F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia

Then the claims against the Russians must be totally untrue!

Bonespurs is exonerated again!!

 

Poor Schiff for brains keeps getting shot down with his conspiracy theories.

 

So, now an unsourced leak is to be believed?

Hokay, Mr. Consistency.

Why don’t we allow BonespursJr. to lie—- err—-testify under oath about what the records actually show.

 

Testify about what exactly?

 

The testimony that he previously provided which was false , and who he spoke to with the blocked numbers.

Among other things.

 

Which is?

 

Neither of us were there, and it was a "closed door session", my google-challenged amigo. It's astonishing that Cohen, Flynn, Manafort (at least) lied to the FBI and/or Congress, yet you keep demanding "evidence" that this cabal of lying bags of **** are liars.

Here's a taste for you:

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/29/18201935/blumenthal-trump-don-jr-maddow-russia

Be skeptical until it's time not to be skeptical. When there are a number of liars around the BLOTUS, maybe you begin to understand that their testimony needs to be reexamined.

 

So, you now believe unsourced leaks?

 

Process crimes created by the investigation yet nothing about collusion or conspiracy. For instance Stone is accused of lying to Congress because he did not refer to a forgotten unused phone that actually had exculpatory information on it.

 

To be honest I did not know it was an unnamed source so it is still 'see it to believe it'.

 

I just cringe when I see that phrase "process crimes". It's not a legal term, it's not a phrase lawyers use--rather it's a phrase made up by Rush Limbaugh and others to attempt to lessen the impact of crimes like lying tho the FBI and lying to congress. It's a totally fabricated phrase.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/muellers-charges-arent-process-crimes/577351/

To the extent the “mere process” description is meant to trivialize the charges, several responses come immediately to mind.

First, there is nothing trivial about lying to Congress or the FBI, and none of the lies in question were picayune. Cohen’s lies, for example, were thoroughly premeditated, even written out. And his sentencing memorandum indicates that his lies toed the party line designed to support the president’s political fortunes, which makes them considerably more serious. Likewise, with Flynn, underlying his false statements was an apparent relationship with Russia that may have led him to push for specific diplomatic changes. It may have been to keep that conduct under wraps that the president improperly importuned then-FBI Director James Comey to drop the Flynn probe.


Second, Mueller’s approach is common to large-scale investigations of political crimes—think Watergate, Iran-Contra, Scooter Libby—as captured in the well-worn adage “It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up.”

Third, the Russian angle imposes another level of gravity on the crimes of dishonesty here, because many of the lies—e.g., Flynn’s and Cohen’s—were known to the Russian government, and therefore exposed the liar to the possibility of blackmail.

 

Rush Limbaugh? LOL

Prosecution of Process Crimes: Thoughts and Trends

 

So what? The only people using that goofy phrase are Rush and ilk.

So, why do you want to justify and minimize obstruction of justice and perjury? You didn’t address any of the other things from the article.

 

And the law. Sorry for your butt hurt over Limbaugh using a common term but I wouldn't know. I don't listen to Limbaugh like you do.

 

Again, it’s not a “common phrase”, and why do you completely ignore the entire article? Do you really believe the felonies of lying to Congress and the FBI, obstruction of justice and threatening witnesses are minor crimes?

No more cowardly non responsive posts.

 

I didn’t say they weren’t crimes and the court will decide that. I just stated a fact, they are process crimes.

 

I suspect it was nothing more than polling data showing that Trump would likely win. Unlike you, I realize my speculation isn't necessarily reality.

 

*LOL*

Yes, because the Russians would really like that.

How about we talk about what we know.

1. Manafort gave them internal polling data. This is the stuff that you pay for, not just bullshit you could get anywhere.
2. The Russians helped Trump by specifically targeting certain demographic groups in certain regions and states.

Hmm. I wonder how they were able to use demographics like that.

 

Which means that they're "not a big deal"?

 

BTW, as I told you, prosecutors don't use the term "process crimes".

https://twitter.com/AshaRangappa_/status/1090986876822003712

"As a former federal prosecutor, I can tell you prosecutors don’t use the term ‘process crimes.’ They just call them ‘crimes’ and take them very seriously, because these crimes threaten the very foundations of the justice system.”

 

Not according to the mandate of getting to the bottom of Russian interference and this is a typical Weissmann tactic that has been overturned before.

 

Another one:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...gainst-his-associates/?utm_term=.7de4ae4fdeb4

"Longtime Trump associate Roger Stone was indicted last week for lying to Congress, obstruction of justice and witness tampering. Many of the charges brought so far by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III against those close to President Trump — including Stone, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen — involve similar charges of lying to investigators or to Congress. Trump’s supporters have been quick to dismiss such charges as mere “process crimes.” As a former federal prosecutor, I can tell you prosecutors don’t use the term “process crimes.” They just call them “crimes” and take them very seriously, because these crimes threaten the very foundations of the justice system."

This begs the question--who's the dolt who coined that term?

 

Sorry, but the justice system is structured on the adversarial system of common law. Its a principle point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_system

 

I can't believe you actually said that. That is digging really deep into the bullshit excuse pile.


[quote The Russians never gave the Clinton's anything at all? OK, if that's what you believe then so be it. Can't argue with beliefs. [/quote]

Oh? Perhaps you can tell us all what Clinton "got from the russians"? I am always willing to learn something I don't know.

I also have facts, something that seems to elude you for some strange reason.

She is the past, she hasn't been in government for 6 years. She lost. And you are still fixated. At least she's got that going for her.

 

No it tries to mischaracterize the truth. But given trumpland is nuance free, I can readily understand how you might think it the "truth".