Oh, oh. I'll play! Um... well, wait. Trey quit. So... um... Matthew Jimbo Jordan Gaetz the IV?
Spygate: the FBI/DoJ/DNC collusion and abuse of power
- Thread starter Qcity
- Start date
Purplemojo
Well-known member
Your whole argument can be boiled down to one thing "Dems good, Trump bad". The behavior you applaud from the Democrats, you condemn in Trump or members of his administration. Remember when your "God sent" Adam Schiff was on the phone trying to get trash on Trump? Remember when President Obama made what he thought was a secret promise to Putin? Remember when President Obama made his promise, which was partly withheld from the American people due the secrecy of some of the details, to the mullas of Iran and then paid them off with millions in cash dropped off on a tarmac so that they could use the funds to sponsor terrorism around the world?
I and many others on here call the balls and strikes both ways. You, on the other hand, are a partisan hack.
y2h
Well-known member
Yes thank God for Adam Schiff. His standup routine is amusing.
y2h
Well-known member
Back to obstruction huh...at least you're consistent.
SWMCinci
Well-known member
So is "nothing to this" which has kind of been the core fact on all of the Donald Trump is Guilty of Something" stories of the last 3 years.
SWMCinci
Well-known member
So you do understand that Mueller received help from foreign governments in his investigation. The FBI and CIA receive help from foreign governments on a daily basis. That Obama often conferred with foreign governments in determining US policy when he chose to give Iran a planeload of cash and sign the worst treaty in the history of treaties. That the only person and organization that has been demonstrated in the 2016 election cycle that ACTUALLY gave money to foreign operatives including Russia was Hillary Clinton and the DNC...... So exactly what are you trying to say?
Happygoluckky
Well-known member
I think the quid pro quo piece is the problem.
zeeman
Well-known member
Oh hapless why do you fall for it every time? You should have known if Schiff is involved its a nothing samich
Sharyl Atkinson who has been investigating this story for over 2 years keeps the proper perspective:
thehill.com
What will Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s latest investigation reveal? Will Congress hold hearings about it? Will former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe actually get indicted? After all, it’s said that a motivated prosecutor can “indict a ham sandwich” if he really wants to.
We’re so wrapped up in the daily tick-tock, we could be losing sight of a big picture that’s come into focus over the past two years. For the first time in our nation’s history, an inspector general — one appointed by President Obama — has determined that at least two men who sat in the top spot at the FBI committed multiple violations that warrant possible prosecution. That in itself is a scandal with national implications deserving of headlines, congressional hearings and promises to overhaul a broken system.
Of course, the complicating factor in the whole mess is that the government entities responsible for addressing any wrongdoing are the same ones inextricably tied to the alleged wrongdoing.
We’ve lost sight of the real scandal
At least two men who sat in the top spot at the FBI committed multiple violations that warrant possible prosecution.
thehill.com
What will Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s latest investigation reveal? Will Congress hold hearings about it? Will former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe actually get indicted? After all, it’s said that a motivated prosecutor can “indict a ham sandwich” if he really wants to.
We’re so wrapped up in the daily tick-tock, we could be losing sight of a big picture that’s come into focus over the past two years. For the first time in our nation’s history, an inspector general — one appointed by President Obama — has determined that at least two men who sat in the top spot at the FBI committed multiple violations that warrant possible prosecution. That in itself is a scandal with national implications deserving of headlines, congressional hearings and promises to overhaul a broken system.
Of course, the complicating factor in the whole mess is that the government entities responsible for addressing any wrongdoing are the same ones inextricably tied to the alleged wrongdoing.
This is all a DEFLECTION .... Horowitz testified and All the lefties want to do is Divert attention away from the Crimes
DOJ watchdog Horowitz has been in contact with US attorney responsible for filing charges
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who has finished the report on his investigation into abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, has been talking with U.S. Attorney John Durham, who is handling any criminal referrals from the investigation.
www.washingtonexaminer.com
DOJ watchdog Horowitz has been in contact with US attorney responsible for filing charges
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who has finished the report on his investigation into abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, has been talking with U.S. Attorney John Durham, who is handling any criminal referrals from the investigation.
DOJ watchdog Horowitz has been in contact with US attorney responsible for filing charges
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who has finished the report on his investigation into abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, has been talking with U.S. Attorney John Durham, who is handling any criminal referrals from the investigation.
www.washingtonexaminer.com
Purplemojo
Well-known member
So now you agree relative to HRC.
Happygoluckky
Well-known member
Yes if she said Russia I will do X if you do Y for me (personally) Yes she should be prosecuted.
Purplemojo
Well-known member
Great! So HRC paying her attorneys to pay a foreign spy to get Russians to provide dirt on Trump should send her to prison and Biden promising Ukraine that he is going to hold up a payment of US foreign aid if his son's investigation is not ended should put Crazy Joe in prison. I am glad we agree on something. Both points above have been proven and should result in indictments. Why do I believe that you will find a reason to continue to ignore them?
Happygoluckky
Well-known member
The Weak and Risky Case Against Andrew McCabe
Is the president pushing prosecutors to file charges they can’t make stick?
By RENATO MARIOTTI
September 20, 2019
Renato Mariotti is the Legal Affairs Columnist for POLITICO Magazine. He is a former federal prosecutor and host of the “On Topic” podcast.
The case federal prosecutors reportedly are preparing to bring against former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for lying to his colleagues at the FBI is weak and likely to fail at trial. And if it does, the Department of Justice will be embarrassed—again—and struggling to answer why it brought the case in the first place.
This isn’t a case where someone suspected of wrongdoing lied to the FBI during an interrogation. McCabe was deputy director of the FBI and allegedly lied during an internal investigation of a leak related to the Hillary Clinton email investigation that put him in a positive light. The leak to the Wall Street Journal was not illegal and he had the power to authorize it (a standard if unseemly Washington practice), but he allegedly lied because then-FBI Director James Comey would not have approved of his disclosure.
Story Continued Below
The results of that investigation, as well as a separate internal investigation as to whether he lied, were released by the Justice Department’s inspector general earlier this year. Because that report is public, we know the prosecution will focus on four separate incidents. But collectively, they add up to much less than President Donald Trump’s tweets would have people believe.
One overarching challenge in prosecuting McCabe is his own history. McCabe is not a career criminal or the head of a violent street gang. He is a career FBI agent with no criminal history and a long career in public service who would argue that he would never intentionally lie because he knew the consequences of doing so could be severe. He already lost his job and his pension as a result of this investigation, and he has two children at home. Jurors would be hesitant to send him to prison for lying to a colleague, particularly given that no one was concretely harmed by his actions.
There also are problems with the evidence against McCabe. The first time McCabe allegedly lied was during a one-on-one conversation with Comey that was not recorded or witnessed by anyone else. It’s always a dicey proposition to expect a jury to convict someone when there is a “he said / he said” situation.
Also, while Comey is a credible witness, the president of the United States and his allies have engaged in a systemic campaign to smear him as “Lyin’ Comey.” McCabe’s legal team could argue that Comey is lying to advance his own agenda by portraying him as a Washington, D.C., operator who plays the media by leaking, writing books and making his case on television. Given the smear campaign against Comey, it’s easy to see why at least some jurors might doubt his credibility.
McCabe then allegedly lied about the leak to two internal investigators, telling them that he had “no idea” who the source of the leak was. McCabe claims that the question was an afterthought by the investigators and that he was confused about the article they were referring to.
This episode is stronger for the prosecutors. There were two investigators, not just one, and neither is a household name. The inspector general did not find McCabe’s excuses credible. But would at least one juror have a reasonable doubt that McCabe knowingly and willfully lied? Proof beyond a reasonable doubt that McCabe deliberately deceived the investigators is the heavy burden prosecutors would need to meet to convict him.
Perhaps the DOJ’s strongest evidence was a later interview by investigators that was recorded. In that interview, McCabe denied authorizing his aide to leak the story and denied being in contact with her during that time. These denials are provably false but once again the evidence is weakened by mitigating facts. In this case, McCabe called the inspector general four days after the interview, said he had been thinking about the questions, and corrected the record. That strongly undercuts a conclusion that he knowingly and willfully lied, and it will be hard for a jury to send him to prison for a false statement that he promptly corrected without being asked.
The last episode that prosecutors will draw on has a bizarrely self-referential aspect to it—that he lied when he said that he told the truth during the prior episodes. This was captured in a later recorded interview with investigators when he denied lying to Comey, said that he didn’t lie about authorizing the leak during the first interview with investigators, and indicated that the interview took place at the end of an unrelated meeting when he was pulled aside and asked one or two questions. If a juror believes that McCabe may have told the truth in the other three episodes, they’re unlikely to fault him for doing so again here.
All in all, this is not the level of proof that is typically required to convict someone of a felony and send them to prison. A typical false statement case is when someone who is being investigated for serious misdeeds lies about an important fact that is obviously false and would unquestionably be on the person’s mind, for example the case brought against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn in which Flynn denied what he previoussaid in a recording. The case against McCabe is not that clear cut.
But the Achilles heel of the prosecution case would undoubtedly be Trump’s public campaign to attack McCabe, who he called a “major sleazebag,” and his wife, who unsuccessfully ran for Virginia state Senate in 2015 as a Democrat. Trump falsely claimed that McCabe gave “Hillary a pass” because his wife “received BIG DOLLARS from Clinton people for her campaign.”
McCabe’s team is sure to argue that the Trump administration set him up and is targeting him due to Trump’s vendetta against McCabe. It’s easy to see at least one out of 12 jurors in the D.C. jury believing him, given that Trump received only 4.1 percent of the vote from D.C. residents in 2016.
Trump’s attacks against McCabe will pose additional problems for prosecutors, who will have to fend off arguments from McCabe’s team that Trump has made it impossible for McCabe to receive a fair trial due to his many public smears of McCabe and his wife.
Given all of these hurdles, it is hard to see why the Justice Department appears determined to charge the case. Certainly, charging the former FBI deputy director could send a message that no one is above the law, but a failure to convict him would ultimately hurt the Department, as did their recent failure to convict former White House Counsel Gregory Craig of lying to the DOJ.
Typically, federal prosecutors are careful to charge cases that they can readily prove, which is why over 90 percent of federal felony prosecutions result in a conviction. It’s hard to see how this case could meet usual Justice Department standards, and that could explain why two prosecutors assigned to this case recently left the DOJ. If the Department presses forward, as they have reportedly decided to do, this could be the next embarrassing episode for the Trump Justice Department.
Politico
Is the president pushing prosecutors to file charges they can’t make stick?
By RENATO MARIOTTI
September 20, 2019
Renato Mariotti is the Legal Affairs Columnist for POLITICO Magazine. He is a former federal prosecutor and host of the “On Topic” podcast.
The case federal prosecutors reportedly are preparing to bring against former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for lying to his colleagues at the FBI is weak and likely to fail at trial. And if it does, the Department of Justice will be embarrassed—again—and struggling to answer why it brought the case in the first place.
This isn’t a case where someone suspected of wrongdoing lied to the FBI during an interrogation. McCabe was deputy director of the FBI and allegedly lied during an internal investigation of a leak related to the Hillary Clinton email investigation that put him in a positive light. The leak to the Wall Street Journal was not illegal and he had the power to authorize it (a standard if unseemly Washington practice), but he allegedly lied because then-FBI Director James Comey would not have approved of his disclosure.
Story Continued Below
The results of that investigation, as well as a separate internal investigation as to whether he lied, were released by the Justice Department’s inspector general earlier this year. Because that report is public, we know the prosecution will focus on four separate incidents. But collectively, they add up to much less than President Donald Trump’s tweets would have people believe.
One overarching challenge in prosecuting McCabe is his own history. McCabe is not a career criminal or the head of a violent street gang. He is a career FBI agent with no criminal history and a long career in public service who would argue that he would never intentionally lie because he knew the consequences of doing so could be severe. He already lost his job and his pension as a result of this investigation, and he has two children at home. Jurors would be hesitant to send him to prison for lying to a colleague, particularly given that no one was concretely harmed by his actions.
There also are problems with the evidence against McCabe. The first time McCabe allegedly lied was during a one-on-one conversation with Comey that was not recorded or witnessed by anyone else. It’s always a dicey proposition to expect a jury to convict someone when there is a “he said / he said” situation.
Also, while Comey is a credible witness, the president of the United States and his allies have engaged in a systemic campaign to smear him as “Lyin’ Comey.” McCabe’s legal team could argue that Comey is lying to advance his own agenda by portraying him as a Washington, D.C., operator who plays the media by leaking, writing books and making his case on television. Given the smear campaign against Comey, it’s easy to see why at least some jurors might doubt his credibility.
McCabe then allegedly lied about the leak to two internal investigators, telling them that he had “no idea” who the source of the leak was. McCabe claims that the question was an afterthought by the investigators and that he was confused about the article they were referring to.
This episode is stronger for the prosecutors. There were two investigators, not just one, and neither is a household name. The inspector general did not find McCabe’s excuses credible. But would at least one juror have a reasonable doubt that McCabe knowingly and willfully lied? Proof beyond a reasonable doubt that McCabe deliberately deceived the investigators is the heavy burden prosecutors would need to meet to convict him.
Perhaps the DOJ’s strongest evidence was a later interview by investigators that was recorded. In that interview, McCabe denied authorizing his aide to leak the story and denied being in contact with her during that time. These denials are provably false but once again the evidence is weakened by mitigating facts. In this case, McCabe called the inspector general four days after the interview, said he had been thinking about the questions, and corrected the record. That strongly undercuts a conclusion that he knowingly and willfully lied, and it will be hard for a jury to send him to prison for a false statement that he promptly corrected without being asked.
The last episode that prosecutors will draw on has a bizarrely self-referential aspect to it—that he lied when he said that he told the truth during the prior episodes. This was captured in a later recorded interview with investigators when he denied lying to Comey, said that he didn’t lie about authorizing the leak during the first interview with investigators, and indicated that the interview took place at the end of an unrelated meeting when he was pulled aside and asked one or two questions. If a juror believes that McCabe may have told the truth in the other three episodes, they’re unlikely to fault him for doing so again here.
All in all, this is not the level of proof that is typically required to convict someone of a felony and send them to prison. A typical false statement case is when someone who is being investigated for serious misdeeds lies about an important fact that is obviously false and would unquestionably be on the person’s mind, for example the case brought against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn in which Flynn denied what he previoussaid in a recording. The case against McCabe is not that clear cut.
But the Achilles heel of the prosecution case would undoubtedly be Trump’s public campaign to attack McCabe, who he called a “major sleazebag,” and his wife, who unsuccessfully ran for Virginia state Senate in 2015 as a Democrat. Trump falsely claimed that McCabe gave “Hillary a pass” because his wife “received BIG DOLLARS from Clinton people for her campaign.”
McCabe’s team is sure to argue that the Trump administration set him up and is targeting him due to Trump’s vendetta against McCabe. It’s easy to see at least one out of 12 jurors in the D.C. jury believing him, given that Trump received only 4.1 percent of the vote from D.C. residents in 2016.
Trump’s attacks against McCabe will pose additional problems for prosecutors, who will have to fend off arguments from McCabe’s team that Trump has made it impossible for McCabe to receive a fair trial due to his many public smears of McCabe and his wife.
Given all of these hurdles, it is hard to see why the Justice Department appears determined to charge the case. Certainly, charging the former FBI deputy director could send a message that no one is above the law, but a failure to convict him would ultimately hurt the Department, as did their recent failure to convict former White House Counsel Gregory Craig of lying to the DOJ.
Typically, federal prosecutors are careful to charge cases that they can readily prove, which is why over 90 percent of federal felony prosecutions result in a conviction. It’s hard to see how this case could meet usual Justice Department standards, and that could explain why two prosecutors assigned to this case recently left the DOJ. If the Department presses forward, as they have reportedly decided to do, this could be the next embarrassing episode for the Trump Justice Department.
Politico
gneiss rocks
Well-known member
And of course you will be absolutely fine with Russia paying Trump 500,000 per speech, shoveling 10s of millions to the Trump foundation and giving Russia the rights to 20% of our uranium if Don jr was secretary of state and running for pres in a few years?
Ask yourself seriously if you would think this would be acceptable and involve no quid pro quo if this were the Trump's....
Happygoluckky
Well-known member
Leaving aside a ton of gross misrepresentations in your statement above...You are now OK because it is Trump?
Irwin20
Well-known member
Actually Biden is on tape admitting he threatened to withhold payment to Ukraine unless the prosecutor was fired.
gneiss rocks
Well-known member
There is not much you can to deny as there is a well documented money trail.
Trump did nothing even remotely resembling such things.
Let's see he used much of his own campaign money, donates his salary and has had his net worth reduced by around a billion. He is sacrificing it all for us.
Who cares if some dignitary wants to stay at the nicest hotel in town which happens to be Trumps?
Compare that to past presidents who somehow gained wealth exponentially while in office and after? Book deals , you can't be that naive?
In summary.... He lied but the lies weren't that bad. He lied but it could be hard to prove he lied even though the evidence proves he lied. He lied but in a city that voted 96% in favor of Hillary surely one juror will vote to acquit.
Great article Happy.
Naive, no. Obtuse, yes.
Trump hasn't done any of those things.
Nice deflection from the question though.
Happygoluckky
Well-known member
Hi, look sorry your country is being invaded, but before I release the military aid Congress voted for you to defend yourselves against the adversary that also helped make me president, I need you to fabricate a smear against my probable presidential election opponent via my personal attorney uncle Rudy.
He colluded with Russia, Obstructed Justice and now is doing it again.
He colluded with Russia, Obstructed Justice and now is doing it again.
Guillotine
Well-known member
Here's my theory... a rat hold-over from the Obama/Biden administration just decided to blow the whistle as a distress signal for Babbles' faltering campaign.
Joe's got a real issue with the President at just the right time. Well played, Joe!
Happygoluckky
Well-known member
Trump is pretty clearly guilty of bribery. This is worse than Watergate b/c it involves a foreign government and is a continuation of both his pattern of collusion and now squashing the whistle blower his obstruction of justice.
Again, the definition of bribery under federal law is corruptly offering a thing of value in exchange for an official act.
Trump almost surely is offering a thing of value: US military aid. The thing of value is being offered in exchange for an official act: A condition of the aid is that Ukraine investigate and (probably) make allegations against Hunter and Joe Biden. And it is corrupt: Trump is doing this to advance his personal interests, his reelection, rather than the national interest. One indicator of the corruption is that Trump is not relying on the US DOJ to do the investigating. I mean, a VP of the US committing bribery is obviously within the purview of the US DOJ. Another indicator is that he has tried to keep this arrangement secret.
The President should be impeached
Again, the definition of bribery under federal law is corruptly offering a thing of value in exchange for an official act.
Trump almost surely is offering a thing of value: US military aid. The thing of value is being offered in exchange for an official act: A condition of the aid is that Ukraine investigate and (probably) make allegations against Hunter and Joe Biden. And it is corrupt: Trump is doing this to advance his personal interests, his reelection, rather than the national interest. One indicator of the corruption is that Trump is not relying on the US DOJ to do the investigating. I mean, a VP of the US committing bribery is obviously within the purview of the US DOJ. Another indicator is that he has tried to keep this arrangement secret.
The President should be impeached
Irwin20
Well-known member
No. But then we actually have Biden on tape bragging that he would withhold funding to the Ukraine if the prosecutor who was investigating his son (he didn’t mention that part )was fired. 6 hours after the request the prosecutor was fired. It’s out there to view take a look at it.
Happygoluckky
Well-known member
DEBUNKED
Happygoluckky
Well-known member
Only in the mind of a Happygoluckky Well-know person> I mean member. I have got to tell you I have many friends that lean left and some lean pretty far left but none of them drink the liberal news propaganda like you do. You are the best and I hope you and your mind can handle the truth as it comes to the forefront.
Last edited: