Flynn in major trouble for speaking to Russia about sanctions

[Chucho]

Just giving you a courtesy response -

I am just saying -


100% of the Mueller report and Mueller testifying under oath in front of the nation -is the fair and righteous thing to do.

If Mueller's testimony and his 100% of his report exonerates Trump - I will agree with Mueller's assessment.

I just do not agree that what Trump/Barr concocted is going to fly and having been lied to by Trump - thousands of times -

nor should ANYONE take his word at all when dealing with such an important issue.

Despite your false notion I am a Trump supporter (I originally was, to be fair), I am all for transparency and if proven, I will call for his head as well. That said, I have no faith in any government transparency and have felt more and more apathy towards "scandals" as every administration I've voted for has highly scandalous moments on their track records that would/should dictate their removal from office and everytime it becomes less and less painful to see these abuses of power that somehow are softened or "covered up" some shape, form or fashion.

I could yell as loud as you, but I've become accustomed to the end result; no action.

[Spurs Homer]

Despite your false notion I am a Trump supporter (I originally was, to be fair), I am all for transparency and if proven, I will call for his head as well. That said, I have no faith in any government transparency and have felt more and more apathy towards "scandals" as every administration I've voted for has highly scandalous moments on their track records that would/should dictate their removal from office and everytime it becomes less and less painful to see these abuses of power that somehow are softened or "covered up" some shape, form or fashion.

I could yell as loud as you, but I've become accustomed to the end result; no action.

I get that.

Your right. (to do so)

But - I HAVE to stress this:

This is way way different than any scandal before. Yes almost every administration has scandals - and even when they were pretty clean (Obama) - the other side would try to create one - I get it and it is disgusting.


THIS scandal is the FIRST TIME that an enemy foreign gov't was involved and this makes this one absolutely the most horrifying of all because...

if what the evidence suggests is confirmed -

we have 40% of the country siding with an enemy gov't because they are spellbound by a con man.

How do we get those 40% to break the spell?

[Chris]

TSA

[ChumpDumper]

TSA

Huber is the special counsel.

[Chris]

Huber is the special counsel.

You said Huber was a nobody and wasn't investigating anything on your Pavlov account. Now Huber is "THE SPECIAL COUNSEL."

[ChumpDumper]

You said Huber was a nobody and wasn't investigating anything on your Pavlov account. Now Huber is "THE SPECIAL COUNSEL."

He isn't investigating anything.

He's reviewing the investigations that already happened.

And he's the de facto Special Counsel because it's not his normal job.

Qhris

Need anything else explained to you? Need it dumbed down further?

[Chris]

He isn't investigating anything.

John Huber, who will investigate the FBI, is a special counsel in every way but name
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...vestigation-s/


Mystery surrounds Sessions appointee to FBI investigation
https://thehill.com/policy/national-...-investigation

Who is John Huber, the man appointed to investigate GOP concerns about FBI, Justice Department
https://www.ajc.com/news/national/wh...XzTVh6aufFhOI/


Chumpdumper

[Chris]

[ChumpDumper]

John Huber, who will investigate the FBI, is a special counsel in every way but name
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...vestigation-s/


Mystery surrounds Sessions appointee to FBI investigation
https://thehill.com/policy/national-...-investigation

Who is John Huber, the man appointed to investigate GOP concerns about FBI, Justice Department
https://www.ajc.com/news/national/wh...XzTVh6aufFhOI/


Chumpdumper

your first link completely agrees with me.

Also:

Dear Mr. Huber:

In consultation with the Deputy Attorney General, I have requested that you review the matters referenced in the enclosed November 13, 2017, letter from Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert Goodlatte and make recommendations to me or the Deputy Attorney General, as appropriate. Your review need not include matters that you determine are within the scope of the investigation being conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Your recommendations should include whether any matters not currently under investigation warrants the opening of an investigation, whether any matters currently under investigation require further resources or further investigation, and whether any matters would merit the appointment of a Special Counsel.


Sincerely,

Jefferson B. Sessions III
Attorney General

Qhris

[koriwhat]

damn kemp was phenomenal back in the day

[Chris]

[ElNono]

Mueller bad again?

[Spurs Homer]

what is the deal with the first page? not clicking on that - is that some type of hacking?


wtf?

[DarrinS]

what is the deal with the first page? not clicking on that - is that some type of hacking?


wtf?

Russians. You were very wise not to click.

[Spurs Homer]

Russians. You were very wise not to click.

did OJ find the “killers” yet?

lololololol

[Reck]

he can stick those redactions up his fat ass

there will be a patriot that will leak this

100 percent or it is a criminal cover up

Who's covering it up?

Barr may be a Trumper but he's not stupid to go to jail over him either. Besides, how would he covered Trump's deed when select members of congress will get to see the report fully unredacted at some point.

[Spurs Homer]

Who's covering it up?

Barr may be a Trumper but he's not stupid to go to jail over him either. Besides, how would he covered Trump's deed when select members of congress will get to see the report fully unredacted at some point.

we dont know any of that

has trump denounced russia for the attack yet?

[boutons_deux]

I don't think pencil-neck Schiff will ever see the full unredacted Mueller report including supporting materials, without a trip to SCOTUS

Has Mueller kept a copy in case Barr destroys Barr's original?

Slimebag Trash's people are now fund-raising off Trash's name calling.

[Winehole23]

I basically agree with this. Because of L'Affaire Russe, Dems never came to account for why they lost.

Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming. Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, “I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump.”

[boutons_deux]

"hated so much" Hillary won by 2.8M votes, a perfectly reasonable winning margin, but lost to Comey / Pootin / Repug vote cheating, and the archaic, anti-democratic Electoral College designed by 18th century elite to disenfranchise Americans.

[Winehole23]

Comey a Russian stooge now

[Winehole23]

dual track Mueller probe:

The range of conduct that can be prohibited by criminal statute is limited by, among other things, the Cons ution—for example, the vagueness doctrine, which requires a statute to state clearly and explicitly the conduct that is prohibited—and the ability of Congress to foresee the possibility of certain harmful conduct. The criminal code is not necessarily comprehensive when it comes to prohibiting conduct that society finds morally or ethically reprehensible, or even a potential threat to American interests or national security. A counterintelligence investigation, on the other hand, has a different purpose or objective—to identify and mitigate threats posed by foreign governments. In other words, such investigations have a broader focus, and their implications are potentially far more concerning from a national security standpoint. Just because someone is not (yet) a criminal does not mean he or she is not a threat.


The evidentiary standards are quite different. In the criminal context, the government must prove each element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Certain forms of evidence, such as hearsay, are inadmissible. And even when the government possesses evidence that can meet those standards, the level of transparency associated with criminal trials sometimes causes the government to forego prosecution to protect sensitive intelligence. In a counterintelligence investigation, however, the government can look at—and make judgments based on—the full body of information in its possession. Despite its imperfections (to say nothing of the criminal justice system’s own propensity to produce wrong results), there are things that, from an intelligence perspective, the government knows or believes with high confidence that it cannot—or chooses not to—prove in a court of law.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/understa...erintelligence

[Chris]

[Pavlov]

WOW!

MEETINGGATE!

THIS CHANGES EVERYTHIHNG!

[boutons_deux]

when IC reports to Congress, "Trash's deep state Nazis" could expected, in retaliation, maybe unconsciously, overstate their case(s) against Trash and his mafiya as intelligence criminals.