4
4
0
HOLY well laundered rubles Batman!
The Republicans’ Fake Investigations
Posted from mobile.nytimes.com
Office of the President (POTUS)
Russia
Intelligence
Election 2016
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 6
5
5
0
CPT Jack Durish
MSgt Steve Sweeney - It's clear that Hillary committed felonies. She has admitted to them while attempting to avoid responsibility for even greater crimes. Every time she was accused she admitted to the lesser crime that she was previously accused of. It is also clear that Hillary is "protected". The media avoids covering her properly and key members of the Obama Administration, especially in the DOJ, have covered up for her. When Comey made his public statement, he clearly described evidence of gross negligence and then announced that he would not bring charges. None of what I have written is up for argument. It is quite visible in video records that you can peruse for yourself. I know that most don't have a legal education and thus, are not qualified to interpret the nuances. There are also competent legal authorities who would take exception to my interpretation, but they are motivated my ideological concerns that I do not share. Now, there are nontraditional news sources reporting a gathering body of evidence that should bring Hillary to the bar of justice. Will they? Don't know. We'll just have to wait and see if 2018 really is a Happy New Year...
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/01/03/house-investigators-uncover-smoking-gun-fbi-knew-hillary-broke-law-let-off-anyway-583469
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/01/03/house-investigators-uncover-smoking-gun-fbi-knew-hillary-broke-law-let-off-anyway-583469
House investigators uncover 'smoking gun' that FBI knew Hillary broke the law, but let her off...
It looks like the fix really was in.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I think this is rabbits chasing red herrings. We have had several reports ( with names attached) that suggest the FBI will not indicate what lead to the Trump investigation. The FBI has no problem telling the New York Times it was a trip by Clark to Russia. Oh wait, it was a drinking bout with Papadopoulos and an Australian intelligence officer. Never mind that any of these people never had contact with Russians on any serious level. Of course Fusion GPS is going to vouch for the authenticity of their report, folks shelling out $10 million expect some accuracy. Of course the check for $10 million was written but nobody really authorized it. Well on with hunt, rabbits, herrings, or some level of honesty, will we know it when we find it?
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I would expect Fusion GPS to write something like this to protect themselves and I would also expect the NYT to publish the OP-ED as well. This is a dog bites man piece, no real news here. Fusion is protecting their interest and the NYT is publishing the puff piece to try to make Trump look suspicious.
(2)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
SFC Chad Sowash - It is an OPED written by Fusion. They are in the middle of the investigation and trying to make themselves look better. Who better to write a puff piece than the leadership of the company? Did you expect them would write a piece falling on their sword for wrong doing? I think there is likely a protocol for the release of any and all testimony in front of the committee. Asking for it to be release before the committee is ready to release it is theater.
I have never believed all is well in DC. I don't think congressional investigations really do much except give politicians the opportunity to preen and position. When this is serious there will be a criminal investigation with subpoenas and grand juries and the like.
I have never believed all is well in DC. I don't think congressional investigations really do much except give politicians the opportunity to preen and position. When this is serious there will be a criminal investigation with subpoenas and grand juries and the like.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
MSgt Steve Sweeney - Steve, wouldn't you think if this crack committee of politicians found something that appeared to be criminal in nature they would turn it over to maybe a special counsels office and not just release it to the public? Do you know what the rules/procedures are for releasing congressional testimony are? I don't but I know they are a matter of record at least and if there is anything material there it would likely be turned over to an actual prosecutor to pursue etc.
(2)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
MSgt Steve Sweeney - I don't think they have had the vote to formally release the testimony. Don't worry, it is documented and being transcribed etc. Grassley cannot release them, the committee has to vote to release them.
If it wasn't for this committee there would be no testimony to be released. So the very committee you are condemning is the very committee that made the testimony possible. When it comes out, I have money I am willing to bet that there is nothing of little consequence in it. The dossier was full of fake information designed to do damage to Trump politically. It didn't work but that was the goal.
If it wasn't for this committee there would be no testimony to be released. So the very committee you are condemning is the very committee that made the testimony possible. When it comes out, I have money I am willing to bet that there is nothing of little consequence in it. The dossier was full of fake information designed to do damage to Trump politically. It didn't work but that was the goal.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
MSgt Steve Sweeney - Never mind there is no evidence of Trump being compromised, never has been. Even if he spoke to the Russians, that is not illegal, even if he promised to work with them if elected, that is not illegal. If he asked them to hack the DNC emails, that would be. You have no evidence he is lining his pockets at all. If anything, his net worth has likely taken a hit since being elected. You might want to listen to Allen Deshowitz on this topic. He is a democrat lawyer that actually understands the law and is not dealing with this politically.
Bannon, who I had never heard of until he came on to the Trump campaign, was on the campaign starting on August 17, 2016, 2.5 months before the election. Cruz, the last opponent dropped out on May 3, of 2016. Trump won the GOP nomination on July 19, 2016. Bannon came on in August of 2016. He was not a major player in the run up to the election. He was in the White house until August of 2017. about 7 months. It sounds like he wanted more authority than Trump would give him. Kelly took him out.
Bannon, who I had never heard of until he came on to the Trump campaign, was on the campaign starting on August 17, 2016, 2.5 months before the election. Cruz, the last opponent dropped out on May 3, of 2016. Trump won the GOP nomination on July 19, 2016. Bannon came on in August of 2016. He was not a major player in the run up to the election. He was in the White house until August of 2017. about 7 months. It sounds like he wanted more authority than Trump would give him. Kelly took him out.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google