Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NBC News: Senate no direct evidence of conspiracy between Trump campaign and Russia

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by craven View Post

    I cant remember what the overall issue was with that computer ie did wiener do it. Or one of those she use to use it occasionally but not really her computer. Remember she and wiener were separated at the time. So I can see how that computer could be forgotten about by Huma. Out of sigh out of mine when it comes to devices now days.

    I am still getting my work computer sorted out from an ugrade. If someone asked me about my computer until just now I wouldn't of even thought about the old one.

    See your opinion of what Comey is direct contradiction of what Trump fired him for.

    Overall I agree can agree with you about what he did but DOJ policy said not to do it. I would not of wanted his job through all of this. I don't even think there was a choice of the least bad option for him.


    My point about Comey screwing up the issue of intent is a simple fact, not an opinion. The law that was at issue explicitly requires only "gross negligence" which is a different standard than "intent".
    As a result, it appeared that either comey didn't undertand the law he was supposed to enforce, or he looked corrupt for holding hillary to a different standard. I'm not making a point about trump. I'm making it about comey.

    Anyway, as for huma, the fact that the emails were on weiner's computer which was in his possession, indicated that at the least there was a reasonable basis to believe she was guilty of "gross negligence" in permitting others to possess those emails.
    I agree the computer could have been forgotten by her, but that would be evidence of gross negligence in losing control over those emails. Forgetting isn't a defense. Rather it is proof of guilt.

    I am assuming that the fbi would have asked her if she had ever allowed anyone else to see or possess those emails (how could they not?) and once they appeared in Weiner's possession, she should have been charged with perjury. The fact that nothing happened doesn't speak well for the FBI's claimed objectivity.

    Leave a comment:


  • craven
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



    Just an opinion, Comey had to reopen the investigation.
    Otherwise, he would have dug a deeper hole for himself that he already had.

    The fact that no one was charged with perjury for lying to the fbi about those emails is stunning.
    How could Huma not have been charged for permitting those emails to exist on someone else's computer and for failing to disclose that info when she was interviewed by the FBI months earlier.

    Comey started the screw up by saying hillary could never be charged because they couldn't prove "intent" for a crime that doesn't require proof of "intent".
    I cant remember what the overall issue was with that computer ie did wiener do it. Or one of those she use to use it occasionally but not really her computer. Remember she and wiener were separated at the time. So I can see how that computer could be forgotten about by Huma. Out of sigh out of mine when it comes to devices now days.

    I am still getting my work computer sorted out from an ugrade. If someone asked me about my computer until just now I wouldn't of even thought about the old one.

    See your opinion of what Comey is direct contradiction of what Trump fired him for.

    Overall I agree can agree with you about what he did but DOJ policy said not to do it. I would not of wanted his job through all of this. I don't even think there was a choice of the least bad option for him.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by craven View Post

    no that is so wrong because suppose Obama did and Trump lost the Pro Trump crowd would still be screaming about rigging the election. Remember Trump already was claiming the election was rigged so he had an easy out when he lost. Which he expected to. I don't think Obama anticipated Trump being dumb enough to act how he has been in regards to this stuff.

    btw it was comey who should of never reopened the investigation when he found stuff on weiners laptop that turned out to be a nothing burger


    Just an opinion, Comey had to reopen the investigation.
    Otherwise, he would have dug a deeper hole for himself that he already had.

    The fact that no one was charged with perjury for lying to the fbi about those emails is stunning.
    How could Huma not have been charged for permitting those emails to exist on someone else's computer and for failing to disclose that info when she was interviewed by the FBI months earlier.

    Comey started the screw up by saying hillary could never be charged because they couldn't prove "intent" for a crime that doesn't require proof of "intent".

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Dumocrats throughout America are throwing themselves off bridges, out office windows, and in front of traffic, unable to face the sudden truth.

    Die, Jackasses, die!


    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by craven View Post
    um I think the wiki leaks guy has.

    Stone has been. Stone has admitted to in in interviews to gaining access to them or working with wiki leaks guy. He now says um I was just bragging. Doh

    Then there is Corsi.

    As I have said Trump probally did not commit a crime but he should of known better after receiving briefing from the FBI about what was going on.

    The more important question you should ask is why are all these people lying. I have said repeatedly handled differently there would of been no Mueller. So either Trump is trying to hide something or they are just stupid. Although I will admit you can never rule out stupid.


    The fact that wikileaks may have stolen anything isn't relevant.

    You have avoided responding to my comments:
    Specifically:


    You haven’t identified any unethical actions taken by trump or his campaign with respect to those emails.

    Since you are trying to imply that mueller has put people in jail for receipt of the stolen emails, you should be able to identify who those people are.

    I have asked you to support your claim:
    "Um actually everything I laid out is in the charging docs for all the guys mueller is putting in jail. "
    So far, you have not.



    If Trump probably didn't commit a crime, then you have no basis to claim he is guilty of a high crime.
    The people were convicted for lying to the fbi or tax issues.
    Not for any act related to the claim of collusion or contact with the russians.

    My specific problem with claiming that the FBI convictions are proof of anything is the fact that it could happen to any of us.
    If the FBI interviewed you about the russia investigation and they felt you lied to them in the interview you could be charged and convicted for that even though you had nothing to do with the underlying issue.







    Leave a comment:


  • craven
    replied
    um I think the wiki leaks guy has.

    Stone has been. Stone has admitted to in in interviews to gaining access to them or working with wiki leaks guy. He now says um I was just bragging. Doh

    Then there is Corsi.

    As I have said Trump probally did not commit a crime but he should of known better after receiving briefing from the FBI about what was going on.

    The more important question you should ask is why are all these people lying. I have said repeatedly handled differently there would of been no Mueller. So either Trump is trying to hide something or they are just stupid. Although I will admit you can never rule out stupid.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by craven View Post

    attempting to receive stolen property appears to be a high crime Or is receiving stolen property ok in your book.

    my scenario lays out a clear path of unethical actions Trump took or he had his campaign take.


    Um actually everything I laid out is in the charging docs for all the guys mueller is putting in jail.


    Under your scenario all of us can be charged with receiving stolen property.
    There is no law against trump reading the same thing that everyone else did.
    I’m sorry.

    And no one has been charged with receipt of stolen property in the form of hillary’s emails.

    You haven’t identified any unethical actions taken by trump or his campaign with respect to those emails.

    Since you are trying to imply that mueller has put people in jail for receipt of the stolen emails, you should be able to identify who those people are.
    So please do.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    What part of "no direct evidence" can these guys not understand?

    Leave a comment:


  • craven
    replied
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post

    Obama gave him the election by being to timid to act.
    no that is so wrong because suppose Obama did and Trump lost the Pro Trump crowd would still be screaming about rigging the election. Remember Trump already was claiming the election was rigged so he had an easy out when he lost. Which he expected to. I don't think Obama anticipated Trump being dumb enough to act how he has been in regards to this stuff.

    btw it was comey who should of never reopened the investigation when he found stuff on weiners laptop that turned out to be a nothing burger

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    Originally posted by craven View Post

    how can the guy who gave Trump the election be the bad guy for the pro trump guy is beyond me
    Obama gave him the election by being to timid to act.

    Leave a comment:


  • craven
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

    Seems there may be a form of collusion and possible illegal actions after all ....

    New Emails Confirm FBI Tried To Work Deal With State Dept To Minimize Hillary Email Scandal
    ...
    Over two years after the fact, newly released FBI emails obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request confirm that James Comey's FBI attempted to work out a quid pro quo deal with the Obama State Department to help minimize the Hillary Clinton private email server scandal just weeks before the 2016 election.

    Fox News's Catherine Herridge and Pamela K. Browne first reported on the alleged deal back on October 15, 2016, but full confirmation did not come until this week when the government transparency watchdog group Judicial Watch released FBI communication related to the deal.

    "FBI interview summaries and notes, provided late Friday to the House Government Oversight and Intelligence Committees, contain allegations of a 'quid pro quo' between a senior State Department executive and FBI agents during the Hillary Clinton email investigation, two congressional sources told Fox News," Herridge and Browne reported in 2016. "This is a flashing red light of potential criminality," Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah) told Fox News at the time. "In return for altering the classification, the possibility of additional slots for the FBI at missions overseas was discussed," he said.

    On Monday, Fox News' Gregg Re reported that over two years later, the allegation that the FBI and State Department floated a "quid pro quo" deal has now been confirmed, and it originated with the FBI:
    ...
    https://www.dailywire.com/news/43399...aign=position1
    how can the guy who gave Trump the election be the bad guy for the pro trump guy is beyond me

    Leave a comment:


  • craven
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post


    You said he "colluded" and he is guilty.
    You have now denied saying his act was illegal. If it isn't illegal what is the point?
    Thankfully, we do not charge people for engaging in legal acts.

    If it isn't illegal, I have to wonder how it is a "high crime".
    If Trump is "working for a foreign agency", then it would stand to reason there would be some evidence of that, but what you have claimed is proof of his crime, is not.

    It was legal for trump to win the election.
    It was legal for trump to comment on the emails that hillary allowed to be stolen (note trump had nothing to do with that theft)
    Once the emails were made public, it was legal for trump to use them in any way he saw fit.

    I am not arguing the fine points of law, I am rebutting the unsupported arguments that he has committed a crime.

    You say he is guilty of collusion (among other things). The actual crime would be conspiracy and the scenario you presented makes reference to zero illegal or even unethical acts.
    (other than Hillary's)
    attempting to receive stolen property appears to be a high crime Or is receiving stolen property ok in your book.

    my scenario lays out a clear path of unethical actions Trump took or he had his campaign take.


    Um actually everything I laid out is in the charging docs for all the guys mueller is putting in jail.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trung Si
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    Why meet with Russians in the first place as they are a stated adversary of the United States? The FBI should have been called, not meeting with the Russians.
    EXCERPTS;
    ...
    President Obama found his private moment of political candor caught by a live microphone on Monday as he told President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia that he would have “more flexibility” to negotiate on the delicate issue of missile defense after the November election, which Mr. Obama apparently feels confident he will win.

    Mr. Obama’s Republican adversaries seized on the comment, which followed a meeting between Mr. Obama and Mr. Medvedev in Seoul, South Korea, where both had struggled to find common ground amid strong objections in Russia to the American plans for a missile defense system based in Europe.
    ...
    “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space,” Mr. Obama could be heard saying to Mr. Medvedev, according a reporter from ABC News, who was traveling with the president.

    “Yeah, I understand,” the departing Russian president said. “I understand your message about space. Space for you ... .”

    Mr. Obama then elaborated in a portion of the exchange picked up by the cameras: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

    “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” Mr. Medvedev said, referring to Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin, who just won an election to succeed Mr. Medvedev.
    ...
    https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/u...exibility.html

    If anyone is looking for a POTUS "colluding" with and making questionable deals with, currying the favor of Putin/Russia, or acting like Putin's puppet, we have clear and specific evidence in the above. Toss in that Uranium One deal and there's icing on the cake.


    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    Why meet with Russians in the first place as they are a stated adversary of the United States? The FBI should have been called, not meeting with the Russians.


    Why haven't they charged him with anything to do with the actual meeting with the russians?

    Because it was perfectly legal.
    It is legal to meet with russians.
    It is perfectly acceptable to meet and talk to russians.

    It only becomes a problem if there is an illegal agreement with the russians.
    The fact that he was never charged with anything regarding an illegal agreement or even for meeting the russians is solid proof the FBI took no issue with it.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X