Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
OverSword

FISA memo set to end collusion investigation

2,151 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ExpandMyMind
3 minutes ago, .ZZ. said:

Some might call it a Right-wing echo chamber and some might call it parroting of CNN's Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo.

 

The ratio of conservatives to liberals on this forum is heavily skewed to the right. And you all just agree with every outlandish conspiracy theory that happens to have traction at that moment in time. That's an echo chamber 

If it weren't for 4 posters, that I can see, then there wouldn't even be any debate. That's basically what the first half of this thread was - mental conspiracy theories being reaffirmed by like-minded conservatives. 

Next week when Tiggs is off having fun at his conventions and Farmer might be working, along with my becoming bored of having to address the endless stream of baseless conspiracy theories, the weight of ten world's rests on Gromdor's shoulders :D

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
1 hour ago, Ellapennella said:

Well, the funny thing is , there are no facts to  support this investigation, yet Sessions signed off on it without confronting them, is this a lawful investigation when the fact is that the fisa judge was lied to and civilians illegally spied on, those are two facts.Trump was correct when he said that Obama illegally spied on him. I guess in a backwards world wrong is right.

 

I'm bias, for what is right, what's wrong with that? I don't get your link, what are you trying to say?

If you want to bring up conspiracy , the investigation fits.

I want to believe that Sessions was attempting to do what he thought was right and allowed himself to be cornered by a group of cutthroat schemers that he SHOULD have been more aware of.  He spent enough time in the Senate to be fully aware of who he was dealing with but I guess he felt he could defuse the fight they were spoiling for at the time.  All he did was feed the fire.  

FWIW, I have seen no reason to impugn Horowitz.  IMO, the IG's office tends to be the least politicized place in the government.  At least, I have no memory of any scandals involving that area.  They are basically auditors who investigate fraud, waste or malfeasance within government agencies.  That's not to say it's impossible that he's tainted but I see no evidence of it so far.  It seems to me that the data from his investigation is bringing things to light that we'd have otherwise never discovered.  In fact, when the full report is made available, I suspect the fireworks may really begin.  Once that report has been digested and reviewed, I hope the call for a Special Counsel will become deafening.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
1 minute ago, and then said:

 

FWIW, I have seen no reason to impugn Horowitz.  IMO, the IG's office tends to be the least politicized place in the government.  At least, I have no memory of any scandals involving that area.  They are basically auditors who investigate fraud, waste or malfeasance within government agencies.  That's not to say it's impossible that he's tainted but I see no evidence of it so far.  It seems to me that the data from his investigation is bringing things to light that we'd have otherwise never discovered.  In fact, when the full report is made available, I suspect the fireworks may really begin.  Once that report has been digested and reviewed, I hope the call for a Special Counsel will become deafening.  

I agree, I gather we will be waiting for about 6 more weeks though. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

Trump's current blocking of the Democrat memo gives the impression that Trump would block things that helped the Mueller investigation or hindered his defense. 

It does, to those who don't bother to absorb any information from sources outside the MSM.  Anyone who bothers to listen to a non-Liberal biased source understands immediately how this game works.  You're intelligent enough to know that as well.  If there were hard-data points that could be used to disprove the Nunes Memo, the Democrats would have put them out there without all the classified trappings that they knew would be redacted.  As it is, a 10-page rebuttal reportedly was so cut-up with redactions that it looked like nonsense.  It's just another disgusting shell game and I hope the IG's final report makes it clear just who's doing the lying.  

At some point, this president is going to have to either declassify enough of this info to prove what's really going on or he's going to be hamstrung for the entire 4 years.  He should instruct his AG to seek a Special Counsel to investigate the events surrounding the 2016 election concerning the HRC campaign as well as reexamine all the issues that the DOJ/FBI apparently failed to properly investigate.  For the sake of public trust in our institutions of Justice, this MUST be done.  If a "nation of laws" becomes lawless, what's left?

Edited by and then
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
31 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Personally, I think it's likely Trump will be impeached for *something*. However, let's take a look at history here shall we: Clinton was impeached for lying about having an affair...and what did that achieve? Nothing, no one really cared. I remember telling people that this was the silliest thing I'd ever seen. Only Hillary should have cared (and she actually appears to have had no problem with Bill's extra-marital activities). 

In order to 'get rid' of Trump the Democrats are going to need something that I've yet to see any actual evidence of. Like I say, it could happen, but the evidence seems to be sorely lacking. 

Technically he was impeached for perjury and subsequently disbarred as well but as you said, there needs to be an actual crime committed and so far we don't have that.  Now if the democrats can win a minority in the house they can impeach for whatever they want as long as they can attach it to treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors but they will still require the consent of both the House and two-thirds of the Senate, does anyone see that happening on a democrat fantasy?   Bringing the articles of impeachment on a president simply because he repulses you would cause a constitutional crisis because the Trump delusion gang lies to forget that a large segment of the population approves of Trump and won't sit idly by while the loony left tries to run him out of office on a lark.   As much as certain folks dream about an impeachment I think they will have to win the election in four years to be rid of Trump and if the economy keeps improving and many more people are back at work they will have a tall order in front of them, especially if they put forward a socialist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
1 minute ago, Lilly said:

The President could very well have sources about Rosenstein that made him "look bad" from before the Nunes investigation ever even began. We don't know what we don't know.  

I'm sure he has. The question, however, is whether or not he has sufficient cause to fire Rosenstein.
 

1 minute ago, Lilly said:

As for this allegation, "White House coordinated with Nunes to make Rosenstein look bad, so Trump could remove him without public backlash..."  Well, you're going to have to prove that is the case.

Currently can't. Hence the big If, from earlier.
 

1 minute ago, Lilly said:

Also, I seriously doubt Trump is going to shut down the Mueller investigation...that would be political suicide pure and simple. 

He doesn't need to shut it down, if he can replace Rosenstein.

Rosenstein basically has veto power over pretty much anything Mueller wants to do. The right person in charge of Mueller could effectively cripple the investigation from investigating pretty much anything.

* Slides on tinfoil fedora *

Like, say, Gowdy, for example -- who's made it painstakingly clear in his statements to the press that the Nunes memo has no impact whatsoever on the Mueller investigation.

Wouldn't want to have to recuse himself, after all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

My question: All this political maneuvering serves to demonstrate that Trump colluded with the Kremlin to criminally subvert/steal the 2016 election how exactly? If Mueller has the 'goods' on Trump's criminal collusion with the Kremlin the rest of this stuff isn't worth spit really. Let's see the evidence, and it needs (for the sake of our nation) to be sooner not later. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
3 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Technically he was impeached for perjury and subsequently disbarred as well but as you said, there needs to be an actual crime committed and so far we don't have that.  Now if the democrats can win a minority in the house they can impeach for whatever they want as long as they can attach it to treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors but they will still require the consent of both the House and two-thirds of the Senate, does anyone see that happening on a democrat fantasy?   Bringing the articles of impeachment on a president simply because he repulses you would cause a constitutional crisis because the Trump delusion gang lies to forget that a large segment of the population approves of Trump and won't sit idly by while the loony left tries to run him out of office on a lark.  

I suspect if they impeach him, they'll do so on Mueller's recommendation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
8 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

...  As much as certain folks dream about an impeachment I think they will have to win the election in four years to be rid of Trump and if the economy keeps improving and many more people are back at work they will have a tall order in front of them, especially if they put forward a socialist.

And keep in mind, impeachment means basically to accuse. A President can be impeached but not removed from office (like President Clinton). Now, Nixon left voluntarily because they actually did have the goods on him. Nixon illegally used his minions to break into the Democratic Campaign Office at the Watergate Hotel (in order to spy on their campaign tactics). Hmm...using illegal means in order to surveil what the opposition party is up to during a political campaign...sounds familiar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
4 minutes ago, Lilly said:

My question: All this political maneuvering serves to demonstrate that Trump colluded with the Kremlin to criminally subvert/steal the 2016 election how exactly? If Mueller has the 'goods' on Trump's criminal collusion with the Kremlin the rest of this stuff isn't worth spit really. Let's see the evidence, and it needs (for the sake of our nation) to be sooner not later. 

Investigation is still ongoing. Lots and lots of threads to unravel.

A public recommendation from Mueller that Trump should be impeached for Obstruction of Justice, however, will totally tie Trump's hands, in terms of him being able to stop that investigation from happening.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
7 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

I suspect if they impeach him, they'll do so on Mueller's recommendation.

I agree but Mueller has to show an actual crime was committed and so far, after nearly a year, he doesn't seem to have one.

1 minute ago, Tiggs said:

Investigation is still ongoing. Lots and lots of threads to unravel.

A public recommendation from Mueller that Trump should be impeached for Obstruction of Justice, however, will totally tie Trump's hands, in terms of him being able to stop that investigation from happening.

I ask again, what exactly has Trump obstructed?  Firing Comey didn't seem to stop anything from moving forward and Trump has every right in the world to remove him.

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
6 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Investigation is still ongoing. Lots and lots of threads to unravel.

A public recommendation from Mueller that Trump should be impeached for Obstruction of Justice, however, will totally tie Trump's hands, in terms of him being able to stop that investigation from happening.

Even if this does happen, it will go to court. And without a real 'crime' for Trump having wanted to obstruct it will be a hard mountain to climb in order for Trump to be found guilty and then removed from office. Keep in mind, Clinton was found guilty of lying and obstruction...but he remained in office. You want Trump gone from office, you're going to need the original charge (criminal collusion with the Kremlin to steal the 2016 election) or you're going to need to win an election in 3 years. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella
1 hour ago, Tiggs said:

Sessions was part of the Trump election campaign.

If he said "No, I don't think the Trump election campaign needs to be investigated" -- then he could be accused of doing so because it's in his vested interest not to have the campaign investigated.

To avoid that, he recused himself from the decision, and let someone not involved with the campaign decide.

A top national attorney in consultation with U.S. Attorneys confirms to Big League Politics that Robert Mueller’s entire team can be investigated for prosecutorial misconduct, based on revelations of anti-Trump bias among his lawyers and staffers.

“Every one of these people on Mueller’s team should and can be investigated,” said the attorney, who believes that Peter Strzok’s actions “taints everything at that point.” Strzok is the FBI agent who was kicked off Team Mueller for sending “anti-Trump text messages” to a woman. Rep. Jim Jordan believes that Strzok was involved in using the debunked Hillary Clinton-funded Trump dossier to obtain a surveillance warrant for Trump Tower.

“It would seem to me that the work he did tainted everything. It may require Mueller to review all of the work he did.”

“How do you continue this thing without investigating every single person there?” the attorney said.

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/confirmed-everyone-muellers-team-can-investigated-heres/

 

How many democrat campaign donors are on Mueller's team?

off topic video

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
2 minutes ago, Lilly said:

And keep in mind, impeachment means basically to accuse. A President can be impeached but not removed from office (like President Clinton). Now, Nixon left voluntarily because they actually did have the goods on him. Nixon illegally used his minions to break into the Democratic Campaign Office at the Watergate Hotel (in order to spy on their campaign tactics). Hmm...using illegal means in order to surveil what the opposition party is up to during a political campaign...sounds familiar. 

* Slides on tinfoil fedora again *

Manafort reportedly did talk to Trump after he'd left the campaign, while under a FISA warrant. Quite a lot, apparently.

But the Nunes' memo isn't about Manafort. It's about Page.

Seems curious to me, that the FBI wouldn't use the Steele Dossier in Manafort's application, too -- unless they'd already applied for it, before they'd received it.

Makes me wonder if Rosenstein didn't renew Manafort's FISA warrant.

Will be interesting to find out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella
1 hour ago, Lilly said:

Not mad in the least, but conspiracy driven notions (from either side of the political spectrum) aren't all that useful as supporting evidence. 

What evidence? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

The chances of Trump being tried for obstruction of Justice in a court is slim to none because you actually have to obstruct something to be tried for obstruction.   Please tell me, what he has obstructed?   Mueller isn't an idiot, he knows this so os hoping to nail people around Trump on something and set congress up for an impeachment based on Trump trying to obstruct justice.  This will be stupid thing to do and would fail because once again, Trump never obstructed anything.  but watching the democrats behavior lately anything is possible.

Then why haven't the democrats come forward and complained? 

 

I wouldn't be so sure.  I've known people that have been charged for resisting arrest while having no charges to resist arrest from.  Merely obstructing an investigation is obstructing justice.  It doesn't matter if anyone gets charged with anything.   As an investigation can prove someone innocent, interfering is doing an injustice to possibly clear someone's name.

As for the Dems complaining-  There really isn't any evidence as of yet to prove that the memo was authored by the White House.  I only brought it up to contrast how Sessions was acting compared to Nune's behavior.  The Dems also seem to have more restraint on publicly adhering to conspiracy claims without enough behind it to not burn themselves.   The theory is out there, though.  I am surprised everyone was unaware of it.

Edited by Gromdor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
12 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

I agree but Mueller has to show an actual crime was committed and so far, after nearly a year, he doesn't seem to have one.

Aside from firing Comey, over the investigation into Trump/Russia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
4 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

I wouldn't be so sure.  I've known people that have been charged for resisting arrest while having no charges to resist arrest from.  Merely obstructing an investigation is obstructing justice.  It doesn't matter if anyone gets charged with anything.   As an investigation can prove someone innocent, interfering is doing an injustice to possibly clear someone's name.

As for the Dems complaining-  There really isn't any evidence as of yet to prove that the memo was authored by the White House.  I only brought it up to contrast how Sessions was acting compared to Nune's behavior.  The Dems also seem to have more restraint on publicly adhering to conspiracy claims without enough behind it to not burn themselves.   The theory is out there, though.  I am surprised everyone was unaware of it.

Sessions and Nunes have two entirely different jobs and their behavior is dictated by the nature of those jobs.  Session's job is to represent the United States in legal matters and Nune's job is to chair the congressional oversight of US intelligence agencies.  Obviously those services  have been abused by the users and congress has an obligation to investigate that abuse and recommend corrective actions.  I would expect one of those corrective actions to be a recommendation for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to bring criminal charges against some involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
27 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Even if this does happen, it will go to court. And without a real 'crime' for Trump having wanted to obstruct it will be a hard mountain to climb in order for Trump to be found guilty and then removed from office.

I believe that as far as the courts are concerned -- Obstruction of Justice is Obstruction of Justice, regardless.

Besides which -- Flynn pled guilty, as I recall.
 

27 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Keep in mind, Clinton was found guilty of lying and obstruction...but he remained in office.

Don't recall him firing Ken Starr.
 

27 minutes ago, Lilly said:

You want Trump gone from office, you're going to need the original charge (criminal collusion with the Kremlin to steal the 2016 election) or you're going to need to win an election in 3 years. 

Maybe. Maybe not.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
29 minutes ago, Ellapennella said:

What evidence? 

Conspiracy ideas aren't useful as supporting evidence...even if you like them or believe in them. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
9 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Aside from firing Comey, over the investigation into Trump/Russia?

You show me how that is criminal when Comey answers to the president and I'll agree with you.   Comey wasn't investigating Trump, he had as team of investigators at work and their efforts were not hindered in the least.  Comey managed the FBI, he didn't run any of the hundreds/thousands of ongoing investigations and every day it looks like he was more guilty of abusing his powers. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hacktorp
16 hours ago, Tiggs said:

I hear that partisan-based conspiracy theories generally propagate faster than the details of a ongoing Special Counsel investigation.

Indeed...like this one:

2 hours ago, Tiggs said:

If Nunes coordinated his memo with the White House, however -- then that's an entirely different ball game.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
Just now, Tiggs said:

I believe that as far as the courts are concerned -- Obstruction of Justice is Obstruction of Justice, regardless.

Besides which -- Flynn pled guilty, as I recall.
 

Don't recall him firing Ken Starr.
 

Maybe. Maybe not.
 

Obstruction of justice covering up sexual misdeeds didn't result in Clinton being booted. Unless they have something more than Trump was irritated by the 'dogs snapping at his heels' so he tried to make them stop...it won't result in him being booted either. 

Flynn plead guilty of lying to the FBI and his own personal misdeeds. 

And I never said Ken Starr was fired. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
57 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

ask again, what exactly has Trump obstructed?  Firing Comey didn't seem to stop anything from moving forward and Trump has every right in the world to remove him.

So because his attempt to obstruct an investigation failed, you think it somehow doesn't count?

Edited by ExpandMyMind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella
1 hour ago, and then said:

I want to believe that Sessions was attempting to do what he thought was right and allowed himself to be cornered by a group of cutthroat schemers that he SHOULD have been more aware of.  He spent enough time in the Senate to be fully aware of who he was dealing with but I guess he felt he could defuse the fight they were spoiling for at the time.  All he did was feed the fire.  

FWIW, I have seen no reason to impugn Horowitz.  IMO, the IG's office tends to be the least politicized place in the government.  At least, I have no memory of any scandals involving that area.  They are basically auditors who investigate fraud, waste or malfeasance within government agencies.  That's not to say it's impossible that he's tainted but I see no evidence of it so far.  It seems to me that the data from his investigation is bringing things to light that we'd have otherwise never discovered.  In fact, when the full report is made available, I suspect the fireworks may really begin.  Once that report has been digested and reviewed, I hope the call for a Special Counsel will become deafening.  

I have no assurance of which way Horowitz will go , he may be forced to admit that Trump is innocent being that he is innocent and their actions against him are obviously lies.

On another matter :

At the hearing, Gowdy and the inspectors general also discussed some challenges that could theoretically affect the election-related investigation, such as the fact that most of the watchdogs can’t make former employees testify.

“We cannot, once they leave the government, make them talk to us,” said Peace Corps Inspector General Kathy Buller.

“The ability to simply leave your place of employment and avoid scrutiny or having to provide information makes it really tough to conduct fulsome investigations,” Gowdy noted.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/15/comey-clinton-election-justice-department-investigation-244929

What a time for Gowdy to leave, coincidence? Very odd. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.