Hardly. It might be eye opening for you.
The key to being an informed voter is to make sure you are informed. That is why I read primary source material and don't rely on news sources to tell me what is in it. Are you informed ?
Get your popcorn ready for Jim Jordan's cross examination of swamp rat Mueller
- Thread starter Robo
- Start date
Hardly. It might be eye opening for you.
The key to being an informed voter is to make sure you are informed. That is why I read primary source material and don't rely on news sources to tell me what is in it. Are you informed ?
Tranquillus in Exile
New member
It wasn't. Mueller was commissioned to investigate any links between the Russian government and individuals in the Trump campaign. Where does the Steele dossier come into that? Has anyone produced a scrap of evidence that agents of the Russian state had any input into the Steele dossier?
Robo
Verified User
Yada, yada, yada! You need a new lie darling, that one is tired!
Robo
Verified User
Abortion has no relevancy to the exposure of Presidents to legal actions. Unless a President is trying to change abortion law by executive order. All of that is totally off topic relative to a President’s exposure to be indicted of a crime.
Again, there’s zero constitutional power of a Justice Department to make law. “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE “ALL” LAWS NECESSARY AND PROPER.” (Article One Section Eight United States Constitution)
Post court case that has made the DOJ law “no sitting President can be indicted of a crime” Please.
Well then if that’s your belief you should be able to enlighten me with some facts that prove Hillary cannot & should not have been indicted for reckless endangering the United States Of America by using an unauthorized secret email server transmitting classified and even secret government information & allowing access to same by members of her staff without classified and secret clearances, while at the same time a young sailor was convicted and jailed for taking a few pictures of the inside of his submarine, right? I’ll look forward to your superior jurist prudence knowledge & factual reply!
Then what’s Mueller’s problem with indicting Trump for all of his crimes you and he know about?
Dictionary Dot Com says an impeachment is an
1. allegation arraignment bill charge citation detention prosecution
Dictionary Dot com says an indictment is,
1. allegation arraignment bill charge citation detention impeachment prosecution
Whom may I ask is the OIC?
Robo
Verified User
I do believe it's settled evidence that Steel received his dossier from a Russian operative. Stand by, that evidence will sure as hell raise its ugly head again soon in the Obama DOJ & Intel prosecutions of Comey, Brennan & Clapper & others! Get your popcorn ready!
John Barron
Verified User
That is true.
John Barron
Verified User
If they broke the law bust their ass. Then as soon as Trumps out of office bust his ass. Nobody is above the law. We need that to be proven to us.
Something doesn't have to specifically be in the Constitution before it can or can't be done legally in the US. This is some pretty simple stuff.
In order to indict someone 3 things are required. 1.) a law that results in a criminal penalty. 2.) An act that the person committed that broke the law 3.) Evidence of that act that can convince a judge or jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the law was broken.
You can't even cite which law you think is broken let alone evidence to support an indictment. Your argument is made up gobblydegook.
The sailor was convicted of taking pictures in a classified area. It met all 3 requirements for the conviction. It is impossible to NOT know you are taking pictures so the intent was easy to prove and since he worked on the submarine he would clearly know it is a classified area. The pictures were taken on his phone and not sent to him so he is pretty much the only one that could have committed the act.
"unauthorized secret email server" - There is no law preventing anyone from having a server. (There is now a regulation about this but no law. You will notice that in this instance you are arguing that a regulation has some legal power where you just argued that in the case of Mueller, it didn't have any power. The regulation carries no criminal penalty but only an administrative one since Departments can't write laws.) The simple fact is having a server is not a crime and never has been a crime. The transmission of classified information can be a crime under certain circumstances. In order for the transmission of classified information to be a crime it requires "intent to transfer". Having a server that someone sends classified information to that you don't know is classified is not a criminal act by the person having the server since "intent" requires actual knowledge. If the person that sent it knew it was classified they could be charged. Since no one was even charged with the original emails, the criminal aspect of this is not likely to be proven. You have no law to charge Hillary with and no evidence to show she actually broke any law that would have a criminal element to it. The only possible law she might have possibly broken is one that allows for her to be reprimanded or fired.
Regulations are not laws but employees of the Federal government can be fired for not following those regulations. It restricts the actions Mueller can take and still remain an employee.
The English language has no 2 words that mean exactly the same thing. Using a synonym is not the same thing as the original word. Dictionarydotcom is not a legal reference.
OIC - Typo It is the OLC. Office of Legal Counsel.
You fail to understand how the law and indictments work. You have to have a law that could have been broken. What law do you think was broken when Steele got information from a Russian operative?
You might want to actually read the Mueller report to get a better understanding of this. It lays out why Donald Jr's meeting with Russians may have violated the law. It cites the law and then lays out the evidence including the reason for not charging those at the meeting since the law requires "intent". Basically, he excuses Donald Jr from a crime because Donald Jr didn't know it might be a crime thus intent would have been unlikely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Tranquillus in Exile
New member
It's not in dispute that Steele assembled his information from a network of "collectors" in Russia. These were people who had been working for him for years collecting commercial intelligence (the main business of his firm).
You think some of them might have been double agents working for the Russian authorities? That's possible, of course, even that they fooled a man of Steele's experience. Some Trump fans talk as if it's a proven fact. But it isn't - no evidence has been brought forward to support it, only wishful thinking.
Before prosecutions you need criminal investigations. Have any of those been opened yet?
evince
Truthmatters
no you fucking fox news shit bite
the dossier came from the investigation of steel ( who used to be a top UK spy and is now a PI for hire)
he used his life long contacts for info on what is going on in Russia and there contacts with trump.
those contacts told him some of the stories he reported in his report
NUMBEROUS contact world side you lying uninformed idiot.
Steele has helped the USA government for Decades
you would drink trumps piss even if you had to pay for it
evince
Truthmatters
yeah baby
Robo
Verified User
You're kiddin, right? If you don't know, I'm not gonna tell ya!
Robo
Verified User
I love you too sweetie! Keep your safe space handy. Make sure you have plenty of crayons & coloring books, teddy bears & crying towels handy darling, you're gonna be in that closet for a very long time & Donald Trump will be your President for 6 more years!
Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
Robo
Verified User
WRONG! illegal immigrants are above the law. They're protected from all American laws by the Democrat's sanctuary states & cities, who also seem above America's laws, harboring criminals is actually a felony. Democrats either don't know that, don't care or are above the law!
Tranquillus in Exile
New member
You're not going to tell me if you've heard of any criminal investigations into Comey, Brennan, Clapper "& others"? Then I'll have to rely on the Wall Street Journal:
< Attorney General William Barr said his review of the origins of the Russia investigation is focused on U.S. intelligence gathering before the Federal Bureau of Investigation opened its formal inquiry in July 2016 and could lead to rule changes for counterintelligence investigations.>
https://www.wsj.com/articles/barr-r...-probe-could-lead-to-rule-changes-11558090803
Oh no - not RULE CHANGES!
You're not going to tell me if you've heard of any criminal investigations into Comey, Brennan, Clapper "& others"? Then I'll have to rely on the Wall Street Journal:
< Attorney General William Barr said his review of the origins of the Russia investigation is focused on U.S. intelligence gathering before the Federal Bureau of Investigation opened its formal inquiry in July 2016 and could lead to rule changes for counterintelligence investigations.>
https://www.wsj.com/articles/barr-r...-probe-could-lead-to-rule-changes-11558090803
Oh no - not RULE CHANGES!
Trump begged Barr to investigate Dems. He, like most Trumps were comatose when the Repub house and senate investigated Hillary a dozen times. Barr is a Trump sycophant and does what he is told. His integrity is bought and paid for by Daffy. Barr will waste millions following Daffy's orders.
Obama was called the deporter in chief. Do you ever get anything right?