THIS is bigger than Watergate.

What Trump calls the biggest witch hunt in US history has produced 17 indictments, thus far.

13 indictments came down just yesterday against Russian Nationalist /Companies. 

an excerpt from the indictment:

"Defendant ORGANIZATION had a strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Defendants posted derogatory information about a number of candidates, and by early to mid-2016, Defendants' operations included supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump ("Trump Campaign") and disparaging Hillary Clinton. Defendants made various expenditures to carry out those activities, including buying political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S. persons and entities. Defendants also staged political rallies inside the United States, and while posing as U.S. grassroots entities and U.S. persons, and without revealing their Russian identities and ORGANIZATION affiliation, solicited and compensated real U.S. persons to promote or disparage candidates. Some Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities."

So, we now have definitive proof that it wasn't China. ha! We also have definitive proof Russia helped elect Fat Nixon. Still not convinced? Don't feel bad, 37% of Nixon's Republicans didn't believe he was guilty, either. Even after he was impeached.

 

The stupidity of Conservatives, the inability to recognize facts and attempt to destroy democracy. 

Original Post

Did I just time warp outta here?  What's with inserting China, or Russia, messing with elections in the old Watergate story?   Nixon was impeached for his part in covering up the Watergate break-in and, at least as far as I know, Russia or China had nothing to do with the break-in or the election where Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey.

Fast forward to today's Muller investigation it's really something when we allow this person to continue an investigation with absolutely NO evidence that a crime ever happened regarding Trump, himself, or his campaign yet Muller continues the investigation at great expense to the American taxpayer.  Hey, I don't blame him for taking advantage of a no-lose situation where he's making tons of money. 

As for the narrative that Donald Trump or his Campaign colluded with Russians, something fabricated out of the Trump dossier that has been proven to be nothing but paid (paid for by Hillary Clinton campaign) fake research in order to take down Trump, here is what I am curious about.   DO YOU NOT THINK or believe that IF THERE WAS ANY shred or hint of evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians that by now (all that time during the campaign and now after and into the first and second term of Donald Trump's presidency) that Muller would have had an indictment against Trump and/or any of his campaign staff or assistants?   All this time and yet the only indictments that have anything to do with election tampering are of Russians themselves?  People that never will see a day in a US court or any court for that matter.  This is the biggest waste of money that has been in an effort to manufacture something or have lightning strike and somehow create some kind of link between Donald Trump and the Russians.  

Actually, these Russians that are indicted are indicted on activities dating back to before Trump ever entered the election so obviously they have nothing to do directly with him yet the Mainstream Media still will not drop the Trump narrative and still are trying to find some way to justify impeachment of Trump solely because they don't like him or because he defeated Hillary Clinton whom they were sure would be elected yet wasn't so they have to manufacture some reason she got beat other than the fact that she was the most horrendous candidate with such deception and lack of trust among the American people that given the greatest advantage of any candidate for President, she found a way to lose to Donald Trump.  No wonder she was beyond consolement and couldn't address her supporters that night of the election.  She was sure she had it won only to have to face the reality that of all people to lose to she lost to Donald Trump.

If another Republican President gets caught up in scandal of this size, it could spell the end of the Republican Party. I just can't figure out, with the mountain of evidence visible, why Trump won't sign sanctions against Russia. This is certainly as important as voter fraud and Republicans scream about that incessantly.

As I see it, how Trump reacts to Russian meddling into our elections is a totally separate and different issue from Trump colluding with the Russians which was a farce and made up thing from the beginning and does not exist.

Also with regards to Russian meddling with our elections, I hope you, and others, realize that WE, the United States, do exactly the same thing to other Nations and Countries.  Obama meddled in Israel's elections hoping to get a different leader in there and no doubt in Germany and other Nations as well.  

Is this going to be a do as I say and not as I do type thing?  We live in an awfully big glass house so we should exercise care how we throw stones of judgment and condemnation as we (the United States) do exactly the same things.   Trump surely is in a position to know the past influence and meddling that the US did in other elections so I'm not going to be too condemning if he takes a cautious approach to Russia who also knows we do exactly the same things.  Often we, the United States, and Russia are working at the same time doing the same things with regards to a third party/nation.  All of that needs to be considered as well.  We, the United States, are not pristine white virgins on the world stage here either.  I am also not condemning the United States (our nation) for concerning itself in other Elections for our relations with other Nations depends on who is in power so at the very least we want to have and keep some political connections with almost every Nation,  (hopefully) friendly and not as well if that be the case.

Br’er Rabbit posted:

Republicans spent how many years investigating Hillary? And how much money? And now you wanna cry about an investigation because it's your candidate?

You know, you Republicans have a word for people who act like that... Snowflake.

Actually, there really has been little to no investigation of Hillary, not like is going on against Trump.  With Hillary, there was and still is no Special Investigator for either the events surrounding Benghazi, the emails and the server nor the Clinton Foundation which certainly deserves investigating.  Hillary may have been investigated by a Senate committee of Democrats and Republicans where she was questioned one time but there has been no special investigation that has the powers that those investigating Trump for over a year now have.

Please correct me if I am wrong but to be alike, Trump would have had to have the hard drives in computersassociated with the campaign, cell phones carried during the campaign destroyed and say 30,000 emails associated with the campaign bleachbit erased where they could not be reassembled and/or recovered all without allowing Mueller a chance to view or see them.  If this had happened you know that speculation would be that Trump was hiding something and like Richard Nixon's 18+ minutes of erased recordings would have produced calls for impeachment because Democrats, liberals and the media all would have considered him guilty based on those acts alone.  With Hillary, the erased emails, destroyed hard drives and cell phones were all considered innocent and just containing information regarding Chelsea's wedding just like Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch's private, spur of the moment, conversation on the plane only was about their grandchildren.   Also, Hillary would have to have a Special Counselor assigned to her regarding the email scandal and the Clinton Foundation neither of which occurred but if it had it still wouldn't be equal.  To be totally equal that Special Counselor would need to have all the investigators they hired to be Republican donors or have spouses that worked for Republican causes then it might be similar. 

Hillary hasn't been really investigated other than what the FBI discovered in their looking at, or for, her emails that they had.  The only ones that have come close have been the very ones revealed to have made it possible for her not to be indicted due to their changing the language of what Comey said that the findings of some FBI employees discovered.  The first draft of Comey's statement that he was going to read to the Nation contained proper and correct language about what they had discovered but that language would have been the basis of requiring that Hillary be indicted for felonies due to what she actually did.  The changed language did not require that and allowed the FBI to let her off as Attorney General Loretta Lynch informed Bill Clinton on the airplane.  Furthermore, Hillary, when interviewed by the FBI was interviewed by partisan friendly, to her, donors to her, investigators who never put her under oath.  So I don't buy Hillary being investigated to the degree Trump has.

Two additional thing that negates the comparison.  Trump and everyone connected to or with Trump and/or the campaign was investigated, by an assigned Special Counsel, on the basis of something that has been proven to be false and fabricated and something that never existed in the first place (the Fake Dossier).  Hillary did delete 30,000 emails that have never been looked at but did exist, emails that were recovered or found were discovered to contain classified information.  The Clinton Foundation does exist, did accept huge donations from many people including heads of State and Nations.  Also to be equal Hillary should have received the same scrutiny and investigative reporting that Trump has gotten from the Mainstream media and that never happened either.  The media went deaf, dumb, and blind to the lack of information around Benghazi and what happened there as well as the Clinton Foundation and the emails and private server.  

As far as investigations of Hillary...

Republicans opened 3 investigations of the investigations of Hillary. You mean to tell me that Republicans are so inept they need to investigate Hillary, after investigating the investigations of Hillary. And now, Republicans didn't really investigate Hillary, so we need to investigate Hillary? On what planet has Hillary not been investigated? Republicans are so inept at investigations, that after 8 years and at least a dozen investigations, and 3 investigations of the investigations, and zero charges filed, they need to investigate? Just wow! Republicans must either be the most inept people on the planet or just really good at fooling their voting base. Which seems more likely to you?

_________________________________

WASHINGTON — Republican leaders of three House committees announced Tuesday they are launching two separate investigations involving former secretary of State Hillary Clinton

https://www.usatoday.com/story...ale-russi/794175001/

************

Justice Department reopens Hillary Clinton email investigation

http://www.washingtonexaminer....tion/article/2644956

**********************

 

 

A list of Benghazi investigations:

Investigation 1: The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

The House Oversight Committee was one of the first committees to question Clinton following the Benghazi attack. On Sept. 16, 2013, the Republican-led committee released an interim report on the Accountability Review Board appointed by Clinton. The report raised questions about the independence and integrity of the Accountability Review Board (since Clinton appointed the board to investigate her own department) and criticized the conclusions in the board’s final report.

Investigation 2: The Senate Committee On Homeland Security And Governmental Affairs

This bipartisan committee released a report in December 2012 detailing the "high risk" of a terrorist attack at the U.S. facilities in Libya. While the report criticized the State Department for not addressing the security concerns leading up to the attack, it also found "administration officials were inconsistent in stating publicly that the deaths in Benghazi were the result of a terrorist attack." The report attributed the State Department’s security failures to intelligence problems and a failure "to imagine the type of attack that occurred."

Investigation 3: The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

The Senate Intelligence Committee released a bipartisan report in January 2014 calling the Benghazi attacks "preventable." Among other findings, the committee concluded the State Department had received ample warning about deteriorating security in Libya and failed to adequately increase security in the weeks leading up to the attack. The report also faulted intelligence officials for not relaying information on the CIA annex to the U.S. military.

Investigation 4: The House Committee on Foreign Affairs

Clinton testified before this House committee on Jan. 23, 2013 (she also testified in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier that day). The House Committee on Foreign Affairs later released a report criticizing Clinton and other high-ranking officials who they said were "provided extensive warning of the deteriorating security environment in eastern Libya." The report also criticized the State Department’s Accountability Review Board, which "was seriously deficient in several respects," especially in its failure to comment on the actions of the department’s highest ranking officials, including Clinton.

Investigation 5: The House Committee on the Judiciary

The focus of the Committee on the Judiciary’s probe was the FBI investigation that followed the terrorist attack. The committee released its findings in April 2013 as part of an interim progress report in conjunction with the five other Republican-led committees investigating Benghazi. The report detailed how the FBI did not investigate the scene until three weeks after the attack and spent less than one day collecting evidence in Benghazi. The committee also faulted Clinton for reducing security at the Benghazi consulate, despite her testimony that she "had no knowledge" of security requests from the compound.

Investigation 6: The House Committee on Armed Services

The Armed Services Committee began its investigation "immediately after the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya… to evaluate the response of the Department of Defense" to the attack, according to a February 2014 committee report. The Republican-led committee bashed the Obama administration’s failure to address security threats in Benghazi, asserting that the military was unprepared for possible violence in Libya.

Investigation 7: The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

The House Intelligence Committee concluded its two-year Benghazi investigation in November 2014 when it released a report exonerating the Obama administration of wrongdoing in its response to the attack. The report found evidence of contradicting intelligence among government officials and concluded officials did not intentionally mislead the public with information in the days following the attack.

Ongoing Investigation 8: The House Select Committee on Benghazi

The Republican-led House created the House Select Committee on Benghazi in May 2014 after a conservative watchdog group discovered new State Department emails about the attacks. The committee includes seven Republicans and five Democrats. The group released an interim progress report in May 2015, but the committee’s Democrats have been outspoken on the committee’s lack of progress.

Clinton, who has faced more scrutiny over Benghazi after it was discovered she used a private email server while serving as Secretary of State, is set to testify before the Benghazi panel on Oct. 22.

 

I will not deny that those are technically investigations but the real question is has there been any investigation done regarding Hillary that has been performed when the Executive branch has been out of Obama's control?  

I think there is ample evidence and reason to suspect Obama's influence over the Justice Department and IRS such that no department under the jurisdiction of the Executive branch can be trusted to be unbiased.   After all, again unless I am mistaken, it was the Justice Department and FBI that allowed and possibly even supervised the destruction of many of the Hard Drives involved in the investigations.  So the reason I said there have been no investigations is I do not believe there have been any (un-influenced and unbiased) investigations where the outcome, of the investigation, has been in doubt.

I don't know how the Congressional investigations go or what options Trey had but I do know that there was great distrust of the Justice Department, under Obama, and given the Comey statement that no prosecutor would proceed with the information that was provided, I do not believe he felt that it would be pursued.   With the knowledge that we have today, about the wording of Comey's statement being changed and altered, I have no doubt that no charges or indictment would have ever gotten out of the Justice Department.  That's just my opinion.  

I do, though, believe there is ample reason to assign a special counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton or at least the Clinton Foundation but that's up to the inept Republicans to make that decision.

If the inept corrupt FBI had done the right thing the 
dossier darling wouldn't have a dossier to be guilty of
in the first place. Trump would've beat Sanders and all
the snowflake candyazz lying whiners would wear hammer
and sickle hats and march lock step. Well, lock step is
all they do now. Liberals love a dictator anyway it seems,
gauging from their hate for freedom....

Ever hear of Lois Learner?  Just about everyone connected with the IRS and the deliberate actions against the tea party and conservatives took the 5th and are now collecting their fat government retirement checks after cashing in their fat Government (reward) bonus checks.  

Regarding Hillary and those in the Trump administration how about one other comparison.  Hillary in her questioning with the FBI was questioned without ever being put under oath, name how man Trump officials that were able to be questioned without being put under oath?  Again regarding Hillary she was questioned by (now) known Democratic donors and (friendly to Democratic causes) agents as revealed by their text messages and emails that have been made public.  Trump's officials were grilled by people known hostile to Donald Trump and who were found, through their own personal communications, to have desires to remove Trump from office and be hostile to Trump.  The Senate committee that questioned Hillary was mixed with friendly and sympathetic Democrats as well as Republicans whereas those who questioned the Trump officials were 100% biased against Trump, as was revealed through their personal communications that were intercepted and reviewed.

Not much of a comparison there.

Any of them.  A congressional investigation is performed by a committee that consists of both Democrats and Republicans so there are always some sympathetic and favorable people, to the one being investigated.  If it's the investigation, by the FBI, into Hillary's emails and the server then that's a farce because it was conducted, and managed/led by people favorable to Democrats and/or Hillary Clinton.  That much was revealed in recent emails and conversations that were uncovered.  And the point that Hillary was never interviewed, by the FBI, and put under oath still remains valid and true.

That's all I'm trying to say.  I just didn't think it was a fair comparison to say Hillary received the same treatment and level of scrutiny as Trump's associates and administration people.    Flynn alone was indicted on information obtained under a warrant that never should have seen the light of day due to the information that the warrant was based upon.  Also, as of this point in time, unless there is one now, I don't think Hillary has ever faced an investigation from a Justice department person or department that was not under the control of Obama or Loretta Lynch.  That alone is the reason many say she hasn't been investigated because they don't trust Obama or Loretta Lynch to be impartial.

Add Reply

Likes (0)

×
×
×
×