Russia probes kick into high gear

[preacherman76]

8 minutes ago, Lilly said:

How can that be legal?

Damned if I know.

[Tiggs]

58 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

I don't know Lilly. Looks like there may have been fraud. Alabama SC decided the day before the election to scrap all digital records soon as the election is over. There is only one possible reason for that.

There's usually more than one reason.

Issue was mostly timescale, from what I'm reading. The voting machines are currently set to not keep the records. Keeping them would have involved someone having to travel to each individual machine (apparently 2,000 of them) and changing the settings before the election.

Hence why the SC Judge turned down the request.

[+and-then]

10 hours ago, joc said:

Gromdor,

It doesn't matter whether you are a Democrat or Republican in Washington DC...what ultimately matters is that you tow the Establishment Line.

McCain, McConnell and the rest of the BoZos...they all have one thing in common...they are the Establishment...they belong to a club where THEY make the Rules...and by god, no one is going to come in there who hasn't even held an elected office in his entire life (Trump) and change the way business has been done for a hundred years.  It's all about money and power...if you play the game right...the money never ends, even if you don't get re-elected...you get to join the Lobbyist pool...literally worth millions of dollars.  I just call them all Democrats...but in reality...there is only one party and that is the Washington Party and they are out to get Trump because...despite his billions...he isn't one of them.

This is one of those that I wish I could like more than once.  

[preacherman76]

13 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

There's usually more than one reason.

Issue was mostly timescale, from what I'm reading. The voting machines are currently set to not keep the records. Keeping them would have involved someone having to travel to each individual machine (apparently 2,000 of them) and changing the settings before the election.

Hence why the SC Judge turned down the request.

The lawyer who tried to fight it tells a very different story. That what was asked to do was equivalent to flipping a switch. 

Also from what I understand when an election is decided by half a percent or less it’s a automatic recount. This throws that out. So if that’s the case the decision was criminal in nature. 

Edited December 14, 2017 by preacherman76

[Tiggs]

3 hours ago, joc said:

I think this is the analogy:  If you are under 40...likely hood of you dying is far less than if you were 70.   So you don't put out for life insurance...but if you have a sick wife and 4 children and a large mortgage...in other words if the unthinkable is just too hard too bare...maybe you think you aren't willing to take that risk...so you buy insurance.   What is the insurance?  Well, what was their Trump card?  (pun intended) Their Ace in the Hole?  The Steele Dossier!  We know it was bought and paid for by Hillary's camp.  We also know that Sztrok was 'in that camp'.  We also know that Steele was being paid by the FBI as well...

Don't think Steele was paid by the FBI. They were considering it, but his name had become public, by that stage. Timescale is several months too early, too.

I honestly think you're playing with too few jigsaw pieces, and trying to jam them together. I don't see how the Steele Dossier -- which is entirely useless in a court of law -- could be seen as any sort of viable insurance.
 

3 hours ago, joc said:

As far as the changed wording...that's the whole point!  Comey!  The FBI is supposed to be non-partisan.   Go where the evidence leads you. And we know that Hillary had her own private server...and that Classified Information...some of which, the most highly secret of such information, went through her server.  If you or I were subpoenaed by the Feds...and we deleted alot of stuff on our computer...and then destroyed the hard drive.  We'd go to jail.  As the case with Manafort clearly shows...if you lie to the FBI...it is a crime...whether you are under oath or not.   Hillary routinely lied to the FBI.  We know this because Trey Gowdy and others questioned Comey and he said as much.

A lie, legally, requires that the person lying knows that they are deliberately misrepresenting the truth. Otherwise, they're just answering to the best of their ability.

Really don't want to relitigate the Clinton emails thing here. I'm sure we'll get to discuss it all over again in depth, when the Republicans launch the "Emails 2: Hillary Boogaloo" investigation.


 

[Tiggs]

55 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

The lawyer who tried to fight it tells a very different story. That what was asked to do was equivalent to flipping a switch. 

Also from what I understand when an election is decided by half a percent or less it’s a automatic recount. This throws that out. So if that’s the case the decision was criminal in nature. 

It's totally like flipping a switch. On 2,000 voting machines, in different physical locations.

I believe Moore lost by 1.5%. If he wants a recount, he'll have to pay for it -- and the paper versions printed by the machines will be good enough for the recount.

[The Narcisse]

2 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

That's like saying 'hey why not let the fox in the hen house? We don't know whats gonna happen. Maybe he wont even eat the chickens', lol

 

Sorry you cant insist a tainted investigation derived from false pretense should still exist once discovered. Especially for other crimes that there is no reason to ever think happened to begin with.

At this point, if they find some BS reason to oust him, we will be in a civil war that day.

Ah. I see. Partisan conspiracy theories. Got it.

[Tiggs]

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

I seriously can't see any impeachment going through. It has to start in the House and then go to the Senate, right? Even if McCain joins the Dems in voting Yes, are they really ever going to get a majority? The Republicans in the House are currently UP 46 seats. That would mean that they need 23 seats to change over to come to just parity with Republicans. I'm not sure that many Republican seats are in danger.

Every seat in the house is up for Election, every 2 years.

Whether Democrats can swing enough seats to get a majority -- time, as always, will tell. 
 

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

Even then a 2/3rds vote is needed in the Senate, which, again, isn't likely to happen in the next 3 years.

Certainly not for Democrats. Physically not enough Republican seats to be gained in 2018.

[Tiggs]

2 hours ago, Lilly said:

To address Mr Strzok's emails; Mueller's investigation is now in big trouble. Spin it all you want but no amount of damage control is going to save it now. Anyone charged by Mueller and friends will be able to get themselves a good lawyer, hit the courts and most likely (unless there's some very egregious evidence) walk away from the charges. Don't believe me, just wait and see. I don't even care to argue the point, I'm quite content to just let the chips fall where they may.

Awesome. Presumably you won't be joining those calling for the Mueller investigation to be disbanded, then.
 

2 hours ago, Lilly said:

Essentially: Mueller's Russia probe better have itself some untainted, slam dunk, super smoking gun evidence that can be independently corroborated...nothing less just isn't going to do it.

Pretty much was always going to be the case.

That said -- I'll tip my hat to the first lawyer who manages to successfully argue that Comey's written testimony is tainted by Strzok being on the investigation.

[Lilly]

2 hours ago, Tiggs said:

Awesome. Presumably you won't be joining those calling for the Mueller investigation to be disbanded, then.
 

 

Oh no, the investigation doesn't need to be totally scrapped...but all of the biased individuals need to be removed.

Also, any evidence that these biased investigators have *discovered* needs to be run down back to the sources and looked at for potential bias as well. If they don't do this then it's doubtful that any conclusions this investigation arrives at will survive the courts. Like I said earlier, any good lawyer will simply have a field day with all of the bias that's coming out.

As for Comey's 'memos to himself'...not exactly evidence that can be corroborated (far from being slam dunk smoking gun). Comey also has the little problem of having written an exoneration for Mrs Clinton prior to interviewing her and/or completing that investigation.

[Tiggs]

2 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Oh no, the investigation doesn't need to be totally scrapped...but all of the biased individuals need to be removed.

Strzok was immediately removed, pending inquiry, when the texts came to light. If the DOJ thought there was any real basis to remove someone else from the investigation, they would have by now.
 

2 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Also, any evidence that these biased investigators have *discovered* needs to be run down back to the sources and looked at for potential bias as well. If they don't do this then it's doubtful that any conclusions this investigation arrives at will survive the courts. Like I said earlier, any good lawyer will simply have a field day with all of the bias that's coming out.

Given that I wish the investigation to proceed, it's really not in my best interests to try and persuade you otherwise.
 

2 minutes ago, Lilly said:

As for Comey's 'memos to himself'...not exactly evidence that can be corroborated (far from being slam dunk smoking gun). Comey also has the little problem of having written an exoneration for Mrs Clinton prior to interviewing her and/or completing that investigation.

Given his prior testimony to Congress on that particular subject, I strongly suspect Comey will be more than capable of defending himself.

Handwritten notes by FBI agents are usually considered to be legally admissible evidence that a conversation of the nature recorded took place. I strongly suspect that it won't be the only evidence presented to the jury showing intent to obstruct an investigation, nor even that Comey will be the only head of an intelligence agency to give such testimony.

[ExpandMyMind]

1 hour ago, Lilly said:

Oh no, the investigation doesn't need to be totally scrapped...but all of the biased individuals need to be removed.

Nothing in the Special Prosecutor's mandate requires someone to be removed for "political bias" (political bias being framed by conservatives here as having any political affiliations). In fact, that right is protected in that the lead investigator - Mueller - is not allowed to even consider a potential member of the team's political affiliations before recruiting them. It's actually illegal to do so.

Quote

I. Legal Standards In this section we discuss the federal laws and Department policies relevant to the issue of whether it is illegal to consider political or ideological affiliations in hiring attorneys for career positions or in transferring or assigning cases to career attorneys. We conclude that federal law and Department policy prohibit the use of political or ideological affiliations to assess applicants for career attorney positions in the Department and in the management of career attorneys.

What must be shown is that they have a conflict of interest.

Quote

The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for their removal.

According to US law:

Laws and Rules on Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest for US Prosecutors 

Quote

Standard 3 Standard 3 -1.3(f)

Personal Interests 

A prosecutor should not permit his or her professional judgment or obligations to be affected by his or her own political, financial, business, property, or personal  interests.

What this shows is that they can only be removed when it has been demonstrated that they have allowed their own personal, political interests to affect the investigation.

Does anyone here have any evidence that this has happened with anyone other than the person who has already been removed?

 

Edited December 14, 2017 by ExpandMyMind

[Gromdor]

9 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

Who cares if he's biased? Are you kidding me? I guess that you would be cool with a jury comprised of Klan members in the questionable case of a Black man who was likely falsely accused of a crime. I really and truly don't get your posts on this subject.

Again, that is a jury and not the investigators.  We don't live in a Judge Dredd reality, where the police investigate and judge.  In our society it is okay for police to have a bias against criminals.  It's the judge and jury have to be impartial. 

Let me put it another way.  You are obviously biased for Trump, yet you are qualified to investigate and present facts for argument on this forum, are you not? 

[Lilly]

I'm not even going to bother to respond, the cat in now out of the bag regarding Mueller's team. We'll all see what happens now.

[ian hacktorp]

1 hour ago, Tiggs said:

Given that I wish the investigation to proceed

I do too.  Keeping the investigation open is really the best thing for the country at this point since the utter sham of it, as well as the actual crimes it was meant to hide, are becoming all too clear.

Poor Robert Mueller, The Incredible Shriveling Man, will be indistinguishable from a sun-dried raisin when this all wraps up.

[ExpandMyMind]

1 hour ago, Lilly said:

I'm not even going to bother to respond, the cat in now out of the bag regarding Mueller's team. We'll all see what happens now.

I've given you a reasoned response, quoting 3 times your own laws on the matter, and you offer this as a response? That is quite telling.

[ExpandMyMind]

28 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

I do too.  Keeping the investigation open is really the best thing for the country at this point since the utter sham of it, as well as the actual crimes it was meant to hide, are becoming all too clear.

It would be almost impossible for the investigation to be ended at this point anyway, even if Trump does fire Mueller. Special Councils are simply too well protected: they are, by design, very well insulated from the political machine. 

[preacherman76]

5 hours ago, The Narcisse said:

Ah. I see. Partisan conspiracy theories. Got it.

It’s no theory. They straight conspired to have a insurance policy in case he won the election. 

[Gromdor]

1 minute ago, preacherman76 said:

It’s no theory. They straight conspired to have a insurance policy in case he won the election. 

Proof of a crime would make a great insurance policy.....

[ian hacktorp]

12 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

It would be almost impossible for the investigation to be ended at this point anyway

Perhaps.  But, on the other hand, who would be willing to step up and take over such a crumbling mess from Mueller?

Even frogs are smart enough not to get into the water after it's already boiling.

[ExpandMyMind]

1 minute ago, hacktorp said:

Perhaps.  But, on the other hand, who would be willing to step up and take over such a crumbling mess from Mueller?

I think you're going to be in for a shock if you really believe this investigation is in any way crumbling. 

[ian hacktorp]

3 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I think you're going to be in for a shock if you really believe this investigation is in any way crumbling. 

Give us your short list of FBI and/or DOJ luminaries champing at the bit to step in for Mueller.  Please?

[Tiggs]

37 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

It’s no theory. They straight conspired to have a insurance policy in case he won the election. 

That's one interpretation of the text messages. Other interpretations -- with decidedly less conspiracy attached -- also exist.

[Lilly]

44 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I've given you a reasoned response, quoting 3 times your own laws on the matter, and you offer this as a response? That is quite telling.

No, it's not telling at all. The laws you quoted actually support exactly what I've been saying. This is because if these investigators went in with the attitude of getting rid of Trump by any means necessary, that's a huge conflict of interest. The investigators are supposed to go in with the attitude of finding out the truth.   

Just wait and see what happens here. I'm not going to bother to argue the point because IMO this is all coming to a head soon.

[ExpandMyMind]

19 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

Give us your short list of FBI and/or DOJ luminaries champing at the bit to step in for Mueller.  Please?

Sure, right after you give me a list of those who aren't. After all, it was you who made the claim, not I.

Edited December 14, 2017 by ExpandMyMind