Flynn Charged

Vikingwoman wrote:

Where do you get off it's a political matter? Obstruction is a criminal offense. Bill Clinton lost his law license for lying under oath and Trump will also be indicted and tried if he doesn't plead guilty. The congress will have no choice but to impeach him.

I was speaking as to impeachment. I note Clinton wasn't charged criminally with obstruction nor perjury, but he was impeached for both.

As to criminal charges .... while I do personally believe Trump's intent in the Comey firing was "obstruction" if Mueller can't come up with any harder evidence than we've already heard about, I don't expect an obstruction case against Trump will be adjudged sufficient to pursue a criminal indictment. They could probably indict it, but they wouldn't want to because the outcome in a full blown trial would be pretty dicey. And Federal prosecutors generally don't like to indict dicey cases.

(btw ... you made some comment or crack previously about my not understanding what evidence is? Well, I'll tell ya, I don't pretend to be some kind of expert-lawyer, but having been responsible for Federally indicting/convicting probably a couple hundred individuals and a dozen or so corporate entities, not a few of them conspiracy cases .... I understand evidence very well, thank you very much. )

Vikingwoman wrote:

65 million people voted for Hillary Clinton. I'd say a lot of people like her. She has already said she won't rule out contesting it.

And a lot of them would have preferred to have voted for some other Democrat (or Republican other than Trump even in some cases.)   Hillary had no serious primary challengers though ... imo that was because the word was out that the party was going to ensure she was going to be the nominee no matter what.   Look at her only serious challenger, Bernie... an Independent who caucuses as a Democrat.  He had to join the Democrat Party just to be elgible run against her!!!   I bet a lot of Democrat voters would have preferred other primary choices over Hillary.   Even Joe Biden, the VP, wouldn't run against her ... and I think he would have been wildly popular among Dems.   Nah, the fix was in for Hillary.   And I think a lot of people (not all certainly) would have rather been voting for Biden or some other Dem.

Just as a lot of Republicans held their noses and voted for Trump, that didn't mean they liked him, just that they hated Hillary and/or the D party agenda that much.   Many of them would have much rather been voting for one of the other Republican primary candidates.)



(Personally, I decided I wasn't going to be responsible for either of those sh*t-shows... so I threw away my general election protest vote to Johnson/Weld.   Some of my Hillary & Trump loving friends told me they were a clown-show.   Didn't bother me though .... my response of course was that at least they were both decent human beings, unlike the alternatives!)

This will probably shock you then. You threw away your vote and because you did, and a lot of other people did too, Donald Trump is president.

I am also going to shock you again. I am a Democrat and I voted for Hillary Clinton because I liked her. I like Bill, and I like Hillary. I don't believe either of them murdered Vince Foster, I believe James Comey when he said she did not lie to the FBI in her interview with them (because I was not there and Comey was.) I know that the Whitewater investigations went on for years, yet the Clintons themselves never were convicted of any crime due to them. I know Bill Clinton has had sex with a lot of women that were not his wife. I also know that is Hillary Clinton's problem, and not mine.I very much suspect she doesn't care, except when it becomes public and embarrasses her. She's a strong woman whose life doesn't depend on her husband's actions. And I know none of Bill's sex was illegal since all the women were adults. And no, no one has ever proven he raped anyone either, so don't bother to drag that up.
I also know that the campaign against the Clintons by the right wingers in this country is probably the  longest lasting, most divisive and most fraudulent campaign in American history. And due to the rise of Fox news and the Koch Brothers, the most successful.

I'm not the only Democrat who liked Hillary. A lot of us women wanted a woman in the White House for a change. That meant something to us. What we got was a womanizing, pussy grabbing son of a bitch instead.
Because so many folks just couldn't push that button for Hillary. And because we have the damnable electoral college system which should have been changed a century ago.

And by the way, the Democratic party is not capable of telling voters in the primary who to vote for. They did prefer Clinton, I'm sure, but if enough people voted for Bernie, he'd have been the candidate. Yes, it's hard with the super delegate system, but an overwhelming choice of the primary voters can still get  someone nominated that the party doesn't want.

Back in 2004, when Howard Dean was running in the primaries, the party really didn't want him as their nominee. The DLC was supporting Wesley Clark, the Clinton's were supporting Clark, in fact, Clark was using Bill Clinton's campaign operatives and Clinton's plane to fly around the country in.  The party was ecstatic when the "people's choice, " did that " Dean scream" and the news media absolutely MURDERED him the next day. It really wasn't that big a deal but the media climbed all over it. Then Clark was ahead in the polls for awhile and the party was happy enough.
Then sneaky old Bob Dole egged Wes Clark into pointing out that he was a "general" and John Kerry was only a "lieutenant" during the Vietnam war, and Clark's  race was over at that moment. Only Kerry and Edwards were left and Kerry got the top spot. But he was NOT the favorite of the party that year. They knew he wasn't much of a speaker and  couldn't relate to normal voters, and that had been the problem with Al Gore 4 years before.They knew his anti-war statements after Vietnam might be a problem. Americans were high on Bush's war back then. But they were stuck with Kerry. Politics aren't as carved in stone as people think they are- if Hillary had had no support, she would not have gotten the nomination. And she won the popular vote, so saying people didn't like her is kind of unfair, at least I think so.

Even more so, saying people didn't like her is untrue. The people EG knows probably didn't like her but Hillary was immensely popular and still is. She is a personal hero of mine even though she stayed w/ Bill. I believe she stayed w/ him because she loves him but she is by far an exceedingly smart and strong woman. She has survived more shit thrown at her than monkey's in a zoo and is still standing. She's been lied about probably more than anyone on this earth. I hope to meet her before I die.

bigdog wrote:I wonder if you really think people with a progressive inclination are better off today than they would have been if Hillary had become president in January? I was actually thinking of going through Utah in May so I could see the LAST views of the national monuments there that Trump is getting rid of this week.
The Hillary hate of progressives is as responsible for the election of Donald Trump as the far right racists are. Those that voted for Jill Stein or the Bernie voters who didn't show up in November would have kept Trump out of the White House.
I totally disagree with your post.

When it's an apple, it's an apple. We had two logical choices in November. Bernie Sanders nor Jill Stein were among those two.But Donald Trump was.
Reality exists in spite of the fact that I'd like all the words in John Lennon's "Imagine" to be true.
That's why he called it Imagine.  The rest of us have to live in the real world where sometimes you have only two choices.
The Clintons aren't evil incarnate. Donald Trump is.

Agreed...I'm sick of the attacks by "progressives" against the Clintons.

EmeraldGhost wrote:

Vikingwoman wrote:

Where do you get off it's a political matter? Obstruction is a criminal offense. Bill Clinton lost his law license for lying under oath and Trump will also be indicted and tried if he doesn't plead guilty. The congress will have no choice but to impeach him.

I was speaking as to impeachment.   I note Clinton wasn't charged criminally with obstruction nor perjury, but he was impeached for both.

As to criminal charges .... while I do personally believe Trump's intent in the Comey firing was "obstruction" if Mueller can't come up with any harder evidence than we've already heard about, I don't expect an obstruction case against Trump will be adjudged sufficient to pursue a criminal indictment.  They could probably indict it, but they wouldn't want to because the outcome in a full blown trial would be pretty dicey.   And Federal prosecutors generally don't like to indict dicey cases.

(btw ... you made some comment or crack previously about my not understanding what evidence is?  Well, I'll tell ya, I don't pretend to be some kind of expert-lawyer, but having been responsible for Federally indicting/convicting probably a couple hundred individuals and a dozen or so corporate entities, not a few of them conspiracy cases .... I understand evidence very well, thank you very much.  )

Didn't seem like it when you said there was no evidence of collusion. Clinton was only convicted of perjury.

Then again... what "evidence of collusion"?

Saying there isn't enough "evidence of collusion" right now is ridiculous. We don't know if there's evidence of collusion yet, because the prosecutor isn't about to put on the front pages of our local newspaper.
I'll guarantee you, we don't know what Flynn has told the FBI or Mueller regarding the Russian interference in the election. Just because we don't know it doesn't mean it isn't already in the investigation records.
The talking heads are falling all over themselves guessing that Mueller is going for obstruction of justice as an only charge against Trump. I think Mueller is smart enough to know he has to convince a Republican congress of enough willful violations of law to get them to impeach.
I doubt we'll know anything by the end of this year, but I'll bet Trump will be gone by the end of next year.

BTW Pkr, your logo is out of date. Nearly no one actually thinks the Russian probe is fake news anymore.

bigdog wrote:This will probably shock you then. You threw away your vote and because you did, and a lot of other people did too, Donald Trump is president.  

I was never going to vote Hillary anyway.   But I couldn't stomach voiting Trump either.   At least I didn't stay home & sit it out.  While I don't buy into everything Libertarian, Gary Johnson's a good man and had a decent 8 year track record as New Mexico governor (imo), and although I don't think he had a snowballs chance of getting elected (esp after not getting in the debates) ....  yeah, I "threw my vote away."  But I sleep good at night.   And maybe it's a small step toward a credible 3rd party candidate getting in the debates some time in the future?

I have no illusions about the importance of my one little lonely thoughtful vote anyway.   I don't watch teevee, don't even have cable or satellite (although I do stream Amazon & Netflix), and that's where the battle for the vote is really fought in Presidential elections. Whoever plays best on cable teevee wins, that's just how it goes nowadays. 

btw ... you really think the Gary Johnson vote threw the election to Trump?  Ah C'mon! No way!  Get real.  She was a poor campaigner. She lost. Get over it already.  Face it ... you guys should nominated Joe Biden.  

Tell me ... which State did the Johnson/Weld vote swing to Trump?  

bigdog wrote:
I am also going to shock you again. I am a Democrat and I voted for Hillary Clinton because I liked her.

Doesn't shock me one bit.  I know people who like her ... some in my own family.  I also know people who don't like her ... but voted for her anyway, but none of them were inclined to vote for any Republican.

bigdog wrote:Saying there isn't enough "evidence of collusion" right now is ridiculous. We don't know if there's evidence of collusion yet, because the prosecutor isn't about to put on the front pages of our local newspaper.
I'll guarantee you, we don't know what Flynn has told the FBI or Mueller regarding the Russian interference in the election. Just because we don't know it doesn't mean it isn't already in the investigation records.
The talking heads are falling all over themselves guessing that Mueller is going for obstruction of justice as an only charge against Trump. I think Mueller is smart enough to know he has to convince a Republican congress of enough willful violations of law to get them to impeach.
I doubt we'll know anything by the end of this year, but I'll bet Trump will be gone by the end of next year.

BTW Pkr, your logo is out of date. Nearly no one actually thinks the Russian probe is fake news anymore.

I agree with most of that except the part about Trump being gone by the end of next year.   I wouldn't place any money on that bet.  

I would also disagree Mueller has in mind developing evidence to for the purpose of impeachment.  Mueller's not conducting an impeachment investigation. Let me repeat that a little louder for anyone who might be tone deaf on the subject: Mueller's not conducting an impeachment investigation.  That's for the Congress to do.  Mueller's job is to conduct an investigation of potential  criminal violations ... and let the chips fall where they may on that.    

Impeachment is a political matter, it's not the business of the Special Prosecutor.  I think Mueller's too much of a professional to mix up politics with his job.   And that's why he's the right man for the job.   And if the evidence he develops during his investigation of potential criminal violations leads the Congress to consider impeachment, so be it.  And if they don't .... so be that too.  He'll still have done his job.

bigdog wrote:

BTW Pkr, your logo is out of date. Nearly no one actually thinks the Russian probe is fake news anymore.

Their whole world is out of date

PkrBum wrote:Then again... what "evidence of collusion"?

Whether there was any direct collusion.  I don't know.  If there was will there be provable (as in court-of-law provable) evidence of it.   That's what Mr Mueller's supposed to be looking into.

But ... was there a quid pro quo going on between some people in the Trump campaign and the Russians?  Well, from everything I've read sure smells like it to me.   But quid pro quo's can be hard to prove when it comes to matters of criminality.   Especially in a politically charged situation as this was/is.

But here's another thing nobody's really talking about.  Computer hacking is illegal.  It's a very serious Federal felony.  If the FBI has evidence the Russians hacked the DNC's computers ... and anybody in the Trump campaign knew that they had and did not report it to some law enforcement authority, you have potential issues of misprison of felony going on there ... and possibly even conspiracy. Conspiracy charges, of course often carry the same sentence as having actually been the one who committed the underlying criminal act.    From what I've heard of some of Don Jr & Jared Kushners communications last summer, they should be very very worried about that, if nothing else. (OTOH ... Trump can always pardon them)

The DNC made that claim... but refused to hand over their computers to the FBI.

So that doesn't hold water imo.

I'd also like to know what evidence was presented to get the fisa warrants. The fake Russian dossier?

Then of course... who was unmasking and leaking the info gained to the media? There was some dirty shit going on.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/04/clinton-aides-went-unpunished-after-making-false-statements-to-anti-trump-fbi-supervisor/

PkrBum wrote:http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/04/clinton-aides-went-unpunished-after-making-false-statements-to-anti-trump-fbi-supervisor/

I've predicted for some time now Huma (Mata Hari) Abedin would flee the country right before or immediately following her indictment as a foreign intelligence operative, and return to her homeland of Saudi Arabia to a muslim hero's welcome and where extradition will be refused ... I s'pose time will tell if I'm right on that one or not.

bigdog wrote:This will probably shock you then. You threw away your vote and because you did, and a lot of other people did too, Donald Trump is president.

I am also going to shock you again. I am a Democrat and I voted for Hillary Clinton because I liked her. I like Bill, and I like Hillary. I don't believe either of them murdered Vince Foster, I believe James Comey when he said she did not lie to the FBI in her interview with them (because I was not there and Comey was.) I know that the Whitewater investigations went on for years, yet the Clintons themselves never were convicted of any crime due to them. I know Bill Clinton has had sex with a lot of women that were not his wife. I also know that is Hillary Clinton's problem, and not mine.I very much suspect she doesn't care, except when it becomes public and embarrasses her. She's a strong woman whose life doesn't depend on her husband's actions.  And I know none of Bill's sex  was illegal since all the women were adults. And no, no one has ever proven he raped anyone either, so don't bother to drag that up.
I also know that the campaign against the Clintons by the right wingers in this country is probably the  longest lasting, most divisive and most fraudulent campaign in American history. And due to the rise of Fox news and the Koch Brothers, the most successful.

I'm not the only Democrat who liked Hillary. A lot of us women wanted a woman in the White House for a change. That meant something to us. What we got was a womanizing, pussy grabbing son of a bitch instead.
Because so many folks just couldn't push that button for Hillary. And because we have the damnable electoral college system which should have been changed a century ago.

How do you know about Bill Clinton's sex life? Isn't it because so many lies were told that the truth got lost in the shuffle?

EmeraldGhost wrote:In my previous life as a Federal Agent I charged and convicted people of making false statements (18 USC 1001) quite a few times.    My experience has been that the sentencing for that particular conviction can vary widely depending on

A.  the seriousness of the matter they lied about (i.e. some low-level customs or immigration violation, etc ... VS something like human-trafficking, terrorism related etc) and
B.  prior criminal history.  

I've seen everything from 12 months probation up to five years imprisonment imposed just for the 1001 charge.  (probation was usually a plea-deal for some more serious, but still low level charge .... or for cooperation as a material witness or actually becoming an active informant in some other matter and we dropped more serious charges.   It was exceedingly rare the USAO would accept a 1001 charge to present for indictment without some more serious underlying felony ... or in the interest of somehow furthering some other more serious investigation.)

You were federal agent w/ what agency?

EmeraldGhost wrote:

PkrBum wrote:http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/04/clinton-aides-went-unpunished-after-making-false-statements-to-anti-trump-fbi-supervisor/

I've predicted for some time now Huma (Mata Hari) Abedin would flee the country right before or immediately following her indictment as a foreign intelligence operative, and return to her homeland of Saudi Arabia to a muslim hero's welcome and where extradition will be refused ... I s'pose time will tell if I'm right on that one or not.

Huma Abedin is Indian not Saudi Arabian. She was raised there because her parents were educators teaching there. Just because she is Muslim doesn't make her a spy.

EmeraldGhost wrote:

bigdog wrote:Saying there isn't enough "evidence of collusion" right now is ridiculous. We don't know if there's evidence of collusion yet, because the prosecutor isn't about to put on the front pages of our local newspaper.
I'll guarantee you, we don't know what Flynn has told the FBI or Mueller regarding the Russian interference in the election. Just because we don't know it doesn't mean it isn't already in the investigation records.
The talking heads are falling all over themselves guessing that Mueller is going for obstruction of justice as an only charge against Trump. I think Mueller is smart enough to know he has to convince a Republican congress of enough willful violations of law to get them to impeach.
I doubt we'll know anything by the end of this year, but I'll bet Trump will be gone by the end of next year.

BTW Pkr, your logo is out of date. Nearly no one actually thinks the Russian probe is fake news anymore.

I agree with most of that except the part about Trump being gone by the end of next year.   I wouldn't place any money on that bet.  

I would also disagree Mueller has in mind developing evidence to for the purpose of impeachment.  Mueller's not conducting an impeachment investigation.  Let me repeat that a little louder for anyone who might be tone deaf on the subject:  Mueller's not conducting an impeachment investigation.   That's for the Congress to do.  Mueller's job is to conduct an investigation of potential  criminal violations ... and let the chips fall where they may on that.    

Impeachment is a political matter, it's not the business of the Special Prosecutor.  I think Mueller's too much of a professional to mix up politics with his job.   And that's why he's the right man for the job.   And if the evidence he develops during his investigation of potential criminal violations leads the Congress to consider impeachment, so be it.  And if they don't .... so be that too.  He'll still have done his job.

Mueller is conducting an investigation of crimes which for the President the only avenue of prosecution is impeachment. He cannot be charged as a sitting President so he is in effect conducting an impeachment investigation.

Vikingwoman wrote:

You were federal agent w/ what agency?

First immigration, then customs ... and finally ICE in the latter portion of my career when the criminal investigative divisions of those two agencies were combined.  The division I was in has since been rebranded as HSI. Several long stints on various interagency task forces during the course of my career also ... so I've been involved in a fairly wide variety of Federal criminal investigations, some of it in management.

Retired 8 years now.  I retired at the earliest opportunity in order to become the hippie I always really wanted to be!  

Vikingwoman wrote:

Mueller is conducting an investigation of crimes which for the President the only avenue of prosecution is impeachment. He cannot be charged as a sitting President so he is in effect conducting an impeachment investigation.

You are assuming the President has committed some crime.  That has not yet been established ... and it may not be.  Other persons have been charged with crimes pursuant to Mueller's investigation, and there may or may not be more to come.  And should Mueller come up with evidence of some crime(s) committed by the President ... that may or may-not be indictable ... the Congress is under no obligation to open impeachment proceedings.

So ... no.  Mueller is not conducting an "impeachment investigation", he's conducting a criminal investigation.  And not necessarily, particularly, of Donald Trump so far as we know at this point.   Obtaining evidence for prospective impeachment is not officially part of Mueller's mandate.

Impeachment is an entirely separate and political matter to be decided by the Congress .... assuming evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors" results from either Mueller's investigation, the investigations currently being conducted by various Congressional committees, or from other sources.   It will not be for Mueller to recommend or dis-recommend (is that a word?) impeachment to the Congress.

I would not be at all surprised if whatever crimes Mueller comes up with evidence of regarding the Trump campaign and "collusion" with the Russians ... Trump himself will be shielded by a veil of plausible deniability.

Vikingwoman wrote:

Mueller is conducting an investigation of crimes which for the President the only avenue of prosecution is impeachment. He cannot be charged as a sitting President so he is in effect conducting an impeachment investigation.

I admit to not being an absolute expert on this, but it's my understanding that's a "separation of powers" legal argument that's never really been tested.  It's certainly not in the Constitution anywhere.

Personally, I think if sitting Congressmen and Senators can be charged with a crime (and they can be) ... so can the President.

But, yeah ... I don't think that particular argument that will be tested anytime soon ... even in the case of Trump, if there be a case.  I'm just sayin'

EmeraldGhost wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Then again... what "evidence of collusion"?

Whether there was any direct collusion.  I don't know.  If there was will there be provable (as in court-of-law provable) evidence of it.   That's what Mr Mueller's supposed to be looking into.

But ... was there a quid pro quo going on between some people in the Trump campaign and the Russians?  Well, from everything I've read sure smells like it to me.   But quid pro quo's can be hard to prove when it comes to matters of criminality.   Especially in a politically charged situation as this was/is.

But here's another thing nobody's really talking about.  Computer hacking is illegal.  It's a very serious Federal felony.  If the FBI has evidence the Russians hacked the DNC's computers ... and anybody in the Trump campaign knew that they had and did not report it to some law enforcement authority, you have potential issues of misprison of felony going on there ... and possibly even conspiracy. Conspiracy charges, of course often carry the same sentence as having actually been the one who committed the underlying criminal act.    From what I've heard of some of Don Jr & Jared Kushners communications last summer, they should be very very worried about that, if nothing else.  (OTOH ... Trump can always pardon them)

Trump can't pardon state crimes, which, of course, is why he tried to limit the scope of the investigation. How did Giuliani know so much about what was going to happen? BTW, where the hell is he?

You were right about collusion...there is no such legal animal...but conspiracy is a horse of a different color. Trump looks guilty because of his WH meeting with the Russians right after he fired Comey...and because he excluded the US press.

EmeraldGhost wrote:

Vikingwoman wrote:

Mueller is conducting an investigation of crimes which for the President the only avenue of prosecution is impeachment. He cannot be charged as a sitting President so he is in effect conducting an impeachment investigation.

You are assuming the President has committed some crime.  That has not yet been established ... and it may not be.  Other persons have been charged with crimes pursuant to Mueller's investigation, and there may or may not be more to come.  And should Mueller come up with evidence of some crime(s) committed by the President ... that may or may-not be indictable ... the Congress is under no obligation to open impeachment proceedings.

So ... no.  Mueller is not conducting an "impeachment investigation", he's conducting a criminal investigation.  And not necessarily, particularly, of Donald Trump so far as we know at this point.   Obtaining evidence for prospective impeachment is not officially part of Mueller's mandate.

Impeachment is an entirely separate and political matter to be decided by the Congress .... assuming evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors" results from either Mueller's investigation, the investigations currently being conducted by various Congressional committees, or from other sources.   It will not be for Mueller to recommend or dis-recommend (is that a word?) impeachment to the Congress.

I would not be at all surprised if whatever crimes Mueller comes up with evidence of regarding the Trump campaign and "collusion" with the Russians ... Trump himself will be shielded by a veil of plausible deniability.

I know what impeachment is and as I said it is the only avenue for the President. The President is being investigated for obstruction of justice. Don't kid yourself. Mueller is looking for irrefutable evidence Trump colluded w/ Russia also. Mueller doesn't have to recommend impeachment. It will be automatic by the Democrats. Mueller already has Flynn and I have no doubt Flynn has implicated the President but it's not enough now. He needs more corroboration and will get it when people are faced w/ them or him. It's just a matter of time.