So did Comey and Mueller "collude…"

[Raoul_Luke]

To orchestrate an investigation of the President over completely fabricated evidence? It didn't take long to pivot from "collusion with the Russians" to obstruction of justice to (much easier to prove) improper business dealings. It's beginning to look like it to me...

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Pivot? You say that as if the collusion allegations have been abandoned. Not so. Stay tuned.

And Trump engaged in the obstruction of justice, not the investigators. Don't whine about your Dear Leader being called out on his criminal conduct.

 

[YouCantHandleDaTruth]

Pivot? You say that as if the collusion allegations have been abandoned. Not so. Stay tuned.

And Trump engaged in the obstruction of justice, not the investigators. Don't whine about your Dear Leader being called out on his criminal conduct.

+1

The collusion allegations extend to his campaign associates with 3 of them bold faced lying about their meetings with Russians including racist ass'd AG Jeff Sessions.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

+1

The collusion allegations extend to his campaign associates with 3 of them bold faced lying about their meetings with Russians including racist ass'd AG Jeff Sessions.

With each passing day we hear more and more suggesting that there was collusion. Wingers like to pretend the collusion probe is a thing of the past, as we see here. Their hackery demands it.

 

[bdtex]

No.

 

[ObamacareForever]

To orchestrate an investigation of the President over completely fabricated evidence? It didn't take long to pivot from "collusion with the Russians" to obstruction of justice to (much easier to prove) improper business dealings. It's beginning to look like it to me...

Kenneth Starr went from Whitewater to the blue dress. That's how criminal investigations work.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Kenneth Starr went from Whitewater to the blue dress. That's how criminal investigations work.

And I didn't like it then either. It's funny how the lefties who pitched a fit about that miscarriage of justice are suddenly a-okay with fabricating crimes out of thin air against Trump.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

No.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/15/ex-d...s-ties-to-comey-makes-trump-probe-tricky.html

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/336932-comey-leaked-memo-to-prompt-special-counsel

I say yes.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

And I didn't like it then either. It's funny how the lefties who pitched a fit about that miscarriage of justice are suddenly a-okay with fabricating crimes out of thin air against Trump.

I will tell you your problem.

It's only your pro-Trump/pro-GOP hackery that leads you to conclude that investigators are "fabricating crimes out of thin air against Trump." If you confront your hackery and conquer it, you will have addressed your problem and will understand what is going on.

 

[middleview]

To orchestrate an investigation of the President over completely fabricated evidence? It didn't take long to pivot from "collusion with the Russians" to obstruction of justice to (much easier to prove) improper business dealings. It's beginning to look like it to me...

Is this you being non-partisan? The facts are these..

1. The intelligence agencies all agree that it appears as though Russian hackers broke the law by illegally gaining access to DNC and probably Gmail email servers. The FBI was investigating.

2. There were contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. Some members of the Trump campaign have actually lied about those contacts. The FBI is investigating. Sessions says he doesn't remember what his meeting with the Russian ambassador was about.

3. Trump most certainly attempted to tell Comey that the FBI should drop the investigation. His statement that he hoped the FBI would "let it go" talking about an investigation into Michael Flynn...would have also meant ending the investigation into
the Russian hack.

We aren't talking about a pivot...we are talking about Trump's attempt at a cover up.

What "fabricated evidence" are you talking about?

 

[ObamacareForever]

And I didn't like it then either. It's funny how the lefties who pitched a fit about that miscarriage of justice are suddenly a-okay with fabricating crimes out of thin air against Trump.

Crimes aren't be fabricating, they are being investigating. If Trump did nothing wrong he should nothing to worry about. If he did violate the law he should be very worried. He is clearly very worried.

 

[Arkady]

To orchestrate an investigation of the President over completely fabricated evidence? It didn't take long to pivot from "collusion with the Russians" to obstruction of justice to (much easier to prove) improper business dealings. It's beginning to look like it to me...

It'll be fun listening to the right-wingers whimper about this after what happened with the Starr investigation.

You refer to a "pivot" and perhaps that's fair, in the basketball sense, where a player holding the ball can legally pivot around a set point. If the issue being investigated is Russia's interference in our election, then there are various connected issues that can be reached all around that, without "lifting the pivot foot." There's the question of collusion and the question of cover-up. Obstruction of justice related to that issue is one such near-by matter that can be fairly reached by pivoting.

What I don't want to see is what that Republican hack, Ken Starr did. In basketball terms, he basically held the ball and ran all over the court looking for dirt. Eventually, an investigation that was nominally based on a small-time 1970s land deal in Arkansas somehow got to be entirely about the question of whether or not the president had obstructed justice with regard to attempts to pry into his 1990s sex life. That kind of "traveling" is an abuse of special prosecutor authority, and should not occur. Although it would be hilarious to see similar tactics used against the Republicans after they tried that stunt with Clinton, it would be inappropriate. What isn't inappropriate, though, is investigating alleged obstruction of justice that's directly related to the original matter of the investigation -- Russian interference with the election to get Trump elected.

So, if Mueller starts to look into, say, Trump's mafia ties in the 1980s, or his alleged rape of his wife, or his violation of the Cuba embargo in the late 90s, or some sexual tryst with an intern that hasn't even occurred yet, etc., that would be an abuse of power and I'd hope we could all align against that. But if he's looking into the firing of Comey (after Trump admitted he was thinking about the Russia thing when he decided to do it), or lies under oath by Trump associates about Russia contacts, or shady deals with Russian oligarchs, or off-shore banking deals that funneled funds into the Trump empire from Putin connections, or payments made to guys like Flynn, Page, Manofort, etc., that's all fair game. As long as there's a reasonable nexus with Russia, it's a legitimate pivot.

 

[justoffal]

To orchestrate an investigation of the President over completely fabricated evidence? It didn't take long to pivot from "collusion with the Russians" to obstruction of justice to (much easier to prove) improper business dealings. It's beginning to look like it to me...

YEP

 

[Raoul_Luke]

It'll be fun listening to the right-wingers whimper about this after what happened with the Starr investigation.

You refer to a "pivot" and perhaps that's fair, in the basketball sense, where a player holding the ball can legally pivot around a set point. If the issue being investigated is Russia's interference in our election, then there are various connected issues that can be reached all around that, without "lifting the pivot foot." There's the question of collusion and the question of cover-up. Obstruction of justice related to that issue is one such near-by matter that can be fairly reached by pivoting.

What I don't want to see is what that Republican hack, Ken Starr did. In basketball terms, he basically held the ball and ran all over the court looking for dirt. Eventually, an investigation that was nominally based on a small-time 1970s land deal in Arkansas somehow got to be entirely about the question of whether or not the president had obstructed justice with regard to attempts to pry into his 1990s sex life. That kind of "traveling" is an abuse of special prosecutor authority, and should not occur. Although it would be hilarious to see similar tactics used against the Republicans after they tried that stunt with Clinton, it would be inappropriate. What isn't inappropriate, though, is investigating alleged obstruction of justice that's directly related to the original matter of the investigation -- Russian interference with the election to get Trump elected.

So, if Mueller starts to look into, say, Trump's mafia ties in the 1980s, or his alleged rape of his wife, or his violation of the Cuba embargo in the late 90s, or some sexual tryst with an intern that hasn't even occurred yet, etc., that would be an abuse of power and I'd hope we could all align against that. But if he's looking into the firing of Comey (after Trump admitted he was thinking about the Russia thing when he decided to do it), or lies under oath by Trump associates about Russia contacts, or shady deals with Russian oligarchs, or off-shore banking deals that funneled funds into the Trump empire from Putin connections, or payments made to guys like Flynn, Page, Manofort, etc., that's all fair game. As long as there's a reasonable nexus with Russia, it's a legitimate pivot.

I was opposed to Starr's inquisition. So, unlike you, I am at least consistent in my positions with respect to political witch hunts.

 

[middleview]

I was opposed to Starr's inquisition. So, unlike you, I am at least consistent in my positions with respect to political witch hunts.

Ken Starr was not investigating a crime...he was looking for one to investigate. He didn't find one, but he did find a scandal....$60 million bucks.

We know there is a crime. It is a crime to hack a computer and that was clearly done. Who, in fact did it...well, we'll need to investigate to be sure. We suspect, and for good reason, the Russian intelligence services. We have discovered that a number of Trump campaign officials met with Russian government officials and have lied about those meetings or they say they can't remember what was said. At the same time we have telephone conversations picked up in wiretaps on the Russian embassy and ambassador which implicate Trump campaign officials in having conversations related to the sanctions imposed by the Obama administration.

Trump meets with Comey and tells him that he should drop the investigation.

What fabricated evidence is there?

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Ken Starr was not investigating a crime...he was looking for one to investigate. He didn't find one, but he did find a scandal....$60 million bucks.

We know there is a crime. It is a crime to hack a computer and that was clearly done. Who, in fact did it...well, we'll need to investigate to be sure. We suspect, and for good reason, the Russian intelligence services. We have discovered that a number of Trump campaign officials met with Russian government officials and have lied about those meetings or they say they can't remember what was said. At the same time we have telephone conversations picked up in wiretaps on the Russian embassy and ambassador which implicate Trump campaign officials in having conversations related to the sanctions imposed by the Obama administration.

Trump meets with Comey and tells him that he should drop the investigation.

What fabricated evidence is there?

But not one iota of conversation related to the election "hacking," which may or may not have been the Russian government. At any given time there is immense cyber attacks coming from the former Soviet block:

https://threatmap.checkpoint.com/ThreatPortal/livemap.html

That does't mean the government is behind them all. I certainly don't doubt the Russian government attempted to gain access to the US computer voting system, as would any geo-political rivals looking for advance knowledge of election outcomes (even ours). Of course, the left is the ones who pushed the cyber voting in the first place, precisely because it is controlled by the very bureaucrats they count as their "base." None of this is evidence of a crime attributable to the Trump camp. If you were pushing the investigation to focus on the foreign actors who actually committed the crime, and drop the charade that the Trump team was involved, I'd be a lot more convinced that you only want to get to the bottom of the hacking. As it is, we all see exactly what you are after - political gain at the cost of US civil liberties...

 

[middleview]

But not one iota of conversation related to the election "hacking," which may or may not have been the Russian government. At any given time there is immense cyber attacks coming from the former Soviet block:

https://threatmap.checkpoint.com/ThreatPortal/livemap.html

That does't mean the government is behind them all. I certainly don't doubt the Russian government attempted to gain access to the US computer voting system, as would any geo-political rivals looking for advance knowledge of election outcomes (even ours). Of course, the left is the ones who pushed the cyber voting in the first place, precisely because it is controlled by the very bureaucrats they count as their "base." None of this is evidence of a crime attributable to the Trump camp. If you were pushing the investigation to focus on the foreign actors who actually committed the crime, and drop the charade that the Trump team was involved, I'd be a lot more convinced that you only want to get to the bottom of the hacking. As it is, we all see exactly what you are after - political gain at the cost of US civil liberties...

Again..What fabricated evidence is there?

You are attacking those who want an investigation....to what end? You dismiss any motivation for investigating the Russian. Why is that? Then you attack "the left" for
pushing "cyber voting"...which has nothing at all to do with the 2016 election, hacking email systems and attempting to smear one candidate....or the reported hacks of voting machine manufacturers or election data base systems.

Drop the charade? So you've already decided that no investigation of Flynn or other Trump campaign officials is unnecessary? What do you base that decision on? Why won't Sessions tell us what he talked to the Russian ambassador about? He says he doesn't remember. Why did Flynn lie to Pence about talking to the Russian ambassador? Why did Trump try to get Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn?

 

[Spamature]

To orchestrate an investigation of the President over completely fabricated evidence? It didn't take long to pivot from "collusion with the Russians" to obstruction of justice to (much easier to prove) improper business dealings. It's beginning to look like it to me...

True of false

There would be no obstruction investigation if Trump had just kept his big mouth shut.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

True of false

There would be no obstruction investigation if Trump had just kept his big mouth shut.

There should be no "obstruction" investigation for a situation where Trump retains the power to pardon the (alleged) perpetrator. You guys don't like logic, but the fact is, Trump didn't have to "obstruct" the investigation of Flynn to make it go away.

 

[Spamature]

There should be no "obstruction" investigation for a situation where Trump retains the power to pardon the (alleged) perpetrator. You guys don't like logic, but the fact is, Trump didn't have to "obstruct" the investigation of Flynn to make it go away.

So the answer is NO.

Got it.