• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bill Barr reveals Russia probe review to focus on Trump dossier briefing, leaking

FreedomFromAll said:
You are wrong. Sorry.

18 U.S. Code SS 2381 - Treason | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

"18 U.S. Code § 2381. Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)"
Click to expand...

Now they will tell you that Russia is not our enemy. They are still deluding and defiling themselves on the altar of Trump.
 
iguanaman said:
Now they will tell you that Russia is not our enemy. They are still deluding and defiling themselves on the altar of Trump.
Click to expand...

They can make that ignorant argument, but reality has the last word always.

Russia Fact Sheet - United States Department of State

"TRANSATLANTIC UNITY: We remain steadfast in our partnership with Ukraine, the European Union and other like-minded partners in our unified opposition to Russia’s range of malign behavior."
 
Atomic Kid said:
Actually Comey didn't give him anything. Comey had with him a two page summary of the dossier which he used for his own reference in the meeting and he took it with him when he left. Remember that at the time of this meeting Trump is not yet President. He's the President-elect. The dossier at this point is also a classified document. So while he can give him an oral briefing that summarizes the document he can't let him view it directly or let him have a copy of the document itself because he is still not yet the President. Comey felt it was important that he broach the subject of the salacious portion of dossier privately because of the highly personal nature of the allegation so as not to embarrass him in front of his staff and give him a heads up about it before it becomes public. And believe me Comey dreaded having to do it even though that he knew it had to be done. The feeling was that the President-elect deserves to know this before he gets publicly ambushed by it. Because as he explained to the President-elect they had information that at least a couple of news media outlets had obtained copies of it and were waiting for a news hook event to release it and it has also been circulating among certain offices on the Hill. So it's eventual public release was all but imminent.
Click to expand...

We know from the Mueller report that after he conducted that interview, he immediately leaked some of the content and the tenor of that meeting. The meeting was used by Comey to get the information out to the press before briefing the President elect on the full information contained in the dossier. Dreaded having to do it? You can't honestly believe that.

Finally, the FBI knew as early as August of 2016 that Steele was leaking because that was the cause for his firing at that time. Waiting until January to brief the President elect was to allow Comey more cover to leak, not because of some reluctance narrative you are carping about.

Your spin flies in the face of multiple known news stories that are confirmed facts, perhaps you would like to revise it?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
You are wrong. Sorry.

18 U.S. Code SS 2381 - Treason | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

"18 U.S. Code § 2381. Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)"
Click to expand...

There’s that pesky “war” thing again. Kinda like “infringed.”


Has the Constitution been amended? Article III, section 3.........
 
Helix said:
i mean, who hasn't tried to set up a secret back channel with Putin? :lol:
Click to expand...

Maybe not Putin himself, but it's pretty common to have a 'secret' back channel to foreign leaders. As far back as Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis and as recent as Obama with the Iran nuclear deal.
 
MovingPictures said:
Interesting that he said nothing about the long stated conservative claim, that the FBI lied to the FISA court in order to get a warrant to allegedly spy on Trump's campaign, because they wanted to use investigative measures to sabotage Trump's campaign and presidency.

I guess he knows the IG report that conservatives have been saying would prove their deep state claims, is in fact going to undermine that narrative, and so he's coming up with a new one.
Click to expand...

The time between election and inauguration was unique. During the last months of Obama's term, the heads of three different intelligence agencies where personally looking into Trump. This was very unusual, since this is usually done by field agents, who then report to this leadership.

This unorthodox arrangement, use the top guys, suggests these leaders where under orders, from their bosses in the executive branch. They asked or ordered to handle this personally. This traces back to at least AG Loretta Lynch, and maybe even to Obama.

When Comey was asked why he did not tell the president everything, during their meeting, such as the fake Dossier was bought by Hillary, Comey said, that was not his mission. Comey, indirectly said, that he, as head of the FBI, was given orders, by someone above his pay grade. Barr is smart and is not looking for scape goats, but is looking to get to the root of the problem.
 
iguanaman said:
I hope that any Presidential campaign that has over 200 contacts with Russian operatives is investigated as much as needed to find out what our enemy was up to. I hope you do too.
Click to expand...

And yet the most significant and consequential Russian contact of them all, Mr. Steele's contract with anonymous Russian sources, is treated as the Gospel.
 
Presently, the Trump Administration has three active investigations into one or several aspects of the so-called Russia investigation.

I am reminded of the several prior investigations whereof Republicans were the progenitors and executors and that, upon their completion, yielded not one affirmative assertion that comported with criminal or civil wrongdoing. Indeed, coming out of those hearings were
  • 7 or 8 Congressional Benghazi hearings

    29906170001_5004242046001_5004213405001-vs.jpg


    And what did the GOP-controlled Congress do/yield? GOP members of the Committee summarily:
    • Criticizing the military, CIA and administration officials for their response as the attacks unfolded and their subsequent explanations to the American people.
      • Did anyone get charged with dereliction of duty or something else chargeable? No.
      • Did the GOP members avail their majority to at least censure anyone for something ? No.
        • They certainly could have. E.g., AG Garland was censured for failing to provide documents to Congress.
    • Accusing of government of incompetence at various levels, including:
      • Failing to deploy needed military assets,
      • Submitting errant CIA intelligence reports
      • Making mistakes amidst a highly dynamic and violent situation.
GOP Congress members also submitted a referral to the FBI wherein they demanded a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton; however, the GOP-directed FBI did not charge Clinton with anything, and she, unlike Donald Trump, did not and does not have an OLC opinion expressly proscribing her indictment.​

The above described events lead me to wonder whether, as before, all that'll come out of the three investigations will be but a whole lot of hoopla, with no substantive indictments that result in convictions (guilty pleas).
 
holbritter said:
Maybe not Putin himself, but it's pretty common to have a 'secret' back channel to foreign leaders. As far back as Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis and as recent as Obama with the Iran nuclear deal.
Click to expand...

#buuuuuuuuuuuutObamasomehow!!!

lol. :lol:
 
iguanaman said:
Not according to Mueller and the fact that they all lied about the contacts makes it doubly suspicious. Any American would know to contact the FBI if Russian operatives approach them during a Presidential campaign. Not only did Trump, his family, and his minions lie about theses contacts he covered for the Russians he knew were doing the meddling by saying "it could be anybody" thru-out the entire campaign and all the while he was negotiating a secret deal with Putin that he thought would net him $100's of millions. Sorry sweetheart this is not normal for any Presidential candidate and most of us would call it treason.
Click to expand...

And yet no conspiracy charge....go figure sweetheart.

This was swamp trying to dirty up Trump campaign enough to convince GOP lawmakers to impeach. This was a “watergate plumbers” political data collection spying ring that got caught pants down because Hillary lost.

Created silly “Russian Collusion” because the correct word sounded worse “conspiracy” in media and time ran out when Barr came in and said wrap it up Mueller.

Brennan is ****ting his pants because he’s exposed...Looks silly for a former head of CIA to be groveling about evidence and doing things the correct way on TV.

Barr’s been asking questions which are leading to more questions (from interview) not a good sign.

The rats have all left the ship or been thrown off so collecting answers takes a little more time.

Brennan Comey McCabe Stuck the cabal

question is did Obama authorize it by way of chain of command and is there evidence of that authorization.

My guess Yes and No.
 
Xelor said:
Presently, the Trump Administration has three active investigations into one or several aspects of the so-called Russia investigation.

I am reminded of the several prior investigations whereof Republicans were the progenitors and executors and that, upon their completion, yielded not one affirmative assertion that comported with criminal or civil wrongdoing. Indeed, coming out of those hearings were
  • 7 or 8 Congressional Benghazi hearings

    29906170001_5004242046001_5004213405001-vs.jpg


    And what did the GOP-controlled Congress do/yield? GOP members of the Committee summarily:
    • Criticizing the military, CIA and administration officials for their response as the attacks unfolded and their subsequent explanations to the American people.
      • Did anyone get charged with dereliction of duty or something else chargeable? No.
      • Did the GOP members avail their majority to at least censure anyone for something ? No.
        • They certainly could have. E.g., AG Garland was censured for failing to provide documents to Congress.
    • Accusing of government of incompetence at various levels, including:
      • Failing to deploy needed military assets,
      • Submitting errant CIA intelligence reports
      • Making mistakes amidst a highly dynamic and violent situation.
GOP Congress members also submitted a referral to the FBI wherein they demanded a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton; however, the GOP-directed FBI did not charge Clinton with anything, and she, unlike Donald Trump, did not and does not have an OLC opinion expressly proscribing her indictment.​

The above described events lead me to wonder whether, as before, all that'll come out of the three investigations will be but a whole lot of hoopla, with no substantive indictments that result in convictions (guilty pleas).
Click to expand...

Did any of those investigations involve FISA warrants during a political campaign to “investigate” political opponents “Russian connections” which eventually turned up no conspiracy?

those investigations involved questions about procedures and policies....not prosecutors judges FISA spying stuff as I recall.
 
Rogue Valley said:
It all started when an abnormal number on the Trump campaign staff were meeting secretly with Russians.
Click to expand...
What is the normal number or people to secretly meet with Russians?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Atomic Kid said:
True they gave him a full briefing about the Russian interference operation and were absolutely stunned afterwards when Trump, nor anyone else on his team there, did not ask them a single question about the Russian operation. Not even one. All the Trump people did was to gather together off to the side of the intelligence briefing team to discuss amongst themselves how they were going spin it politically. Almost as if the intelligence people weren't even in the room there with them. They were flabbergasted. The only question Trump asked of any them was about alleged golden shower tape to Comey after Comey had briefed him aside privately about the dossier. And that was it. Other than that they didn't seem to care anything about or any curiosity as to what our intelligence people knew about the nut and bolts of the Russian operation, what the Russian objectives or plans were, or what measures were being taken now, or what measures could be taken in the future to stop them from them from doing it again. All things that make you go hmmmm..
Click to expand...
Link?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
iguanaman said:
In Russia maybe....:lamo ZERO to 10 is the "average" number, Trump and his people had over 200 documented contacts with Russians and their operatives.
Click to expand...

Many American businesses have deals with Russia. It's nothing unusual. Chances are , if you own a large company, you are going to have contacts with Russians. That's an ace card career politicians can use on people that actually contribute to the US economy by taking risks in business and providing jobs for millions of citizens. It's easy to sit back and throw daggers at these businessmen, while they use their political office to get wealthy doing speaking engagements, like the Clintons do. I wonder how many Russian "operatives" Bill Clinton consorted with while making half a million giving a speech in Russia? Clinton left office in 2001. It's interesting that Slick Willies Russia speech was given in 2010, after his wife became Secretary of State and the Uranium 1 deal was inked. As a matter of fact, he made 13 speeches where he was paid $500,000 or more. 11 of them was between 2009 and 2013. HRC stepped down from SOS in 2013. But I digress. There are 9 Starbucks in Russia. Howard Schultze is running for POTUS. Maybe he's a Russian agent. What about Apple? Microsoft? Or Boeing? Or Johnson and Johnson? Or Ford? McDonalds is especially "problematic". (MSM loves that word) With 500 McDonalds in Russia, they have HAD to be in contact with at least 500 Russians. There are probably thousands of Russians working in a McDonalds store. With that many Russians taking money from McDonalds, somethings fishy. Earned wages?? Yeah.....right. With that many Russian contacts, they SURELY should be investigated.:lamo
 
mrdeltoid said:
Many American businesses have deals with Russia. It's nothing unusual. Chances are , if you own a large company, you are going to have contacts with Russians. That's an ace card career politicians can use on people that actually contribute to the US economy by taking risks in business and providing jobs for millions of citizens. It's easy to sit back and throw daggers at these businessmen, while they use their political office to get wealthy doing speaking engagements, like the Clintons do. I wonder how many Russian "operatives" Bill Clinton consorted with while making half a million giving a speech in Russia? Clinton left office in 2001. It's interesting that Slick Willies Russia speech was given in 2010, after his wife became Secretary of State and the Uranium 1 deal was inked. As a matter of fact, he made 13 speeches where he was paid $500,000 or more. 11 of them was between 2009 and 2013. HRC stepped down from SOS in 2013. But I digress. There are 9 Starbucks in Russia. Howard Schultze is running for POTUS. Maybe he's a Russian agent. What about Apple? Microsoft? Or Boeing? Or Johnson and Johnson? Or Ford? McDonalds is especially "problematic". (MSM loves that word) With 500 McDonalds in Russia, they have HAD to be in contact with at least 500 Russians. There are probably thousands of Russians working in a McDonalds store. With that many Russians taking money from McDonalds, somethings fishy. Earned wages?? Yeah.....right. With that many Russian contacts, they SURELY should be investigated.:lamo
Click to expand...

Trump was trying to do business with Russia during the campaign. He lied about it and hid it. This is something they could hold over him. This is unacceptable. The question remains, do they still hold anything over him, and what other countries hold information over him?

Based on this alone, he should be impeached if only because he reuses to cooperate and continues to obstruct justice.
 
I'm wondering why its okay for Trump to have the Justice Dept., with no evidence of wrongdoing, investigate his political opponents now, but it wasn't okay for the Obama Administration to investigate his political opponent with evidence of wrongdoing.
 
j brown's body said:
I'm wondering why its okay for Trump to have the Justice Dept., with no evidence of wrongdoing, investigate his political opponents now, but it wasn't okay for the Obama Administration to investigate his political opponent with evidence of wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

But what was the evidence of wrongdoing of Mr. Trump? We hear the name 'Carter Page' bandied around. But if he is the concern, why not just let the campaign know of that concern?
 
j brown's body said:
I'm wondering why its okay for Trump to have the Justice Dept., with no evidence of wrongdoing, investigate his political opponents now, but it wasn't okay for the Obama Administration to investigate his political opponent with evidence of wrongdoing.
Click to expand...
Which political opponents is he investigating without evidence?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
j brown's body said:
I'm wondering why its okay for Trump to have the Justice Dept., with no evidence of wrongdoing, investigate his political opponents now, but it wasn't okay for the Obama Administration to investigate his political opponent with evidence of wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

Getting unverified opposition research, from Russian agents, paid for by the opposite campaign, then leaking it to the press, and claiming that what they leaked is corroboration, isn't considered legitimate "evidence of wrongdoing". As a matter of fact, it is evidence of abuse of power by members of the Obama administration. Like it or not, it's being investigated, and we will soon know what really happened. I'll use the same talking point the left used for 2 and a half years; why are they so upset if they have nothing to hide?
 
Rexedgar said:
There’s that pesky “war” thing again. Kinda like “infringed.”


Has the Constitution been amended? Article III, section 3.........
Click to expand...

Dude this is silly. DO you not know what the word or means ffs? It does not say and it says or and is actually legal talk and has a huge legal meaning.

"18 U.S. Code § 2381. Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
 
Carleen said:
So Trump thinks there was an attempt to over throw the government. Really?
Click to expand...
What do you mean was? Ongoing is a better term.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom