/05/ ... trzok-fbi/
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 Dec 2017, 12:56 pm

Well, it is clear that Huma Abedin knew Clinton had a private email address...but how do you prove that she knew that there was a private server in New York? That goes to how technologically savvy she is. Also, the only proof is that there is an email back in 2010 that mentions a server? What is the materiality of Huma Abedin's knowledge regarding a private server? The fact that Clinton had a private server was not an issue. That seems like a very weak case to bring.

Contrast with that with Flynn case where his lies about his communications with the Russian ambassador were clear-cut, proof was certain, and they were material to what was being investigated--improper contacts with the Russians. I see major differences in the following areas between the two cases: (1) Recency: the nearness in time between the lies being allegedly told and the time-frame being discussed, leading to potential problems of memory, either as an excuse or real, (2) Proof: the recorded communications with regard to Flynn were fool-proof evidence, whereas one email and individual differential understanding regarding servers makes proving lies awfully complicated, and (3) Materiality: Flynn was telling lies about something essential to an investigation whereas Abedin's knowledge about the existence of the private server was tangential at best to the investigation.

By the way, found this interesting article about the Clinton server.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... fbi-214307
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Dec 2017, 1:37 pm

freeman3 wrote:Contrast with that with Flynn case where his lies about his communications with the Russian ambassador were clear-cut, proof was certain, and they were material to what was being investigated--improper contacts with the Russians. I see major differences in the following areas between the two cases: (1) Recency: the nearness in time between the lies being allegedly told and the time-frame being discussed, leading to potential problems of memory, either as an excuse or real, (2) Proof: the recorded communications with regard to Flynn were fool-proof evidence, whereas one email and individual differential understanding regarding servers makes proving lies awfully complicated, and (3) Materiality: Flynn was telling lies about something essential to an investigation whereas Abedin's knowledge about the existence of the private server was tangential at best to the investigation.


Flynn told a lie that was material to what crime, and please be precise?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 Dec 2017, 1:51 pm

It is material to interference in our elections by a foreign government. Here is an article discussing potential criminal violations. Violations of US elections, conspiracy with the Russians' to violate our elections laws, Trump's obstruction of justice.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes. ... y,amp.html


The conduct was also a clear violation of the Logan Act. There is uncertainty about prosecutions being brought under that law, but on its face the conduct violates it.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Dec 2017, 2:52 pm

freeman3 wrote:It is material to interference in our elections by a foreign government. Here is an article discussing potential criminal violations. Violations of US elections, conspiracy with the Russians' to violate our elections laws, Trump's obstruction of justice.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes. ... y,amp.html


Right. Is there a *direct* connection between Flynn lying and a crime? That article is about Don Jr's meeting with a Russian lawyer.

I used to think it was the far-right (meaning to the right of me) that was prone to wing-nut, wackadoodle conspiracy theories, but I see the far-left is not immune.

Y'all don't know that a crime was committed. You are hoping there was.

I'm still waiting for something we like to call "evidence."


The conduct was also a clear violation of the Logan Act. There is uncertainty about prosecutions being brought under that law, but on its face the conduct violates it.


The law has existed for more than 200 years. How many convictions have their been under the Logan Act?

Answer: zero.

In more than 200 years.

Yeah.

I think some folks need to increase their Xanax intake.

Image
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 Dec 2017, 3:20 pm

This is not a stretch at all. The FBI has been looking into whether there has been obstruction of justice and Russian interference in our election. Flynn lied about his discussions with the Russian ambassador. What he lied about was working with the Russian government about Russia not reacting to sanctions imposed on them by Obama and with regard to some UN resolution pertaining to Israel.

Why is that significant? The Russian government interfered in our election. There is no doubt about that. The question is whether the Trump campaign colluded with them to do so. We already know that Don, Jr attempted to collude with the Russians. We also know that Trump has tried at every turn to impede the investigation. So working with the Russians so closely prior to Inauguration in such an unusual way is evidence that the Trump campaign owes the Russians, that the Russians had done something for Trump and he wanted to make sure they did not get upset at US sanctions. Is it conclusive proof? No. But it is relevant evidence, meaning it has some tendency to prove that Trump and the Russians had colluded.

The point of an investigation is to find out what happened. When you lie to the FBI and seek to prevent them from finding out what happened then you're going to get prosecuted. Flynn did that; Huma Abedin's knowledge about the distinction between having a private server versus a private email address did not prevent the FBI from finding out what happened with the emails.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Dec 2017, 5:12 pm

freeman3 wrote:This is not a stretch at all. The FBI has been looking into whether there has been obstruction of justice and Russian interference in our election. Flynn lied about his discussions with the Russian ambassador. What he lied about was working with the Russian government about Russia not reacting to sanctions imposed on them by Obama and with regard to some UN resolution pertaining to Israel.


You're fishing.

Why is that significant? The Russian government interfered in our election. There is no doubt about that.


They interfere in many elections. What effect did they have on this one--please be specific.

The question is whether the Trump campaign colluded with them to do so. We already know that Don, Jr attempted to collude with the Russians. We also know that Trump has tried at every turn to impede the investigation.


What specific evidence of collusion is there? I'll wait.

Did Don Jr. "attempt to collude?" What specific law is that?

So working with the Russians so closely prior to Inauguration in such an unusual way is evidence that the Trump campaign owes the Russians, that the Russians had done something for Trump and he wanted to make sure they did not get upset at US sanctions. Is it conclusive proof? No.


"So closely?"

Are you trying to bruise my ribs? Please list all of the *evidence* of this "so close" working relationship between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Good luck!

Trump "owes" the Russians? Is that why Nikki Hayley has been bashing them at the UN?

If anyone was cozy with the Russkies, it was Comrade Obama. He put them back in the Middle East and told them he'd be "more flexible" after defeating Romney. That was collusion! Arrest him!

But it is relevant evidence, meaning it has some tendency to prove that Trump and the Russians had colluded.


You need better bait. This is weak.

The point of an investigation is to find out what happened. When you lie to the FBI and seek to prevent them from finding out what happened then you're going to get prosecuted. Flynn did that; Huma Abedin's knowledge about the distinction between having a private server versus a private email address did not prevent the FBI from finding out what happened with the emails.


We shall see. The truth will out.

Meanwhile, there's more evidence that Mueller has stacked his staff with anti-Trump/pro-Clinton folks. Now, it may not be deliberate. He may just be incompetent.

https://hotair.com/archives/2017/12/05/ ... ravel-ban/
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 Dec 2017, 6:48 pm

it's not fishing. US presidents don't start covertly (Flynn) cooperating with foreign governments before they are sworn in. Please name other examples if you think this is typical.

Trump uniquely treating Putin with adulation is inexplicable.

The desperation of Trump to cozy up to the Russians is unexplainable. Absurd. Ridiculous.Again, this has never happened before.

All the lies told by Trump officials with regard to contacts with the Russian is inexplicable unless they were trying to hide something.Trump people lying to the FBI says something significant as well. They're lying...about nothing. Sure.

Trump's repeated, reckless attempts to shut down the Russia investigation are inexplicable unless he was threatened by it. That something big was being hidden. Oh, he's doing that because the investigation--though about nothing--is interfering with the mojo of his Administration. Sure. Fire the FBI Director because he is investigating...nothing. Sure. Makes all the sense in the world.

Sure Manafort working for FREE for Trump makes sense. Of course, a Russian oligarch stops trying to collect 14 million from him. No connection there! And why did they hire such a controversial person...and make him campaign manager 10 days after the meeting with the Russian attorney. Just a coincidence...right! Lewandowski said Manafort was in control...as soon as he came aboard (he was hired March 29--by April 7 he had control of the campaign, according to Lewandowski)Why? Trump didn't know the guy, Lewandowski had been his guy since the beginning. And all of a sudden--Virtually Immediately!--Manafort is in control. And he gets that popular plank to arm Ukraine out of the RNC platform. It's all a friggin' coincidence, right?"

And it's just a coincidence that the leaked DNC emails ended May, 2016 (the emails were from January 2015 to May, 2016) before the meeting with the Russian attorney where dirt on Hillary was promised. They promised dirt ...and oh by the way they had the dirt. The emails were leaked on July 22. Oh, coincidentally Manafort became campaign chairman on May 19.

And It was reasonable and understandable for Kushner to try to set up a back-channel communication with Russia secure from US intelligence and to meet with a Russian sanctioned bank. Business as usual to do that right? And not list his Russian contacts on his initial disclosure form? You just can't get good secretarial help, right?And of course Sessions and Flynn should lie about their repeated contacts with the Russian ambassador? Even though said lies put them in legal jeopardy? Just business as usual, right?

Give me a break. The truth will out as you say. And Trump will be out.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Dec 2017, 7:07 pm

freeman3 wrote:it's not fishing. US presidents don't start covertly (Flynn) cooperating with foreign governments before they are sworn in. Please name other examples if you think this is typical.

Trump uniquely treating Putin with adulation is inexplicable.

The desperation of Trump to cozy up to the Russians is unexplainable. Absurd. Ridiculous.Again, this has never happened before.

All the lies told by Trump officials with regard to contacts with the Russian is inexplicable unless they were trying to hide something.Trump people lying to the FBI says something significant as well. They're lying...about nothing. Sure.

Trump's repeated, reckless attempts to shut down the Russia investigation are inexplicable unless he was threatened by it. That something big was being hidden. Oh, he's doing that because the investigation--though about nothing--is interfering with the mojo of his Administration. Sure. Fire the FBI Director because he is investigating...nothing. Sure. Makes all the sense in the world.

Sure Manafort working for FREE for Trump makes sense. Of course, a Russian oligarch stops trying to collect 14 million from him. No connection there! And why did they hire such a controversial person...and make him campaign manager 10 days after the meeting with the Russian attorney. Just a coincidence...right! Lewandowski said Manafort was in control...as soon as he came aboard (he was hired March 29--by April 7 he had control of the campaign, according to Lewandowski)Why? Trump didn't know the guy, Lewandowski had been his guy since the beginning. And all of a sudden--Virtually Immediately!--Manafort is in control. And he gets that popular plank to arm Ukraine out of the RNC platform. It's all a friggin' coincidence, right?"

And it's just a coincidence that the leaked DNC emails ended May, 2016 (the emails were from January 2015 to May, 2016) before the meeting with the Russian attorney where dirt on Hillary was promised. They promised dirt ...and oh by the way they had the dirt. The emails were leaked on July 22. Oh, coincidentally Manafort became campaign chairman on May 19.

And It was reasonable and understandable for Kushner to try to set up a back-channel communication with Russia secure from US intelligence and to meet with a Russian sanctioned bank. Business as usual to do that right? And not list his Russian contacts on his initial disclosure form? You just can't get good secretarial help, right?And of course Sessions and Flynn should lie about their repeated contacts with the Russian ambassador? Even though said lies put them in legal jeopardy? Just business as usual, right?

Give me a break. The truth will out as you say. And Trump will be out.

It is pointless to respond. You’ve got a particularly malignant case of TDS.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 Dec 2017, 7:27 pm

Oh...he's a malignancy alright. I am not sure why I responded to your prior post. It was pointless. Well, it was pointless in reference to convincing you. But I felt compelled to point out yet again that there is a lot of smoke coming out of Trumpville and we'll just have to see if Mueller finds the fire.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Dec 2017, 7:34 pm

freeman3 wrote:Oh...he's a malignancy alright. I am not sure why I responded to your prior post. It was pointless. Well, it was pointless in reference to convincing you. But I felt compelled to point out yet again that there is a lot of smoke coming out of Trumpville and we'll just have to see if Mueller finds the fire.


:laugh:
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 Dec 2017, 11:20 pm

Yeah, keep laughing. There are reports that Deutsche Bank has received subpoenas from Mueller and has been producing documents for weeks. Deutsche Bank has lent several hundred million dollars to Trump entities, has had large fines levied for laundering Russian money, and a month before Election Day loaned Jared Kushner's family 285 million for a real estate venture. Trump has illegal ties to the Russians and that's why he has been so extremely pro-Russian. Whether it has to do with money or colluding on the election and probably both...he self-dealt for the benefit of himself and Russia...and at the expense of the American people. He has got to go and he can take his slimy cast of characters with him.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Dec 2017, 5:43 am

freeman3 wrote:Yeah, keep laughing. There are reports that Deutsche Bank has received subpoenas from Mueller and has been producing documents for weeks. Deutsche Bank has lent several hundred million dollars to Trump entities, has had large fines levied for laundering Russian money, and a month before Election Day loaned Jared Kushner's family 285 million for a real estate venture. Trump has illegal ties to the Russians and that's why he has been so extremely pro-Russian. Whether it has to do with money or colluding on the election and probably both...he self-dealt for the benefit of himself and Russia...and at the expense of the American people. He has got to go and he can take his slimy cast of characters with him.

Yeah, like those "reports" that Flynn was directed to contact the Russians by candidate Trump? Liberals on TV were dancing . . . until Brian Ross was suspended for a month for completely botching his "report."

I'm going to keep laughing because your side is so unhinged.

Here's an example: there are no subpoenas. http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... nk-records

Meanwhile, the home of Lyin' Brian Ross, ABC News, says there were subpoenas.

We'll know soon enough.

I'm no fan of Trump. Your vitriol for him borders on pathology.

The good news, to me, is that all the hatred exercised toward him might cause him not to run for reelection.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Dec 2017, 5:47 am

In the meantime, the true nature of Mueller's investigation is beginning to emerge: it's anti-Trump bias is showing.

Andrew Weissmann is Robert Mueller’s top assistant in the Russia probe. He is also a member of the anti-Trump resistance.

This is no longer a suspicion. We know it’s true because Judicial Watch obtained an email Weissmann sent to fellow resistance member Sally Yates after she refused to comply with President Trump’s order to issue a travel ban. Weissmann gushed:

I am so proud. And in awe. Thank you so much. All my deepest respects.


Of course Weissmann was proud. Refusal by a government functionary to carry out a presidential order is a quintessential act of resistance.

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton calls Weissmann’s email “an astonishing and disturbing finding.” Well, disturbing anyway. I’m not astonished. Weissmann’s praise reflects the view of many liberal lawyers in Washington, D.C. I bet it’s shared widely within Mueller’s team.

In any case, it’s clear that Mueller’s right hand man is a blatant anti-Trump partisan. His presence on Mueller’s team compromises the integrity, if any, of that operation.

To make matters worse, Sally Yates, the resistance member Weissmann holds in awe, figures in the investigation Mueller’s team has conducted. She’s the one who, according to her testimony to Congress, informed White House Counsel Don McGahn that Michael Flynn had made untrue statements about his talks with the Russian ambassador, and discussed with McGahn possible criminal prosecution of Flynn.

Yates’ alleged statement was relevant to Mueller’s investigation of Flynn. He was, after all, prosecuted for making what Yates deemed false statements, just as Yates says she warned he might be.

More importantly, Yates’ alleged report to the White House Counsel might be relevant to an investigation of President Trump. Andy McCarthy has written:

The day after firing Flynn, Trump had the White House meeting at which — according to the testimony of former FBI director James Comey — Trump pressured Comey to drop the Flynn investigation. . . .Thus, if Trump knew that Flynn had lied to the FBI, he was asking Comey to drop a case against someone he knew had committed a crime.

But if Trump didn’t know at that time that Flynn had lied (or that he might have lied) to the FBI, then he wasn’t asking Comey to drop a case against someone he knew (or believed) had committed a crime. Big difference.

Yates, then, might become an important witness in an investigation for alleged obstruction of justice by the president. Her veracity might be pivotal.

It might also be contested. Major Garrett of CBS News reports that “sources with direct knowledge” say that Yates never told the White House Counsel what she testified she told him regarding Flynn’s legal jeopardy.

Yates can take comfort that her veracity will be judged by a team whose number 2 guy (and likely other members) holds her in awe.


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... stance.php
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 06 Dec 2017, 7:00 am

First of all, I don't hate him. Second of all, your attempt to ascribe my contentions to hatred is just another form of ad hominem attack. You do seem to have a tendency to attack the person rather than arguments.

Thirdly, Deutsche Bank issued the following statement:

"DB takes its legal obligations seriously and remains committed to cooperating with authorized investigations into this matter.” Why would they not just deny they had gotten a subpoena?

Fourth, did you know that Trump Administration has seriously considered having a private spy army? Sarah Sanders when asked about it...instead of just saying to the reporter are you out of their minds basically just said she was not aware of that being done at this time, something like that. This Administration has no respect for American institutions.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/static.the ... emies.html