The Mueller investigation.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Quantum Quack, Feb 17, 2018.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Santa Claus ain't crooked? or is he?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    Yes, hence my comment....


    Thank you so much for explaining it to me, iceaura. As a former prosecutor, I simply would never have known if you hadn't taken the time to explain it to me. Thank you sooooo much.


    Back to what I was discussing...

    It will not take much for Trump's team to try to discredit the warrant and raise many eyebrows and questions.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Good argument, try that with Mueller.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    So you were wasting other people's time, or dealing in garbage innuendo, once again, and I should have assumed that - - sure and it was an obvious possibility, with you.
    But Poe's Law applies: One can never presume that you know anything you appear to not know, see anything you appear to have missed, etc, especially about American cultural or political features, regardless of whether you "should" know it, have seen it, etc.

    No such assumptions, as would be normal in good faith, are safe where you are concerned. It's a kind of quandary.

    Look at this:
    That's dishonest, and misrepresents.
    (That's warrants - plural. Not a small detail, for the professional prosecutor, but I threw it in anyway, above)
    (And it's Cohen's team that's involved, in delicate point of fact. I don't know who's going to be paying for it).
    Thank you sooooo much for informing us of that otherwise presumably invisible circumstance, from your perch of knowledge.

    May we estimate the height of that perch, by the scope of its view?
    How about by its repetition of the supposedly known contents of the posts above it, as if they did not exist, after complaining about those very posts and the existence of their contents?

    Because I'm going to, see. And you can just deal, or learn to post honestly.
  8. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Can’t say if Santa’s on her contact list, but it appears that the FBI has put a probe up Hillary’s rectum to find out.

    A top FBI official disclosed in a court filing that grand jury subpoenas were used to try to obtain records not only from Clinton’s account but also from accounts belonging to people she was in contact with.

    “In instances where the FBI discovered evidence of the potential unauthorized transmission of classified information from the [Clinton] personal email servers to private third party email accounts of individuals with whom Secretary Clinton corresponded and could establish sufficient probable cause, the FBI sought additional legal process, to include grand jury subpoenas, in order to obtain additional e-mails relevant to the FBI’s investigation,” Bill Priestap, the bureau’s assistant director for counterintelligence, wrote in a declaration filed in federal court in Washington.

    Priestap did not elaborate on which of Clinton’s associates had their email accounts targeted for grand jury subpoenas or whether they were notified of the requests.

    Can you imagine the picture painted of Trump’s career with the digital ink obtained from his list of contacts? Let’s have Hillary propose a deal with the Shyster in Chief, she’ll show her list of contacts if he’ll show his.
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2018
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    These times are strange and unprecedented times indeed, a factor well worth keeping in mind.

    The only reason I can think of for why Hillary is not in jail or at the least heavily penalized, is because it is in the interests of serious National/Global security that she not be. That she acted in the interests of national/global security to avoid seriously compromising intelligence from being published or leaked ( via wiki leaks etc)

    The only reason the FBI,CIA, NSA, Congress and even Trump etc would have backed off is because maintaining the intel's security/secrecy was in the best interests of everyone. That Hillary's actions were in fact heroic, for if they were not she would be in jail by now.

    When deciding her course of action ( scrubbing her hard drive) she knew that the outcome if the intell was revealed to the public/congress etc would be, by many orders of magnitude, considerably more devastating than any punishment including capital, she may or may not receive. She knew exactly what she was doing and the potential consequences of doing so.

    If her behavior was nefariously motivated she would be in jail, even if by other means/claims false or true.

    Fact is, she is not in jail. She has kept the big secret and those emails are secure and probably continues to work with that intel for the greater good. ( can't do it from jail)

    One day, her selfless heroism and sacrifice will be recognized well beyond personality/identity/party politics or even limited to just the USA and her failed run for POTUS.

    hint: try as the class of intel I am referring to.

    Now, if what I suggest is true then what would you do if faced with similar circumstance?
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2018
  10. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Or that she's innocent.
  11. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    I think I can see a book in someone's future.
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    hee heee...a book...perhaps..
    Comey's Higher Loyalty:
    "In his memoir, James Comey cites a “development still unknown to the American public to this day.” This mysterious development, he says, was central to his decision to intervene publicly in the Hillary Clinton email case."
    and goes on to say that it is likely to remain highly classified for decades to come...
  13. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Robert Mueller appears to be playing things out much like he might play poker.

    The search warrant for Cohen's files raises the pot a little. Who is bluffing here?
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Not sure what you mean... the Cohen investigation is a separate spin off case from the Mueller investigation.... isn't it?
    I am sure there are many spin off cases that are too minor to be reported about....
  15. Xelor Registered Senior Member

    1. Investigations do not have time limits beyond those imposed by statutes of limitations.
      How long did the Benghazi last? Over two years. And after those two years of investigation, encompassing 33 closed-door Congressional hearings held in congressional investigations and at least four public hearings, costing an estimated cost of $7M+, Republicans on the House Benghazi Committee released their 800-page report. And what was found? Nothing prosecutable. Even the FBI investigation into Hillary's emails didn't come up with anything prosecutable with regard to Hillary. How do we know that? Because the DOJ/FBI has the same information now that it did before, and it hasn't rescinded the decision not to prosecute. Neither has it reopened (as far as we know) the "emailgate" investigation.
    2. Criminal investigations generally aren't publicized.
      The only reason anyone knows the "Russia" investigation is going on is because Comey disclosed its existence as part of his testimony in a Congressional hearing on the matter of Russian meddling in the U.S. electoral process. But for that disclosure, the investigation could have gone on quietly until such time as prosecutors issued subpoena, public search warrants, arrest warrants and/or indictments.

      There's are several reasons investigations aren't generally disclosed:
      • Law enforcement officers and prosecutors don't want to show their hand.
      • Things that absolutely do militate for a criminal investigation do not necessarily or always rise to the level of being criminal. Indeed, the very point of an investigation is to determine whether they do.
      • Subjects don't want to self-impugn their reputations by announcing they are the subject or target of an investigation. Too, most subjects of investigations have better sense than to politicize their criminal cases and "try" it in the "court of public opinion," because to do that, they must discuss the matter, and discussing the matter is the one thing a subject should not do. (A subject's attorneys might do, but a subject should not.)
    3. Every investigation Congress conducts is political.
      For all the moral high ground Congress asserts when it launches investigations -- "the people deserve answers" -- Congress is a political, not law enforcement organization. Everything Congress and every other elected legislative body does is politically motivated. Sometimes it's the right thing do and sometimes it's not. Sometimes it produces something useful and sometimes it doesn't. But always is it political.
    4. Collusion isn't a crime; however some collusive behavior and intents are criminal and some are not. We already know Trump campaign team members colluded with Russians known to be in some way part of the Russian spy apparatus, be it in an official capacity or as a cut-out or conduit. We have two choices about whether the interactions transcend collusive and rise to conspiratorial:
      • We can believe that a good number of senior and/or closely-connected people in the Trump campaign suffer from amnesia or some other memory affliction (Indeed the profundity of the affliction appears proportionally correlated to one's closeness to Trump...Is memory loss contagious, I wonder? LOL), or
      • We can believe the key players on Trump's campaign, when expressly asked about or volunteering their interactions with Russians and other foreign individuals, failed to disclose one or more interactions they had because they were aware that some measure of untoward, criminal or not, activity was part and parcel to those interactions and/or their raison d'etre.

    It was agreed, that my endeavours should be directed to persons and characters supernatural, or at least romantic, yet so as to transfer from our inward nature a human interest and a semblance of truth sufficient to procure for these shadows of imagination that willing suspension of disbelief for the moment, which constitutes poetic faith.
    -- Taylor Coleridge, Biographia Literaria
    Quantum Quack likes this.

Share This Page