Michael Cohen pleads guilty to lying to Congress about Trump real estate project in Russia

[Atomic Kid]

The IG report came AFTER the incident occurs. What my concern is AT the time it occurred it seems that proper actions at that time.

Its easy to do a 20/20 hindsight report after the fact. ALSO is it STILL not under investigation? This was their report based on Strozk and Page and the concerned BIAS in the FBI.... but if I am NOT mistaken the actual handling is currently STILL under investigation by the IG and the oversight committee is still pulling Lynch and Comey to testify?

ITS NOT closed just because of the IG report release this pass summer?

MY Apologies my fixation is NOT to see HRC in Jail at this point....honestly I dont care about her anymore.... ITS THE principles I am concerned about.

1) HRC and those related GOT off free....
2) Sitting president is accused of Collusion and I have NOT seen a factual crime or predicate of a crime to indicate the accusation against him
3) Kavanaugh was accused of a Crime 30+ years ago, with no corroborated evidence, 2 other women with scathing and damaging info, have not been able to corroborate their story, one of which change it completely in which her's was the MOST egregious.


Criminals SHOULD go to jail, BE it Trump and his associates... If crimes were committed. I dont care if they are the person I voted for or NOT.


BUT if HRC gets off (AGAIN principle) IS my concern that another Democrat like here, actually get appointed , commits another crime (in which she did) And gets off. THATS not how it works. AGAIN REGARDLESS who it is.... is my point....

I just want EQUAL justice. BE it if BOTH Trump and HRC go to Jail. Does that make sense?

Seems to me you haven't read a single word of that section of the report. And Kavanaugh's problems don't have a thing with this at all except for the fact that Trump chose him because of his expansive views on presidential powers as there were better and more qualified people on the that list ahead of him. It would appear to me that your bias here is winning out over 'principle' and of course any "review" of a decision would have come after the fact. But there is plenty of documentation provided for each step along the way for them to look at to see if these were made in keeping with the standard practices of the DOJ and keeping with the law. That's why it took awhile to complete it. But it is also what made very thorough.

III. Analysis
We analyzed the Department’s decision to decline to prosecute former
Secretary Clinton or anyone else according to the same analytical standard that we
applied to other decisions made during the investigation. We sought to determine
whether the declination decision was based on improper considerations, including
political bias. We both looked for direct evidence of improper considerations and
analyzed the justifications offered for the decision to determine whether they were a pretext for improper, but unstated, considerations. We did not substitute the
OIG’s judgment for the judgments made by the Department.
We found that the prosecutors’ decision was based on their assessment of
the facts, the law, and past Department practice in cases involving these statutes.
We did not identify evidence of bias or improper considerations.

That appears on page 260-261 0f the report and from there in goes into a very detailed explanation of the findings of each charge that Ms Clinton was being investigated for why they did not rise up to the standard of evidence needed to warrant criminal charges for a prosecutable case. This is all past. We have much bigger problems now.

 

[Exactice]

It's an investigation. That's just how it works. You can't expect end results of an investigation in the middle of the investigation. I know repubs like to keep bleating... "they are all process crimes". That's because the process is the investigation that is ongoing and people are trying to thwart the process. That inandof itself looks extremely bad which is where a lot of the speculation comes from.

Just don't expect the end results before the end. It's kind of silly to.

Fair enough! I cant disagree with you..... I guess to be fair I have been watching more CNN lately... just to get a better understanding. YET these guys come up with conclusion SO FAST well before Mueller has released ANYTHING.

I mean when Cohen flipped. supposedly it was the end.... Then it was cohen has recordings.... that was the end.... Then it was Cohen with the NDA that it was campaign finance violation....

Now its this Trump Tower that honestly I knew WELL into the campaign it was NOTHING new?


So I 100% agree.. lets make the decisions when the report comes out.

NOT have the FBI Director due an exoneration letter 2 months before the HRC interview.

Then the investigation is complete. the FBI director states there WAS classified material on the server and not a single charges or prosecution was made?


ITS just really really weird and almost disheartening. Thats all!

 

[Exactice]

.......

Yes Obstruction is obstruction! I get it my debate is this

Period if he is GUILTY of obstruction so be it. HE is an IDIOT for doing something that would obstruction an investigation IF found guilty. I WILL NOT defend his actions if they are warranted by law.

What I am trying to argue is the concern that. A seemingly false accusation of Collusion, DROVE the POTUS to commit an act of obstruction. If in fact there is NOT collusion, plot or ploy. Then the basis of the initiate of the special council is basically nil right? I mean if there was no collusion he did not collude he could NOT obstruct an investigation. Do we see how we played the domino one on top of the other. JUST seems "swampy"?

No one told me they should have been indicted. I know through my JAG briefings if I took home classified material or transmitted it over a non secured network I could face JAIL TIME. I had to sign a couple of docs infront of a JAG officer when I had access to classified documents. You are telling me HRC Never once in here tenure in politics. signed a classified document disclosure?


Comey can make all the buffoon comments.... But the FBI does NOT come to conclusions.
AG Lynch should NOT have agree as the FBI makes NO conclusion. Lynch was supposed to take the facts from the FBI make the case. Charge Clinton and let Clinton's Defense find her NOT guilty. HELL Lynch could have screwed up the prosecution on purpose so let HRC go free... but the process would have been done. HRC is Neither guilty nor innocent because there never was an abdication to begin with. (This is my concern, due process)

The IG follow up again was to investigate "BIAS" The actual handling is STILL being investigated currently if I am not mistaken? Oversight comittees are still trying to interview Comey and Lynch. the IG and OIG are still doing the "midyear" investigation as we speak.

Stop characterizing? Not sure what you mean. I am all for the Special council this is due process. If the president is innocent he will be exonorated. if he is guilt he will be charged. I am NOT defending Trump if he is guilty I am defending the due process.


I do understand that the special council was appointed by Rosentien, NOT comey. I do understand that Comey was fired after he leaked his memo to his lawyer friend in hope to INITIATE the Special council.

The legalities will likely reach SCOTUS to see if Trumps executive power "trumps" his mouth that he wanted to relieve the pressure. Trump has executive privilege to fire Comey without Cause. So guilty or not will need to be reached by a judge. NOT public opinion. IS it in Trumps executive power to fire Comey. COMEY DID NOT appoint the special council Rosentein did.

The Special Council is NOT improper in itself. I agree with it. BUT the means in which is was initiated is questionable. thats my opinion ONLY.

Yes I will say it with you, They agreed to cooperator. Thats totally fine.

You stated that you investigate a crime. correct? I think we are talking about apples and oranges and I will take the blame as I am sure I am ALL over the place sorry about that. But let me try this.


ACTUAL Crime 1 - Russians interfered in our 2016 elections. Russia intended to sow discord and interfere with our democratic process, this has been known bout 17 intellegence agencies reported on and 13+ Russians indicated.


Accusation Crime 2 - Trump/Campaign. Colluded with Russia to commit the above crime 1. There was no Predicate currently (opinion) meaning there was nothing that indicated a plot to steal emails, release emails, hack voting booths. Sanction pay to play. What predicate initiated this Crime 2?

Actual Crime 3,4,5 - Are factual Crimes. of Lying, Financial Crimes etc. Unrelated to Crime 1 and accusation Crime 2?


Sorry I know this is all over the place. Again I am just trying to do some "discovery" What initiated the FACTS on "Accusation Crime 2"??? As I do not see anything that would connect TRUMP to Russians attempt to disrupt our 2016 elections. these are 2 separate things?

 

[trouble13]

It's an investigation. That's just how it works. You can't expect end results of an investigation in the middle of the investigation. I know repubs like to keep bleating... "they are all process crimes". That's because the process is the investigation that is ongoing and people are trying to thwart the process. That inandof itself looks extremely bad which is where a lot of the speculation comes from.

Just don't expect the end results before the end. It's kind of silly to.

You did not answer his question.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Atomic Kid]

Totally Fair.....

Now just an opinion or could it be.... that there is NO Americans that willfully cooperated as well?

I mean presumption of innocence. I want to believe AMERICANs would NOT betray their country.... thats just me.... But things to seem to align to indicate a ploy or plot? I know people hate TRUMP, HATE away... But to implicate that we are willing to give up American to Russia like that? Seems grossly over played??


So YES we shall see..... I WANT justice.... I do... If Trump goes to Jail so be it...... But it has to be fair justice... period......

You mean unwittingly cooperated? Yeah, that's always possible. It also just as possible that there were those who knew that what was going on and that it was wrong but went through with it anyway. People commit betrayal for all kinds of reasons. Personal gain, enrichment. retribution for wrongs they perceived were committed against them, ideological differences, etc. A person such as Trump would be a would be a prime target for the Russians.

 

[Athanasius68]

Not True. Rick Gates has been charged with conspiracy and Manafort's long time business associate Konstantin Kilimnik has been charged with obstruction and witness tampering, Richard Pinedo identity theft, 12 Russian GRU officers of Russia’s military intelligence service were charged with crimes related to the hacking and leaking of leading Democrats’ emails in 2016, 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. Mueller's last speaking indictment indicated that there will likely be further indictments of US nationals forthcoming.

We have Russians indicted for hacking, and Americans indicted for perjury. But we dont have anyone indicted indicted for conspiracy working together, which is a predicate for a claim of collusion.

 

[Athanasius68]

LOL! That's fantasy! The FBI agents who interviewed Flynn said that they didn't observe any physical indications that indicated to them that Flynn knew that he was lying to them. Such as changes in posture, tone, inflection and eye contact. But they knew that his answers were inconsistent with what their understanding of his conversations with the Russian Ambassador were.

Ok-- and they left it alone. Mueller is the one who pushed.

 

[Athanasius68]

It just one more example of a long ongoing pattern of obfuscation and denial of the nature of the contacts between key members of Trump campaign and Russian officials and actors. While an incoming administration may not be under any obligation to heed the advice of the previous administration. But what it certainly would behoove them heed the warnings of the outgoing Commander in Chief about the "profound concerns" of the fitness of the President-Elect's candidate for a highly sensitive national security position because Obama certainly was in a position to know the reasons why he would have such misgivings about Mr Flynn. Who knows? Maybe if Trump had heeded President Obama's advice perhaps the events that led to Comey's firing wouldn't have happened and there wouldn't have been a special counsel appointed.

Sure-- maybe Trump should have heeded Obama's advice. But as we both agree, the FBI didnt have a problem with Flynn's statement. Mueller did, and of course Flynn is testifying to perjury and also of course Mueller continues not to have anything with respects to collusion.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Yes Obstruction is obstruction! I get it my debate is this

Period if he is GUILTY of obstruction so be it. HE is an IDIOT for doing something that would obstruction an investigation IF found guilty. I WILL NOT defend his actions if they are warranted by law.

What I am trying to argue is the concern that. A seemingly false accusation of Collusion, DROVE the POTUS to commit an act of obstruction. If in fact there is NOT collusion, plot or ploy. Then the basis of the initiate of the special council is basically nil right? I mean if there was no collusion he did not collude he could NOT obstruct an investigation. Do we see how we played the domino one on top of the other. JUST seems "swampy"?

What??? That's not how it works. The eventual outcome of an investigation is immaterial as whether or not someone broke the law by unduly trying to obstruct , interfere with, or otherwise impede an investigation from reaching it conclusions. The attempt to do so, no matter the motive, is a crime in itself and while it would indeed would be unfortunate that he did those things all for naught it doesn't change the fact that he will still have committed a crime.

 

[Atomic Kid]

We have Russians indicted for hacking, and Americans indicted for perjury. But we dont have anyone indicted indicted for conspiracy working together, which is a predicate for a claim of collusion.

Not yet.

 

[Athanasius68]

Of course he wouldn't name any Americans yet if he intends to do so. It only makes sense that he would keep that for the final stages of his investigation as that would be the most sensitive part of it. Because if and when he indicts Americans for conspiracy depending on whom it is he indicts all hell could break loose.

It doesnt make sense: All Mueller would have is a bunch of perjurers trying to establish a conspiracy to throw the 2016 election.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018...n-trump-russia-investigation-report-not-case/

 

[iguanaman]

Fair enough! I cant disagree with you..... I guess to be fair I have been watching more CNN lately... just to get a better understanding. YET these guys come up with conclusion SO FAST well before Mueller has released ANYTHING.

I mean when Cohen flipped. supposedly it was the end.... Then it was cohen has recordings.... that was the end.... Then it was Cohen with the NDA that it was campaign finance violation....

Now its this Trump Tower that honestly I knew WELL into the campaign it was NOTHING new?


So I 100% agree.. lets make the decisions when the report comes out.

NOT have the FBI Director due an exoneration letter 2 months before the HRC interview.

Then the investigation is complete. the FBI director states there WAS classified material on the server and not a single charges or prosecution was made?


ITS just really really weird and almost disheartening. Thats all!

LOL So you are wallowing in the fact that a President is difficult to indict and "already knew" that Trump was lying about his deals with the Russians. Isn't that special. Don't worry Mueller will connect the dots in due time. We need to get all the details of Ivanka's private server use since Hillary has been investigated to death. Ivanka's behavior is far more disturbing as she has no excuse for it and does not hold the high office of SOS like Hillary did. A SOS is confirmed by Congress and is given leeway to do their difficult and important job. Then there is the fact that nothing was ever proven to be leaked from Hillary's server so it was likely more secure than the Govt. one.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Sure-- maybe Trump should have heeded Obama's advice. But as we both agree, the FBI didnt have a problem with Flynn's statement. Mueller did, and of course Flynn is testifying to perjury and also of course Mueller continues not to have anything with respects to collusion.

No we don't agree with that at all. Clearly they had a problem with his statement because it didn't match with what they had on tape and we will see shortly what Flynn is testifying to at his sentencing when Mueller puts his report on the extent of Flynn's cooperation and his recommendation for sentencing before the judge for his/her consideration before passing sentence.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Ok-- and they left it alone. Mueller is the one who pushed.

LOL! No they didn't leave it alone they passed it forward to Mueller.

 

[Athanasius68]

LOL! No they didn't leave it alone they passed it forward to Mueller.

Mueller assumed the investigation when he was appointed.

 

[Mach]

A seemingly false accusation of Collusion, DROVE the POTUS to commit an act of obstruction.

Again, no. Either he is of sound mind and broke the law with intent, or not.
"Drove him to it", is absurd and false and irrelevant.
"seemingly false" is absurd, the investigation is not over, there is no seemingly false.
"accusation" - There was no accusation. Refer to the order for Special counsel, for the what...third time? READ IT, it's not in there, someone put that in your head because they are trying to mislead you I'm guessing.

Then the basis of the initiate of the special council is basically nil

That makes no sense in any context.

The IG follow up again was to investigate "BIAS" The actual handling is STILL being investigated currently if I am not mistaken?

Why are you not reading what I take the time to research, and quote for you?
However, the IG concluded that prosecutorial decisions in the Clinton case were consistent with precedent and were not affected by bias

How can that not be more clear? The prosecutorial decisions, that Comey and Lynch both put forward, were consistent with precedent. End of story...for normal rational people.

Accusation Crime 2

When did the special counsel or Rosenstein or anyone in that investigation ever make this accusation?
They haven't, it's made up nonsense, I don't know why you're talking about it.

Unrelated to Crime 1 and accusation Crime 2?

There is no "accusation #2" as it relates to the actual Special Counsel investigation that we know of.
Crimes, 3,4,5, etc., are all related as a matter of investigation, with connections to Russians and the 2016 election, but even so, they are not required to be.
Every one of them. I already typed all this, why.

Try to reduce the number of key points up to the "root causes", rather than this sprawling questioning of things that *do not exist*.
Refer to the Mueller document, read it, it's very short, shorter than your posts.

 

[Mach]

We have Russians indicted for hacking, and Americans indicted for perjury. But we dont have anyone indicted indicted for conspiracy working together, which is a predicate for a claim of collusion.

Still false. We don't have any Americans indicted for conspiracy, we have Russians indicted on conspiracy.
You say we don't have anyone on conspiracy, we do. Also, the conspiracy was worded sufficiently broad to include anyone that may have helped wittingly time the email release. Just hanging out there isn't it.

Special Counsel has never "claimed collusion", so what are you talking about? (nothing).

 

[Atomic Kid]

Comey can make all the buffoon comments.... But the FBI does NOT come to conclusions.
AG Lynch should NOT have agree as the FBI makes NO conclusion. Lynch was supposed to take the facts from the FBI make the case. Charge Clinton and let Clinton's Defense find her NOT guilty. HELL Lynch could have screwed up the prosecution on purpose so let HRC go free... but the process would have been done. HRC is Neither guilty nor innocent because there never was an abdication to begin with. (This is my concern, due process)

AG Lynch and DAG Yates attended a briefing with at least 4 prosecutors, along with Axelrod, and David Margolis, at the time the most senior career official in ODAG, as well as several OAG and ODAG staff members. Toscas and Laufman were present from NSD, while Carlin participated by phone. Present from the FBI were Comey, McCabe, Rybicki, Baker, FBI Attorney1, and Strzok. where went over the entire case together.

Witnesses said that at the end of the discussion, Lynch went around the
room and asked for people’s opinions to see if anyone objected to declining
prosecution. According to several witnesses, Margolis responded that he did not
see a prosecutable case, and that if the Department prosecuted former Secretary
Clinton, it would be because she was a high-profile public official. Toscas, Baker,
and Comey said that Margolis described this as “celebrity hunting.” Lynch said that
she recalled that Margolis then said, “[W]e at the Department don’t do that.... We
will bring cases when they should be brought. We don’t when they shouldn’t be
brought.”
Lynch told the OIG that after everyone had the opportunity to provide his or
her opinion, she expressed her appreciation to the team and asked Comey and
Strzok to convey her appreciation to the agents who had worked on the case. She
said that she then told the group that she accepted the recommendation to decline
prosecution, and that the Department would issue a statement reflecting the
decision shortly. Lynch said that about half of the group stayed behind to talk
about how to announce the declination, and that Toscas drafted a short statement.
That afternoon, the Department released the following statement:
Late this afternoon, I met with the FBI Director James Comey and
career prosecutors and agents who conducted the investigation of
Secretary Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email system during her
time as Secretary of State. I received and accepted their unanimous
recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed
and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the
scope of the investigation.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Mueller assumed the investigation when he was appointed.

Yes and this was passed forward to him. What don't you understand?

 

[poweRob]

Sure that makes sense. YET It seems that those accusation NOR punishments, do NOT align with a Russian Collusion as there currently is NO predicate of a crime committed.

ALL current indictments are centered around lying to the FBI as well as Financial Crimes NOT tied to Russians.

Did we need a special council for this or could any DOJ prosecutor have done the same job? I though the special Prosecutor was intended to be a protected entity form the DOJ so they could fair investigate. Currently there has BEEN free reign to investigate BUT nothing in actual Ties to Russians.

SO Let me ask you up front. If Mueller has ZERO accusations and Punishments in relation to Russian collusion. Zero. Now. Will you feel that the initiation of a special council was warranted? (SPECULATION of Course) Or would you be concerned that an accusation of collusion with NO factual basis is OK for a political opponent (Not HRC only media, and any political opponent) To be able to so at anytime.

So the NEXT time a Democrat is elected. WE can through an accusation out with ZERO crime committed to initiate a Special council to have FREE reign on all parties related and to their personal backgrounds.?

trouble pointed out that I didn't answer your question. If nothing is found, I accept that nothing was found. As far as was it warranted... I'd have to see Rod Rosentein's complete explanation which I'm sure would be demanded of him beyond anything he's put forth yet. Of course it shouldn't be political and I agree with your thinking that a special prosecutor was more protected than he is from interference from the executive branch and the DOJ.

As far as what has been found thus far, a lot of process crimes of course but Mueller has indicted many russians for electoral interference. Not collusion yet but it is something that has been revealed by the investigation that has happened.

As far as my speculation on results, it's coming from indictments that we've seen, reactions of those criminally accused and reactions of those around them. And some details that have come out from time to time in the news.

 

[Athanasius68]

Still false. We don't have any Americans indicted for conspiracy, we have Russians indicted on conspiracy.
You say we don't have anyone on conspiracy, we do. Also, the conspiracy was worded sufficiently broad to include anyone that may have helped wittingly time the email release. Just hanging out there isn't it.

Special Counsel has never "claimed collusion", so what are you talking about? (nothing).

We dont have indictments for conspiracy between Russians and Americans for throwing the 2016. So while you may believe you do, there are no facts to substantiate this claim. And To suggest demonstrating such collusion is not the main reason for Mueller's appointment is absurd.

 

[Mach]

We dont have indictments for conspiracy between Russians and Americans for throwing the 2016.

Finally you type it correctly.

And To suggest demonstrating such collusion is not the main reason for Mueller's appointment is absurd.

The only thing that's absurd is you can't quote any such "main reason" in the official documents that govern the appointment of special counsel, but continue to claim it is.

You're just making this **** up, that's why you can't quote it from the document. Just admit it.

 

[Exactice]

You mean unwittingly cooperated? Yeah, that's always possible. It also just as possible that there were those who knew that what was going on and that it was wrong but went through with it anyway. People commit betrayal for all kinds of reasons. Personal gain, enrichment. retribution for wrongs they perceived were committed against them, ideological differences, etc. A person such as Trump would be a would be a prime target for the Russians.

I gotcha. You got what I meant. While it possible BOTH ways. Im going to hope our nation isnt so Bad that we would actually elect a Russian plant.... I know some people hate TRUMP just to hate him....I prefer his policies that it. Not him, not his morals, not his twitter... just his policies. I preferred them over HRC..... if there was another candidate....say Bernie...Probably would have had a better chance...

With that..though we shall see.... because like I said,.... If he did collude... what would indicate such...what benefits....just dont see it.

 

[Exactice]

What??? That's not how it works. The eventual outcome of an investigation is immaterial as whether or not someone broke the law by unduly trying to obstruct , interfere with, or otherwise impede an investigation from reaching it conclusions. The attempt to do so, no matter the motive, is a crime in itself and while it would indeed would be unfortunate that he did those things all for naught it doesn't change the fact that he will still have committed a crime.

Sorry I know thats not how it works. thats just How I see it. HOW I see it doenst make it right...I understand that.... Like I said it in my direct post if he is GUILTY he is Guilty I will NOT defend his actions. period.

Just dont like the setup how this all played out....

 

[Exactice]

LOL So you are wallowing in the fact that a President is difficult to indict and "already knew" that Trump was lying about his deals with the Russians. Isn't that special. Don't worry Mueller will connect the dots in due time. We need to get all the details of Ivanka's private server use since Hillary has been investigated to death. Ivanka's behavior is far more disturbing as she has no excuse for it and does not hold the high office of SOS like Hillary did. A SOS is confirmed by Congress and is given leeway to do their difficult and important job. Then there is the fact that nothing was ever proven to be leaked from Hillary's server so it was likely more secure than the Govt. one.

Lying about Russian Dealings? In context as a whole I do NOT see it that way. So that is YOUR opinion that he is lying... "Lying to the American People" as noted by CNN is not a crime.

Dont worry Mueller will connect the dots? OK, if he does. If he does not will you accept that there is nothing to connect?

Wow Talk about justification.

1) Currently it is not confirmed the emails in question were anywhere NEAR a private server, JUST a private email account by a public server.
2) Ivanaka's Behavior? We do NOT know context of the emails yet. If they are NOT work related nor Classified material she broke NO crime?
3) SOS Given leeway YOU are KIDDING RIGHT Those that HOLD those positions are Held to a HIGHER STANDARD NOT a lesser standard?
4) Nothing was ever proven to be leaked? THAT has NO bearing when you sign the Classified documents release it your responsibility to safeguard it period regardless if its leaked or not. If I did so while I had clearance and access and was caught transmitting classified documents over an unsecured network I would be in Leavenworth PERIOD. Regardless if it was leaked or not?


Why the difference in treatment? Im sure she signed the same nondisclosure form given to anyone handling classified material then given the same brief bag JAG should they violate the rules they can be held responsible and punishable.