After year of investigation, Trump can rightly claim some vindication

[TalkRadio]

The New York Times this week disclosed that the FBI made a conscious effort to use secret counterintelligence powers to investigate Trump officials and may have had a confidential informant who was used in connection with key Trump figures long before the November 2016 election. (Officials stated anonymously that this was a longstanding source who worked with both the FBI and CIA for years.)

In early 2017, President Trump was widely ridiculed for alleging that the Obama administration placed his campaign under surveillance. The response from experts on CNN and other sites was open mockery. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper came forward to assure the media that he could categorically deny the allegation and stated, “There was no such wiretap activity mounted against the president, the president-elect at the time, or as a candidate, or against his campaign.” The range of media analysis seemed to run from whether Trump was a clinical paranoid or a delusional demagogue.

We now know there was, indeed, surveillance ordered repeatedly on Trump campaign figures before and after the election. Rather than acknowledge the troubling implications of an administration investigating the opposing party’s leading candidate for president, the media shifted to saying that there was ample reason to order the surveillance.

As a nation committed to the rule of law, we need a full and transparent investigation of these allegations. All of the allegations. That includes both the investigation of special counsel Mueller and the investigation of these latest allegations involving the FBI. For many Trump supporters, this new information deepens suspicions of the role of the “deep state.” If we ever hope to come out of these poisonous times as a unified nation, the public must be allowed to see the full record on both sides.

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...tion-trump-can-rightly-claim-some-vindication

 

[phrodeau]

The FBI did its job. The end.

 

[Rightguide]

What we need are grand jury investigations, not another 15 month IG investigation that has no prosecutorial power or the ability to interview people who have already left the government, which would include the biggest offenders, Clapper, Brennan, Comey, McCabe, Obama, Lynch, Yates, etc.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

What we need are grand jury investigations, not another 15 month IG investigation that has no prosecutorial power or the ability to interview people who have already left the government, which would include the biggest offenders, Clapper, Brennan, Comey, McCabe, Obama, Lynch, Yates, etc.

Your proposed mythical prosecution directed at any or all of the above principles suffers from the same deficit that applies to the current Russian investigation vis-a-vis Donald Trump. I have yet to see the specific statute that Trump (or they) have violated if even the most wildly speculative accusations are true.

The Logan Act? Please, don't even go there.

And if any of the Democrats above can remotely claim with the slightest possibility of truth that the questioning of sources within the Trump campaign was associated with a counter intelligence investigation into Russian election meddling, your prosecution (under any possible statute you could produce) dissolves. Gone. Forget it.

Whatever linkage of Democratic responsibility for a dossier, political bias demonstrated through a series of emails to his/her paramour, etc., etc. has to be directly linked in a manner to demonstrate specific criminal intent to whoever you are trying to prosecute. "Something rotten in Denmark" no matter how much it smells does not result in a successful criminal prosecution in the United States.

Lying under oath to Congress? Fuck me running. Jim Clapper is still paying for "committing perjury" in response to a question asked by Ron Wyden in open session that should NEVER have been asked that ultimately motivated Edward Snowden to criminally give classified national defense information to foreign rivals. Wyden and Snowden "deserve" jail far ahead of James Clapper.

Holding people responsible of ethical failures in their conduct of government business is both appropriate and important in a democratic republic. But this "lock her/him up" crap has gone beyond the pale.

It was/is beyond the pale in the Russian investigation and it is beyond the pale in the backlash to the excesses that were committed in the FBI and, for that matter, in the Democratic party.

At best certain people currently employed should be fired and fined. Past employees could be fined. Assuming you can produce the appropriate statute and demonstrate the required criminal intent. Jail time is out of the question.

Chill out fer fucks sakes.

 

[Rightguide]

Your proposed mythical prosecution directed at any or all of the above principles suffers from the same deficit that applies to the current Russian investigation vis-a-vis Donald Trump. I have yet to see the specific statute that Trump (or they) have violated if even the most wildly speculative accusations are true.

The Logan Act? Please, don't even go there.

And if any of the Democrats above can remotely claim with the slightest possibility of truth that the questioning of sources within the Trump campaign was associated with a counter intelligence investigation into Russian election meddling, your prosecution (under any possible statute you could produce) dissolves. Gone. Forget it.

Whatever linkage of Democratic responsibility for a dossier, political bias demonstrated through a series of emails to his/her paramour, etc., etc. has to be directly linked in a manner to demonstrate specific criminal intent to whoever you are trying to prosecute. "Something rotten in Denmark" no matter how much it smells does not result in a successful criminal prosecution in the United States.

Lying under oath to Congress? Fuck me running. Jim Clapper is still paying for "committing perjury" in response to a question asked by Ron Wyden in open session that should NEVER have been asked that ultimately motivated Edward Snowden to criminally give classified national defense information to foreign rivals. Wyden and Snowden "deserve" jail far ahead of James Clapper.

Holding people responsible of ethical failures in their conduct of government business is both appropriate and important in a democratic republic. But this "lock her/him up" crap has gone beyond the pale.

It was/is beyond the pale in the Russian investigation and it is beyond the pale in the backlash to the excesses that were committed in the FBI and, for that matter, in the Democratic party.

At best certain people currently employed should be fired and fined. Past employees could be fined. Assuming you can produce the appropriate statute and demonstrate the required criminal intent. Jail time is out of the question.

Chill out fer fucks sakes.

I respectfully disagree. There can't be a two tiered legal system in the United States. If you want to say lying to Congress while under oath should be winked at, fine. Some of these people lied to the FBI. I guess we're supposed to wink at that too, eh? Oh, except for General Flynn and alleged Trump associates, especially if it's the FBI lying to the FBI. Let's forget about prosecuting women who violate the Espionage Act as well. Let's save that for men in the military. Oh, and a conspiracy to suborn the Presidency, well that's fine too if the President is a Republican. I get it, but I don't buy it, and neither do a lot of other people...like the rest of us deplorables. We could solve it all by throwing the entire United States Code in the shit can, after all it's old and obsolete.

 

[Lapdog420]

Most of the FBI personal investigating the Trump campaign are not Dems but were appointed by GOP administrations. They are not the deep state, they are you. Problem is they didn't drink the CBN, Fox news, NRA, talk radio coolaid you gleefully did, after Coors and Mercer and the Heritage institute happily stirred it up for your little propagandized pumpkin head.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I respectfully disagree. There can't be a two tiered legal system in the United States. If you want to say lying to Congress while under oath should be winked at, fine. Some of these people lied to the FBI. I guess we're supposed to wink at that too, eh? Oh, except for General Flynn and alleged Trump associates, especially if it's the FBI lying to the FBI. Let's forget about prosecuting women who violate the Espionage Act as well. Let's save that for men in the military. Oh, and a conspiracy to suborn the Presidency, well that's fine too if the President is a Republican. I get it, but I don't buy it, and neither do a lot of other people...like the rest of us deplorables. We could solve it all by throwing the entire United States Code in the shit can, after all it's old and obsolete.

This has nothing to do with a two-tiered justice system. It has to do with the proper functioning of that justice system and what corrective measures, including penalties, should take place when it doesn't function appropriately or employees of it violate their oaths or official duties. In most cases, those corrective measures and penalties fall well short of criminal prosecution.

In the case of lying to Congress or the FBI, it depends on what one is lying about. James Clapper, in possession of top secret national security information that could only be compromised in response to Roy Wyden's direct question whether the NSA had ever collected "any information at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans" had a simple choice of lying before the committee and obeying the LAW that compelled him to protect the classified information that Wyden knowingly (because Wyden, as a member of the committee, already KNEW the answer to the question he was asking) sought to expose, or violating THAT statute for the purpose of obeying the LAW that compelled his truthful testimony before Congress. So what would you do in that same situation?

Much of what Flynn and other Trump associates misrepresented to the FBI had nothing to do with protecting classified information, most particularly Flynn's misrepresentation to Vice President Pence.

This whole business of an Obama "spy" inside the Trump campaign may be nothing more than repeated questioning of a witness within the campaign as a lawful conduct of a counter intelligence operation. If that should prove to be the case, that witness or information source is no more a spy than you would be if you necessarily, in accordance with the law, answered similar questions by a law enforcement officer with respect to YOUR place of employment.

Brennan, Strozk and many others have a lot to answer for. There is no denying that. But your assumption that they are in so many cases criminally liable is simply premature. Very premature. And that in no way prejudges their lack of criminal liability.

 

[KarissaTsevi]

I hope Trump dies in office.

 

[HisArpy]

This has nothing to do with a two-tiered justice system. It has to do with the proper functioning of that justice system and what corrective measures, including penalties, should take place when it doesn't function appropriately or employees of it violate their oaths or official duties. In most cases, those corrective measures and penalties fall well short of criminal prosecution.

In the case of lying to Congress or the FBI, it depends on what one is lying about. James Clapper, in possession of top secret national security information that could only be compromised in response to Roy Wyden's direct question whether the NSA had ever collected "any information at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans" had a simple choice of lying before the committee and obeying the LAW that compelled him to protect the classified information that Wyden knowingly (because Wyden, as a member of the committee, already KNEW the answer to the question he was asking) sought to expose, or violating THAT statute for the purpose of obeying the LAW that compelled his truthful testimony before Congress. So what would you do in that same situation?

Much of what Flynn and other Trump associates misrepresented to the FBI had nothing to do with protecting classified information, most particularly Flynn's misrepresentation to Vice President Pence.

This whole business of an Obama "spy" inside the Trump campaign may be nothing more than repeated questioning of a witness within the campaign as a lawful conduct of a counter intelligence operation. If that should prove to be the case, that witness or information source is no more a spy than you would be if you necessarily, in accordance with the law, answered similar questions by a law enforcement officer with respect to YOUR place of employment.

Brennan, Strozk and many others have a lot to answer for. There is no denying that. But your assumption that they are in so many cases criminally liable is simply premature. Very premature. And that in no way prejudges their lack of criminal liability.

I would hope that anyone in that position would know that gotcha questions are the staple of one's political enemies and would be prepared to respond appropriately rather than give false testimony.

It is clearly ethical and appropriate to answer such questions with "I cannot respond to that question in open testimony." It's been done before and will be done in the future. But Clapper chose to cover Obama's ass and lie.

 

[KarissaTsevi]

What does Melania see in Donald Trump, besides dollar signs ?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I would hope that anyone in that position would know that gotcha questions are the staple of one's political enemies and would be prepared to respond appropriately rather than give false testimony.

It is clearly ethical and appropriate to answer such questions with "I cannot respond to that question in open testimony." It's been done before and will be done in the future. But Clapper chose to cover Obama's ass and lie.

He wasn't covering Obama's ass any more than he was covering the ass of George W. Bush. Do you know how old the NSA telephony metadata program was? Actually, I basically agree with you. Clapper should have handled it better. But he said today on The View, and I just heard this for the first time today, that he was answering a different question that he thought Wyden was asking. I don't know whether or not he is bullshitting about that obviously.

Nonetheless, I will forever hold Wyden in contempt for asking the question in the first place. It was nothing more than a contemptuous cynical ploy to expose a covert program that Wyden had long UNSUCCESSFULLY opposed which had also long been APPROVED by the very Committee on which he served.

At the very least he should have been censured.

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

I hope Trump dies in office.

That's a dumb thing to post on the internet. Posting shit like that will get the FBI or the Secret Service knocking on your door.

 

[Hypoxia]

https://us-east-1.tchyn.io/snopes-production/uploads/2018/05/capone.jpg?w=600

 

[bestone4ever]

That's a dumb thing to post on the internet. Posting shit like that will get the FBI or the Secret Service knocking on your door.

His diet makes this more of a reality than a threat.

 

[Rightguide]

Most of the FBI personal investigating the Trump campaign are not Dems but were appointed by GOP administrations. They are not the deep state, they are you. Problem is they didn't drink the CBN, Fox news, NRA, talk radio coolaid you gleefully did, after Coors and Mercer and the Heritage institute happily stirred it up for your little propagandized pumpkin head.

Every one of Mueller's legal team "investigating" Trump and his campaign is a Hillary supporting Democrat.

 

[bestone4ever]

Every one of Mueller's legal team "investigating" Trump and his campaign is a Hillary supporting Democrat.

How many times do you suppose each of them voted for Hillary?

 

[Rightguide]

In the case of lying to Congress or the FBI, it depends on what one is lying about. James Clapper, in possession of top secret national security information that could only be compromised in response to Roy Wyden's direct question whether the NSA had ever collected "any information at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans" had a simple choice of lying before the committee and obeying the LAW that compelled him to protect the classified information that Wyden knowingly (because Wyden, as a member of the committee, already KNEW the answer to the question he was asking) sought to expose, or violating THAT statute for the purpose of obeying the LAW that compelled his truthful testimony before Congress. So what would you do in that same situation?

He can simply refuse to answer the question on national security grounds, but he chose to lie instead.

Much of what Flynn and other Trump associates misrepresented to the FBI had nothing to do with protecting classified information, most particularly Flynn's misrepresentation to Vice President Pence.

It had noting to do with alleged Russian collusion either. It was, what has become a highly questionable prosecution of process crime.

This whole business of an Obama "spy" inside the Trump campaign may be nothing more than repeated questioning of a witness within the campaign as a lawful conduct of a counter intelligence operation.

It can also be a massive historical insult to our election process as well. It's important to remember the whole Russian "collusion" narrative was made up out of whole cloth, it was based on politically manufactured fraudulent evidence that became the basis for the obviously fraudulent Mueller investigation.

Brennan, Strozk and many others have a lot to answer for. There is no denying that. But your assumption that they are in so many cases criminally liable is simply premature. Very premature. And that in no way prejudges their lack of criminal liability.

Strozk, Bill Priestap his boss, Yates, Rosenstein, Clapper, Brennan, Comey, McCabe, Ohr, were all involved in perpetrating frauds on the FISA Court, in order to spy on the Trump Campaign. I'd say they all have some potential criminal liability, but recent events prove the FBI and the DOJ cannot investigate and prosecute itself. We need a second special prosecutor to do so.

I know that John Huber has been charged with prosecuting criminal referrals offered by the IG, so that process yet to play out. We'll see what happens.

 

[HisArpy]

He wasn't covering Obama's ass any more than he was covering the ass of George W. Bush. Do you know how old the NSA telephony metadata program was? Actually, I basically agree with you. Clapper should have handled it better. But he said today on The View, and I just heard this for the first time today, that he was answering a different question that he thought Wyden was asking. I don't know whether or not he is bullshitting about that obviously.

Nonetheless, I will forever hold Wyden in contempt for asking the question in the first place. It was nothing more than a contemptuous cynical ploy to expose a covert program that Wyden had long UNSUCCESSFULLY opposed which had also long been APPROVED by the very Committee on which he served.

At the very least he should have been censured.

You want some syrup with that waffle?

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

Strozk, Bill Priestap his boss, Yates, Rosenstein, Clapper, Brennan, Comey, McCabe, Ohr, were all involved in perpetrating frauds on the FISA Court, in order to spy on the Trump Campaign. I'd say they all have some potential criminal liability, but recent events prove the FBI and the DOJ cannot investigate and prosecute itself. We need a second special prosecutor to do so.

I know that John Huber has been charged with prosecuting criminal referrals offered by the IG, so that process yet to play out. We'll see what happens.

There was no FISA Court fraud. You are full of Fox News.

 

[IG_88]

That's a dumb thing to post on the internet. Posting shit like that will get the FBI or the Secret Service knocking on your door.

It said much worse in another thread. I think it was the birthday thread. Really despicable stuff and that's coming from a guy who has done some pretty despicable things and has zero affection for Trump.

 

[zipman]

https://78.media.tumblr.com/091a0dccef162634f69362b379070e9a/tumblr_p91s9awhBd1twiwvzo1_500.jpg

 

[Comshaw]

https://78.media.tumblr.com/091a0dccef162634f69362b379070e9a/tumblr_p91s9awhBd1twiwvzo1_500.jpg

Occam's razor

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

All of us have it, confirmation bias that is, but some try to minimize it by not having a preconceived conclusion in mind before researching the facts. That being said, you will always have those who are on the extremes, both left and right, who will, instead of starting with a question and then look for the facts, the truth, will start with a conclusion already formed, then seek out that which supports their beliefs. I pity those who are so intellectually blind that they refuse to allow them selves to see the truth, no matter how painful it is.

Human nature.

http://pages.ucsd.edu/~mckenzie/nickersonConfirmationBias.pdf




Comshaw