The Failed Cover-Up

It's like a joke with you, isn't it? A knock-knock joke you think always works? You simply repeat the same hogwash, over and over, all the facts you don't like just flow past you without notice. Of course, that is your intent. Has nothing to do with discussion, only with ranting. Do you need a bigger soapbox? Won't help.

 

TC does not appear to be suggesting the transcript is anything other than what was upon it. Nor do the "witnesses" have anything to say contradicting what is in the transcript. Not that I would care but, what exactly are the insurrectioners on about?

 

Very well and cogently said.

 

It sounds as if you think the identity of whoever attempted the cover-up and the reason he did so need to be kept hidden.

 

Gotcha, so that facts have been repeated too often and are too well known for them to be uttered here. Why didn’t you say so from the get go. I’m now against the impeachment.

 

Comey testified to and explained her crimes. There is mitigation and reluctance with reopening a case where the suspect has already been let go. It happens but is generally not considered Hoyle. Barr is looking into the wrongdoings of the Justice Dept people involved, but I would be terribly surprised if he chose to reopen the investigation against Hillary, though he could.

 

What facts? Don't be shy.

 

Power.

 

You misconstrue his, and the rest of the folks involved in the decision, conclusion about why prosecution of Hillary was not tenable or merited about as often as you falsely assert Mueller exonerated Individual 1.
If the DoJ, currently a tool being used by Don to look in to batshyte crazy conspiracy theories, had something to prosecute Hillary for why not do it? It would give you folks some red meat to gnaw on for months. I'll tell you why. There's no case. Don knows that........so it's much more effective for him to leave the minions with something to whine about.

 

I think she isn't being prosecuted as, were she to be, you'd be giving incumbents a reason to cling to power no matter what. Every election that didn't go your way would be a crisis requiring the suspension of law and military rule.

Hillary was not "extremely careless" and should have been charged with gross negligence. It appears she had criminal intent... that the email server didn't just bounce off a truck and hook itself up to a network due to negligence resulting in someone not guarding the doorway to the network wearing hockey goalie gear. It appears that it was put there with intent to retain and disseminate, at will, non-public government materials. If true, and I think it is, an intentional felony in and of itself.

 

Testimony: White House lawyer told Vindman not to discuss Ukraine call
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/01/white-house-vindman-ukraine-call-063892

The senior White House lawyer who placed a record of President Donald Trump’s July 25 call with Ukraine’s president in a top-secret system also instructed at least one official who heard the call not to tell anyone about it, according to testimony heard by House impeachment investigators this week.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a decorated Army officer who served as the National Security Council’s director for Ukraine, told lawmakers that he went to the lawyer, John Eisenberg, to register his concerns about the call, in which Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate the Bidens, according to a person in the room for Vindman’s deposition on Tuesday.
......................................................................................................................................................................
Any time a Trumpette wants to make the case "perfect" calls are routinely hidden away in a top secret storage system (even though there was nothing spoken of that could be construed as sensitive national security info) and people making WH officials aware of their alarm over what was said during the Trump/Zelensky call are told not to tell anyone else about it doesn't display a consciousness of guilt because the call was problematic............please proceed.

 

Why else would you release an incriminating transcript?

 

Well lock him up, because he talked to the NSC lawyers.
I think I could win that case in court when Trump's lawyer moved the transcript to the secret server.
But we will see how it turns out.
Cover up.

 

In the part of my post you didn't quite I explained why it is highly unlikely that DOJ will go after Hillary again. I know what Comey said about not prosecuting Hillary for her crimes. Good little song and dance.

 

Hidden like the whistleblower that never talked to Schiff but did talk to Schiff and apparently hates Trump too?. Meaning, you have an anonymous situation- an an anonymous witness to hearsay that may or may not be real, but the dems want it to be....
Even sleazier than the Kavanaugh smear.

 

On can talk about confidential information with people who have clearance and a right to know which would most likely include NSC lawyers -- DUH! It would also include congress intelligence committees in closed sessions where the current (and only) impeachment hearings are being held.
Putting the transcript in a secret server??? That's like having eggs for breakfast -- a complete no-op -- really scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for stuff.

 

Allow me to correct you. You gave your opinion Hillary was "let go." In reality, the determination was made successful prosecution was not possible as the evidence lacked an essential element........intent. That is, intent is required to prove a crime was committed.
If carelessness regarding matters of national security without intent is a crime...........any number of Trump admin members would be in jail including Don.
Glad I could help.

 

Thank you for identifying the specific nature of your confusion. Innocuous phone conversations containing no sensitive national security info like the Trump/Zelensky call are never put in a code level secret server because there is no need to. Unless, of course, WH officials felt there was something about the call that needed hiding...........which there was.

 

Being "let go" and abandoning investigation are exactly the same thing. Comey said he found no intent by Hillary in her violation of the espionage act, but that was just part of his evasive song and dance. Per the law intent is not a prerequisite for violating the law. "Gross negligence" is the prerequisite; Comey used the carefully chosen phrase of "extreme carelessness" hoping (successfully) that people wound not see it as the same thing.

 

Private conversations between heads of state are always considered confidential. What class of server they are archived in is a complete no-op -- like having either sausage or bacon with your eggs.

 

The transcript was not complete. Why would you believe a document released by a man, a known chronic liar, who has complete power to order it scrubbed of anything he doesn't want there?

 

Naw. It's Trump scraping the bottom of the barrel.

 

Now there's a non sequitur.....

 

Yeah, but I thought it was to true to be ignored.
But having said that the whistleblower complaint was generated by people with clearances, so your argument has no merit.

 

What facts?