Criminal law, Media, Politics

IG Report: Clinton’s Use Of A Personal Email System Led To The Interception Of Classified Information By Foreign Powers

Hillary_Clinton_Testimony_to_House_Select_Committee_on_BenghaziI ran a column yesterday on the release of the report of the Inspector General’s report and its implications. Much of the report was anticipated.  However, among the most notable elements, was the final confirmation that the Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal server for State Department business not only contained classified information but was successfully intercepted by at least one foreign intelligence agency. That finding directly contradicts Clinton’s repeated denials through the campaign.  The media however has barely noted the finding despite widely repeating Clinton’s prior denials of both classified content and any interception by foreign powers.

 

The report refers to the plural “Foreign actors” as obtaining access to Clinton’s emails — including at least one email classified as “secret.”  The line is buried in the report but states unambiguously: “Documents provided to the Committees show foreign actors obtained access to some of Mrs. Clinton’s emails — including at least one email classified ‘Secret.'”

There is also a May 2016 email from FBI investigator Peter Strzok that says “we know foreign actors obtained access” to some Clinton emails, including at least one “secret” message “via compromises of the private email accounts” of Clinton staffers.

In the face of a clear refutation of her prior position, Clinton only responded with three words “but my emails” to mock the use of a personal gmail account by Comey.

In response to the story, Clinton supporters have dismissed the finding by saying that Republicans are simply obsessed and the election is over.  However, that does not apply to the Russian investigation.  This is all an inquiry into what occurred during the campaign and Clinton owes it to the public to finally deal honestly and directly with this issue.

565 thoughts on “IG Report: Clinton’s Use Of A Personal Email System Led To The Interception Of Classified Information By Foreign Powers”

  1. Imagine if ole’ slick Willie Clinton had never hung around at that Phoenix airport on June 28, 2016 waiting for AG Loretta Lynch’s plane to land, then snuck over for a surprise visit . . . “Hey Loretta it’s me Bill Clinton” . . . to (ah hum) talk about grandchildren . . . discovered by a local newsman . . . followed by J. Edgar Comey ordering his number one corrupt-to-the-core FBI Agent Peter Strzok to do a hurried, no notes taken, phony interview of Hillary on July 2, 2016 . . . followed by J. Edgar Comey’s infamous TV presser July 5, 2016 . . . followed by Loretta Lynch dropping the ball . . . followed by pedophile predator Anthony Weiner’s laptop being seized by the NY office of the FBI . . . who pushed Strzok and McCabe for sitting on the Laptop for over a month . . . causing J. Edgar Comey to re-announce the FBI was investigating Hillary . . . 10 days before the election . . . Oops!

    Vladimir Putin in his wildest dreams couldn’t have orchestrated such a masterpiece . . . as did slick Willie Clinton, setting up the dominos knocked over by J. Edgar Comey and his band of corrupt FBI Agents just given a “get out of jail” pass by the Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Christopher Wray and Rod Rosenstein, while Jeff Sessions hides under his desk – all trying to salvage a most corrupt FBI – thinking the American people are too stupid to notice . . .

    And had slick Willie never met Loretta Lynch on that infamous day (June 28, 2016) it’s highly probable Hillary Clinton would have won the election and we’d never know about all the corruption in the Obama administration, especially in the corrupt FBI, DOJ, CIA, NSA and State Department. Think about that for a moment.

    Nor would we be witnessing a “Deep State” Coup right here in the good old USA. In fact, we wouldn’t even know there was a corrupt “Deep State” that really runs this country. Nor would we see clearly just how biased and serially corrupt the MSM (mainstream media) really was and is, becoming more like Russia’s Pravda propaganda machine than what used to be good journalism.

    We’d never know about all the FISA abuses perpetrated on US citizens by the corrupt FBI under J. Edgar Comey, who, along with serial perjurers CIA’s John Brennan, and DNI James Clapper, would still be there today, along with Andrew McCabe, Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates and other corrupt government leaders.

    And for all this, we have slick Willie Clinton to thank. But you won’t hear any of that from the MSM. No sir. But there’s one person who knows – Hillary Clinton. Thanks again Bill.

    1. Blearyeyed said, “We’d never know about . . . ”

      According to IG Horowitz, Blearyeyed still doesn’t know about . . .”

  2. Just one little question. In the IG report, FBI agent Peter Strzok texted “we’ll” stop Trump from becoming president.

    Who is the “we” in “we’ll”?

      1. David Benson still owes me two citations after three weeks, one from the OED, and now a quotation, – are you incapable of cut-and-pasting an article? Which article? Which page? Para?

      1. Excerpted from the NYT article linked downstream:

        Mr. Horowitz repeatedly said he found no evidence that the F.B.I. rigged the outcome. “Our review did not find documentary or testimonial evidence directly connecting the political views these employees expressed in their text messages and instant messages to the specific investigative decisions we reviewed,” the report said.

        1. L4D is enabling David Benson – you do realize that this is the redacted version of the document.

            1. L4D
              The report is pretty damning from end to end.

              It actually rejects the claim of those like Gowdy that the FBI itself is solid, that there are just a few bad actors.

              Horowitz notes a culture of corruption.

              You fixate on a single quote – Horowitz demonstrates the Clinton investigation was botched from begining to end.

              Contra you claim he does find Bias, he is just only rarely willing to note that it might have been acted on.
              He does not find a conspiracy, but he does find hubris, and serious violations of law, rules and DOJ/FBI guidlines from end to end.

        2. Read the report

          “Nevertheless, we found that Page’s statement, on its face, consisted of a recommendation that the Midyear team consider how Clinton would treat the FBI if she were to become President in deciding how to handle Clinton’s interview. Suggesting that investigative decisions be based on this consideration was inappropriate and created an appearance of bias.”

        3. Read the report.

          “We were deeply troubled by text messages sent by Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations.

          . . . when one senior FBI official, Strzok, who was helping to lead the Russia investigation at the time, conveys in a text message to another senior FBI official, Page, that “we’ll stop” candidate Trump from being elected — after other extensive text messages between the two disparaging candidate Trump — it is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice.”

  3. DC is hopelessly corrupt on both sides – why isn’t Sessions on the Awan spygate case? Where are the House members – Republicans on this? Where is Tulsi Gabbard?

  4. Maybe it is different in the State Department, but I doubt it. In the technical areas I was familiar with documents marked “Secret” contained only information from textbooks or readily derived from that in an idle moment.

    The classifiers overdo it. I am far from alone in this opinion.

    1. They can also classify information after the fact for the sake of charging someone with mishandling classified information.

      1. No they can not and that grossly misinterprets what occurred here.

        First EVERYTHING inside of a SCIF is presumed classified.
        Most of the Sec States suite is a SCIF – that is for her convenience.
        Much of what the Sec. State does is classified.
        He schedule is classified.

        It need not be marked. Everything that is exchanged over secure coms is presumed classified.

        Just about everything the Sec State produces is “born classified” and must be declassified to be released.

        Think about this.

        If Clinton calls up the president of Egypt – is that conversation classified or not ?
        Is is unclassified – until a transcript is made and it is marked ?

        If Clinton were in the sutuation room with Obama discussing whether to drone strike some Jihadi – is that classified ? Even if there is no transcript ? even if one is produced but not marked.

        The fact is the OPPOSITE of what you argue.

        Clinton emailed things that were presumed to be classified and later benefited from the fact thagt they were determined not to be.

    2. David Benson still owes me two citations after three weeks, one from the OED, and now a quotation, – if you read the actual report, they break down the number of documents in each category. There were some in the Secret category, some in the Classified category and some in the Confidential category. None should have been on Huma’s laptop or Clinton’s homebrew server.

    3. They primarily hide internal corruption and blatant errors by government officials.

    4. Absolutely much is classified that should not be, further most classification is time sensitive – the material should no longer be classified after a few days, months or years depending.

      But the claim that something should not be classified is not a defense.

      Saucier was prosecuted for taking photo’s of a classified portion of a very old nuclear sub where there are likely pictures available on line.

  5. I found it amusing that the nation’s investigator-in-chief had no idea that Huma Abedin was married to Carlos Danger aka Anthony Weiner. He must be the only guy in DC that didn’t.

    1. Years ago, Wm. J. Casey set up a special task force to supplement the briefings h received from career staff at the CIA. One member of this task force gave a speech at Hillsdale College some years ago. He said most CIA analysts think they have ample sources of information and don’t read anything more challenging that the Washington Post outside of the office information flow they process. See Reuel Marc Gerecht on the promotion process in the CIA. Read some of the reviews of Michael Scheuer’s book. Recall that Aldrich Ames was not only hired but promoted several times. Recall taht they hired Philip Giraldi. It’s not our premier civilian intelligence service (that’s the NSA), but it’s still honking important. And we have reason to believe it’s a collecting pool of mediocrity.

      1. Which is to say that we should consider the possibility that the people in question (Comey, Rosenstein, and Mueller) have all expanded (like a gas) to fill the offices they hold. Ever worked for a manager who was incompetent but had held one consequential position after another because [s]he interviews well? I have.

        1. Isn’t that just the basis of government and enabling civil service unions these days? Budgets need the guillotine.

        1. mespo – you didn’t plagiarize, it was independent thought. Several people invented the lightbulb, Edison gets the credit. Bell got to the patent office first. 😉

  6. I’m still baffled as to why Clinton remains unindicted for her many security breaches and collusion with the DNC in paying for the creation of a misleading/false dossier used to discredit Trump…at the least she should face some kind of slander charges and Obama should be facing charges as well for his misuse of the FISA courts…How do these people get off?

    1. Excerpted from The NYT article linked downstream:

      Nevertheless, the inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, did not challenge the conclusion that Mrs. Clinton should not be prosecuted. That investigation loomed over most of the presidential campaign, and Mr. Horowitz and his investigators uncovered no proof that political opinions at the F.B.I. influenced its outcome.

      “We found no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations,” he wrote. “Rather, we concluded that they were based on the prosecutor’s assessment of facts, the law and past department practice.”

      1. “[W]hen one senior FBI official, [Peter] Strzok, who was helping to lead the Russia investigation at the time, conveys in a text message to another senior FBI official, [Lisa] Page, that ‘we’ll stop’ candidate Trump from being elected—after other extensive text messages between the two disparaging candidate Trump—it is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice.”

        We can trade Horowitz quotes forever.

    2. Bruce, the statute of limitations has run. She’s home free.

      1. “you are stupid”

        So says the scarecrow from the wizard of Oz that still hasn’t found his brain.

  7. When the brass at the FBI thinks it can pick our President for us it’s time for a brand new FBI. Let’s start all over not put a band aid on it. New director, new oversight legislation and new training for the staff that focuses on impartiality not partisanship. It’s too powerful an agency to get away with this stuff. It’s not the Department of Agriculture.

    1. Suggest we might reconstitute law enforcement &c along the lines followed in local government: a prosecution service, a general counsel’s service; an agency devoted to cybersecurity; a department devoted to enforcing court orders, security at federal installations, and dignitary protection; a department devoted to running jails and prisons; a department devoted to investigation and patrols; and a department devoted to civil defense and disaster relief. The military, the Foreign Service, and Congress would retain their own inhouse police and security services and the civilian intelligence agencies would have internal security divisions. The FBI could be broken up into about six pieces: one successor bureau which collects statistics (and which is under the aegis of a statistical inspectorate rather than federal law enforcement), one which maintains co-operative databases, one which runs a forensics laboratory, one which provides miscellaneous assistance to local law enforcement, one which conducts counter-intelligence investigations, one which attacks cybercrime, one which specializes in racketeering, one which specializes in state-level corruption; one which investigates abuse of power by local police, prosecutors, and elections officials; one which investigates treason and espionage; one which organizes federal SWAT teams; &c. Ideally, the federal criminal code would be scarified as well, and sentences re-calibrated We’re stepping all over local police power.

    2. “When the brass at the FBI thinks it can pick our President for us it’s time for a brand new FBI.”

      Sounds good to me. I don’t care who it was, this is about government gone bloodline royalty on all of us. How about “FBBBPI” (Federal Bureau of Big Boy Pants Investigators). Maybe they should realize they are a joke worthy of an “Airplane” type of movie and give up.

  8. Excerpted from The New York Times:

    Among Mr. Horowitz’s original tasks was to identify whether F.B.I. agents improperly disclosed information about the Clinton case to reporters. But his inquiry was stymied, he said, because improper contacts with journalists were so common. “The large number of F.B.I. employees who were in contact with journalists during this time period impacted our ability to identify the sources of leaks,” he wrote.

    The report omitted any discussion of a potential leak of information in fall 2016 to Mr. Giuliani, who was then one of Mr. Trump’s key campaign surrogates but not yet his lawyer. Shortly before Mr. Comey announced the discovery of new emails in the Clinton case, Mr. Giuliani appeared on Fox News and hinted that major news was about to break: “I mean, I’m talking about some pretty big surprises,” he said.

    Mr. Horowitz has indicated that another report addressing leaks is forthcoming. It is not clear whether Mr. Giuliani’s remarks will be addressed.

      1. But, but he said he found no bias…LOL! The bias was obvious before the report and the facts identified in the report confirm that bias existed. Of course you’re going to cut/paste the IG conclusion, it absolves you of all need for critical thinking. Pathetic.

      2. I long for the days of even a pretense of straight reporting. OIG report said he found no documentary or testimonial evidence of bias. Translation for the NYT, he found no communique, memeo, email, or other written evidence that demonstrated that buas was used in the decision making, and no one came forward to testify to said bias being used in decision making.

        1. Tony Irvine – this is the redacted version of the OIG report. I want to see the unredacted report.

  9. With so many Members of Congress anointing the Clintons, one has to wonder when the Titles of Nobility clause will be invoked.

  10. JT – I skipped reading your post and instead wanted thank you for posting that picture of HRC which is worth a thousand words – a reminder why she lost election – she lost it on the debate stages to a street fighter while she lied through her teeth on good old fashioned multi-billion dollar media (national television). That is where she lost it, not via some obscure Russian Facebook messaging with $100k budget.

  11. With all the hoopla about the emails we now have Trump blatantly using insecure phones etc and refusing to change. Nobody cares!

    1. The standard for the president is quite different.
      The president is not properly an employee.
      He is also the ultimate originating authority.
      He may unilaterally decide what is classified and what is not.

      The only other actors with similar power are congressmen and only in much narrower context.

      We actually got into this with Clinton.

      Obama as president demanded that NSA produce a special blackberry for him.
      NSA said no because it could not make it secure.
      Obama said I am president – do it, and they did.

      Hilary demanded the same blackberry. NSA said no, and that was the end of it.

      After the mess with her emails the only job in the federal govenrment that Clinton could get would be President. She would never get a security clearance.
      But the president does not need a clearance.
      Nothing that the president wishes to see is prohibited to them.
      Nothing they wish to share is barred from their sharing.

      1. You are missing one other point: Within each department of the executive branch, the head of that branch is the final arbiter of what is or is not classified within that branch. There are specific presidential memos, going back many many administrations, which lay out this delegation of classification authority. So then, who gets to decide whether any of Hillary’s memos or emails were or were not classified?

        1. You are only partly correct. The near final authority for classifying those things within that department rests with the department head. But the Sec. State has no classification or declassification authority outside of the state department, further her authority is always subordinate to the president.
          Sec. Clinton could declassify her schedule the Sec. States schedule is classifed. Pretty much everything the Sec. State does is “born classified”. But as an example the Sec. State can NOT declassify information on drone strike priorities. The overwhelming majority of the classified information that Clinton mishandled was information provided by other departments over which she excercises no final classification authority.

          While the IG report does nto specifically go into the classification/declassification process – in other areas it notes that the government has very thorough detailed procedures for pretty much everything.
          The same is true for the handling of classified material. There are rules and procedures associated with moving classified information from a SCIF to anywhere else. Generally Classified information is not allowed to exist outside of SCIF except when being transfered and that is to be done by an FSA – not just anyone.

          Anyone who has received a security clearance would also know that even the information in your head gathered from reading a classified document – is classified, or from having a conversation with someone in a classified environment, You may – and are expected to use that information to do your job. That is what it is for. But you may not reveal that information. You may not write it down, you may not put it into an email in a non-classified system.

          Clinton supporters make a great deal fo the fact that much the classified emails were not “marked”.
          That argument is total crap. The classified information in someones head is not “marked”, when you include it into an email – that email becomes classified – whether marked or not.
          It is the content that makes something classified – NOT the marking.
          Further Clinton as Sec. State was an ORIGINATOR of classified material.
          As I keep noting much of what Sec. Clinton did was “Born Classified” – i.e. because it was the work of the Sec. State it was presumed classified until it was declassified.

          Som properly note that we have far far far too much classified information, and that very little of it should be classified. That is true and likely applies to some of the clinton emails.
          But if you have a security clearance you know that is true and you know that it does nto matter, revealing classified information is still against the law. There is no “that should not be classified” defense.

          There is however one defense that would have been legitimate. My guess is that Clinton did not use it because it did not apply – and that is damning.

          Much information that is classified is also publicly available. That is a consequence of the massive overclassification done in government. The CIA spies on the world – so does our news. Both often receive the same information. If Sec, Clinton received information via the CIA or from foreign ambassadors, that is likely highly classified. If CNN reports exactly the same information from its own sources – that is not classified. Further if Clinton revealed CIA sourced information that was also in the press, that would NOT be a crime.

    2. Martha, my understanding is that he has two phones. From an ABC news article:

      The president uses at least two separate devices at any given time, according to the White House, with one device being used specifically for Twitter and a separate device used for making calls.

      “The call-capable phones are seamlessly swapped out on a regular basis through routine support operations,” said the official, who noted that the phone used for tweeting does not have to be swapped out with as much frequency as the phone for calls.

      “Because of the security controls of the Twitter phone and the Twitter account, it does not necessitate regular change out,” the official said.

      Can you please link to the basis of your comment?

      1. No, the rot goes all the way down. You should see the dreck which comes in on our Facebook feed, all from partisan Democrats in our circle of friends. They don’t really have any opinions about policy. It’s all guises and poses and turning people into depersonalized objects of contempt. The Clintoons and Mooch & Barry are symptoms.

      2. WS2 – not just the Clintons – ALL the neo libs / neo cons beholden to corporate interests and the MIC

    2. Just like lefty loon Late4Dinner you post lefty loon article links which you sought out to soothe the effect of being in a long-term lefty losing cycle.

      1. Hey Bill Martin, when should we expect the indictment of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr and Loretta Lynch?

        1. You can tell from a photo that the phone is unsecure?? How??? Do you just assume it is unsecure as a side-effect of your TDS?

          1. This story has been well-documented. Google (Trump, unsecured phone) and find out what the world not limited to the bubble knows. Living in denial is not the same thing as truth.

            1. The New York Times has been writing unsubstantiated accusations continuously without sources and without substance. It’s hard to keep up with their anonymously sourced articles that turn out to be wrong or otherwise misleading. The NYTimes doesn’t care because it is more than willing to post lies to promote its views.

              I await substantiation of the claim which is never provided along with the substance since even if he posted to Twitter on an unsecured phone that posting most definitely is open to the public and is not secret.

              1. Allan – You for some reason think saying “New York Times” which somehow makes the news false. I asked Foxtrot to google it himself to have the choice of over a dozen news sources reporting this. I’ll supply you an article from Forbes but there is no evidence which will convince you of what the world already knows. He not only tweets but has conversations on these phones. Whether you accept it or not doesn’t keep it from being true.

                https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanwhitwam/2017/02/17/congress-pushing-for-investigation-of-trumps-android-phone/#27cb9e50510a

                1. You are aware that the article has a dateline of February 2017, don’t you? It was filled with conjecture about the phone and the operating system. I know you are also aware that the phone can be made secure by our agencies, just like Obama’s Blackberry was. That seems to be a non issue.
                  The tearing up of documents is troubling though.

                  1. Tony, I understand why some might have a bit of concern hearing a story about torn up documents. I’m not sure how anyone would know unless there was another anonymous statement. If so then one has to ascertain the truth, how many documents and what they were. It sounds much about nothing. Were they news articles? Were they speeches he didn’t like? All this data seems to be missing because the idea is to get the President via innuendo. Since there are also reports stating that some were taping the documents back together that tells us that the documents weren’t destroyed or bleached. I can’t figure out what the crime is.

                    It’s not uncommon to tear up garbage papers which separate them from the more important stuff. I do it all the time.

                  2. There are multiple articles with multiple dates regarding his phone usage because he is too stubborn to change. I chose the Fortune article because there was less for Allan to complain about the source. Here’s an article from last month. It is frustrating trying to “prove” to non-believers like Allan that things are true that you don’t hear about on Fox or whatever their limited news source is.
                    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/21/trump-phone-security-risk-hackers-601903

                    1. Take note how there are no names and no one willing to openly stand by the comments or how they know they are of importance. This is the continuous stupidity of the left that relies on unproven comments while known abuses by the Clinton’s and the FBI aren’t adequately approached.

                      Enigma, you prove yourself to be an inaccurate purveyor of news day after day so why should anyone rely on anything you say or quote.

                    3. Enigma, these people should not be reporting to the news media. They can report to Congress or even the DOJ but not the news media. How can one accept reports of this nature that are so likely to be twisted or untrue?

                      Haven’t you read excerpts from the IG report to see how bad things have been twisted and the biases that exist in the FBI?

                      Those emails from high ranking FBI members represent the type of law one sees in despotic countries. Like or hate Trump anyone with a brain can see that the FBI with respect to Trump became a rogue agency.

                    4. If FBI agents are leaking about an investigation – they should be fired.

                      If they are reporting misconduct – there are means to do so.
                      If nothing else works. contacting a congressmen.

                    5. Remember that when the report comes out about agents leaking to Guiliani. I suspect one of the driving forces behind Comey’s announcement about re-opening the Clinton E-mail investigations was because he couldn’t keep rogue agents from leaking it? Somehow all the alleged deep-state agents forgot all about the ongoing Trump-Russia investigation.
                      BTW, Congressmen with knowledge asked that information about Trump be released (and didn’t leak it themselves) but Republicans refused. (Mitch McConnell in particular)

                    6. For more than two years the left has promised me that when this or that comes out,
                      and still nothing.
                      Meanwhile more and more does come out demonstrating horrendous political corruption by the obama administration.

                      Horowitz report is damning on the facts – though mostly it merely confirms as fact what has been reported.

                      Horowitz err’s only in analysis.

                      Any conclusion regarding the legitimacy of the outcome is inherently impossible given the amount of misconduct found.

                      Further one of Horowitz’s most damning findings, he completely failed to follow through on.

                      If the use of private email and phones for government business was pervasive – and particularly the transmission of classified information over them, then those involved could not possibly investigate Clinton.

                      If you send pick pockets to investigate a burglary, you can not expect them to find a crime.

                    7. If an FBI agent “leaked” to Guiliani (or anyone) they should be dismissed and possibly prosecuted.

                      But we do not prosecute rumours.

                      BTW the left should be up in arms about the leaking as it harmed clinton.

                      Though as I have said before – I have little sympathy.

                      Trump said the things he said on the access hollywood tape.

                      Even if it is improperly leaked – it is still him, saying what was said.

                      Clinton did subvert federal record keeping laws and in the process recklessly breached security.

                      We can punish those who leaked about that investigation.
                      But she has no moral high ground to stand on.

                      “My misconduct should have been kept secret” is NOT a compelling argument.

                    8. I have no idea what you are talking about regarding information congressmen have on Trump.

                      Unlike FBI agents – absent the information being classified individual congressmen are free to leak what they know.

                      And even were there are issues – they can make whatever they want public using their speach and debate clause protection.

                      More simply the claims of congressmen that they have seen things they can not tell is pretty dubious

                2. Yes, the NYTimes has been caught over and over again stating facts that were not confirmed and were wrong frequently from anonymous sources. They have proven that they cannot be trusted so everything they say has to be confirmed by another source that isn’t copying what they are saying.

                  I read the NYTimes piece and googled other sources that seem to bring us back to the same place, the NYTimes.

                  You don’t know what good evidence is and you have no ability to assess the truth.

                  Let us hear Enigma who the source is and how they know that secret information is being released. That information doesn’t exist so it is just another story for you to tell while you cover up the 30,000 emails of Hillary and all the government’s use of private phones because they didn’t want anyone to know of the conversations when those conversations were supposed to be in the public record.

                    1. No. It leads me to the fact there is no known evidence one way or the other and that the NYTimes anonymous leads are actually hit pieces.

                    2. This is what I would sound like if I defended Obama ridiculously on known things.
                      Allan : “You know O’bama smokes cigarettes sometimes?”
                      Me: “No he doesn’t. you have absolutely no proof.”
                      Allan: Here’s a picture of him smoking (picture provided)
                      Me: You don’t even know when that picture was taken, everybody has at least tried a cigarette. It could have been years ago.”
                      Allan: “Here’s another picture taken in the Oval Office.” (Picture provided)
                      Me: “This was from Fox News and all they do is lie. You can’t believe anything they say. Who took the picture? Name names?”
                      Allan: “Here are quotes of Obama discussing his problems with smoking.” (Quotes provided)
                      Me: “Fox News has a history of just making stuff up. I don’t believe anything they say.”
                      Alan: “This is easily verifiable, just Google it and see for yourself from any number of sources.”
                      Me: “I looked and everything comes back to Fox News.” I then cover my ears and eyes and go, “La La La La La La I can’t hear you!”

                    3. What is your point? The NYTimes has been unreliable for a long time. There is such a thing as second and third-party verification. The NYTimes doesn’t even have first-party verification and historically they have used anecdotes or intentional political leaks to the press as verified news.

                      When real news appears the press runs away. Look at O’Keefe’s videos on abuse of students and how the teachers union will lie to protect the teachers and blame the students. That is a nonpartisan issue and what have you seen in the press about it?

                    5. Again, the article is vague about the truth or the conclusions that can be drawn but I appreciate the security concerns.

                      I only wish that the Democratic Senator had as much concern when the President and Secretary of State (Obama Clinton) communicated on unsecured phones when in foreign capitals. That is a proven fact and that secret material sent by Secretary Clinton from unsecured systems got in the hands of our enemies is also a fact. That Obama lied when he said he didn’t know Clinton used unsecured systems since he had to know to communicate in that fashion. That the FBI also was using unsecured devices is proven as well and that they were acting in a biased fashion was also proven and documented in text emails.

                      The first is pure conjecture though concerns me and should be looked at. The second is totally proven and documented to the extent that foreign enemies were able to obtain a lot of those unsecured transmissions.

                    6. The whole argument is ludicrously stupid.

                      The one person in the country that our national security laws do not apply to is the president.

                      You can impeach him for being reckless about national security.

                      But he can not violate the law. The president can go to the press room and start reading from top secret documents if he wishes.

    3. You are again misrepresenting the law – as well as the facts.

      Your idea of what someone can do in a criminal investigation seems to be constrained to Muellers assertions.

      Manafort has just responded to Mueller’s new indictment and his demand to revoke bail.

      The core of the response is that he has every right to contact the witnesses in procedings in which he is the target.

      Manafort is correct as a matter of law. He still might have bail revoked – but if he does that would be because the indictment claims he tried to get witnesses to alter their testimony.

      That would be witness tampering – though that is a complex case to make.

      Actual witness tampering requires proving that you tried to get a witness to change their testimony from factually correct to factually incorrect. Given that we do not know what the truth is, and that witnesses often misremember prompting witnesses or suggesting they are in error or misrecollect is not tamper unless you can establish it is an effort to change from the fact to fiction.

      I would note that police nidge witnesses testimony all the time.
      I have read numerous transcripts of police interviews that are far more egregious than anything manafort purportedly said.

      Even Muellers prosecutions of Flynn and Papadoulis can be viewed as witness tampering.

      Recall things as I want you to or go to jail.

      We tolerate that behavior on the part of police and prosecutors all the time.
      But it is still far more egregious than what most people who get charged with witness tampering do.

      1. The witnesses that Manafort and Kilimnik attempted to suborn were cooperating with Mueller. They’re the ones who ratted Manafort and Kilimnik out. Keep you eye on the ball, Tiara Boy.

        1. From the Wikipedia article on Alan Friedman, Chairman of FBC Media:

          In a June 2018 article, The New York Times named Friedman as a former associate of Paul Manafort who had contacted Special Counsel Robert Mueller to inform the counsel of Manafort’s attempt at witness tampering. The article described how Friedman had helped to arrange and gave advice on writing op-eds that favored Viktor Yanukovich of Ukraine during his short tenure as president at the behest of Manafort and that Friedman was paid millions of dollars for his efforts. ““Loyalty did not always feature strongly among his values,” Neil Boyde, a former chief financial officer at the company, said in an interview.

          1. Reading is clearly not your forte.

            Please read your own cited paragraph again – carefully.

            I would suggest stripping out all of the adjectives as well as conclusory statements,
            And what you have left clearly does not mean what you are trying to claim.
            Adjectives and third party conclusions are not facts (and violate wikipedia’s standards).

            1. The only words that L4D typed in the post to which Tiara Boy objects were the following:

              From the Wikipedia article on Alan Friedman, Chairman of FBC Media:

              All other words in the post to which Tiara Boy objects were copied and pasted from Wikipedia. Tiara Boy is rapidly becoming the most ridiculous creature on the Turley blawg. For those of you who insist upon definitions, a ridiculous creature is a creature worthy of ridicule.

              1. Your reply does not make sense.

                With respect to the evidence regarding Manafort’s purported witness tampering – the indictment is the primary source.

                I really do not care what wikipedia ro NYT or …. says that the indictment says that manafort said.

                The indictment is very clear on what Manafort did – he sent a message with a link to an article and a short comment on the article.

                The crux of the indictment is not the message it is Friedman’s purported feelings about what he thinks Manafort intended. That is just garbage.

                You left wing nuts – and in this case Mueller get into all kinds of trouble when you presume people are clairvoyant. You and Mueller need to stick to facts.

                Try this a completely different way.

                If the same message had been sent by Manafort’s attorney, this would have died.
                There is no way Mueller would try to claim witness tampering based on the same message from an attorney.

              2. L4D enables David Benson – a creature can be ridiculous to one person and heroic to the next. It is all in the eye of the beholder. For example, there is creature A who finds you ridiculous, then there is creature B who finds me ridiculous. The problem is finding creature C who finds both of us ridiculous.

                1. Paul C. Schulte,…
                  – I think that there is a clearer consensus that L4D/ Diane is ridiculous.

        2. I believe you are wrong about the facts.

          Regardless, that does not alter the fact that Manafort may contact any witness, he may question them.

          He may not threaten them with anything except the natural consequences of their actions.
          As an example if he beleives they are lying he can threaten going after them for perjury.
          That is a poor threat from a defendant, but it is still legal.
          He may not entice them to change their testimony.

          He may suggest that their recollaction is in error.

          It is usually a very bad idea for a criminal defendant to contact witnesses,
          that is why it is usually done by lawyers.
          But a bad idea is not the same as a crime.

          The connection between Manafort and Kilimnik is years long and Mueller had plenty of evidence of that from emails.

          Kilimnik is highly likely a russian operative, but there is no evidence that Manafort knew that or that Kilimnik “ran” manafort. Kilimnik reported what Manafort was doing. They did not conspire.

          I would further note that highly likely is not the same as certain.

          1. The most ridiculous creature, Tiara Boy, said, “I believe you are wrong about the facts.”

            Well, you “believe,” do you?

            Tiara Boy added that, “Regardless, that does not alter the fact that Manafort may contact any witness, he may question them.”

            Manafort was placed under house arrest, with a monitoring device around his ankle, under a court order expressly forbidding Manafort from contacting any of the witnesses that Manafort and Kilimnik contacted. You are wrong. And your beliefs to the contrary are utterly irrelevant to the facts of the matter, you most ridiculous creature, you. Alan Friedman ratted Manafort and Kilimnik out to Mueller. Manafort is now in jail.

            Keep your eye on the ball, Tiara Boy.

            1. According to the indictment, Manafort sent Friedman a link to a newspaper article with a note that the article “made clear” than the hapsburg group only operated in europe.

              Mueller then makes claims about what Friedman beleives Manaforts intentions are.

              “Res ipsa loquitur” – manafort’s communication “speaks for itself”. What Mueller thinks Freidman thinks Manafort intended is meaningless.

              The article can not be an attempt to suborn perjury – it is a newspaper article.
              If the note accurately represents the article then the not can not either.
              If it does not accurately reflect the article – it still not an attempt to suborn perjury.

              I find it bizarre that people who have zero understanding of morality, can presume an action is immoral because of what they “feel”

              Facts matter.

              Even an attempt to persuade someone to alter their testimony is not witness tampering, unless the person doing the persuading knows that they are trying to alter the testimony from true to false.

              If you are convinced the sun is an almond, and intend to testify that it is and I vigorously try to persuade you it is a star and to change your testimony.

              I have not suborned perjury.

              Prosecutors tend to presume they have a property interest in their “witnesses”
              They do not Own them. They have no more right to attempt to persuade them than the defense does.

        1. Bail revoked is not tried and convicted.

          Several legal scholars have noted that the bail revocation was highly likely. regardless of the merits of the claim.

          The judge is supposed to determine whether it merits bail revocation using probable cause as the standard.

          That is also supposed to be the standard for a grand jury indictment – though we all know a prosecutor can get anything from a grand jury.

          Ince Mueller had a grand jury indictment the Judge would have had to been willing to determine that the Grand Jury was likely to be wrong in determining probable cause to not revoke bail.

          Regardless, this is more of Mueller thug tactics that he has been famous for for decades.

          I would note he has a HORIBBLE track record he has hounded innocent people to suicide and lost several multimillion dollar lawsuits for hounding innocent people.

          Frankly he should have been lead out to pasture after the Richard Jewel Fiasco.

          But only in government can you fail upward.

            1. Of course I am suggesting Manafort is innocent.

              That is our standard – innocent until proven guilty.

              With respect to the witness tampering indictment – absent evidence beyond what is in the indictment – Manafort is clearly innocent – but very stupid to be playing games like this with someone as bullheaded as Mueller.

              With respect to the other charges ?
              The money laundering charges are garbage – you can not launder legally earned money.

              My understanding of the tax charges is they did not make the first indictment because the IRS balked – because they had a 2014 settlement with Manafort.

              If that is true – those go down the toilet too – unless the IRS settlement was reached fraudulently.

              I think it is pretty clear Manafort was engaged in tax evasion. But given the IRS settlement only the states would remain with a case – and that does not help Mueller.

              With respect to the foreign lobbying. Manafort hired US firms to do the actual lobbying – they are on the hook. That means Podesta Group – why aren’t they on the dock ?

              Do I think Manafort is sleazy ? Sure.

            2. enigma – Manafort is presumed innocent until found guilty. 😉

              1. Very true, but al the arguments presented against prosecuting him had nothing to do with a belief he wasn’t guilty (some of the money laundering charges are alleged to be very easy to prove by following the paper trail) and had eveverything to do with a belief of some unfair prosecution.

                1. (some of the money laundering charges are alleged to be very easy to prove by following the paper trail)

                  See Andrew McCarthy on this point. The money-laundering charges are a fan dance. You have to prove in the first instance that the money in question is ill-gotten gains.

                  2. I would appreciate a link to McCarthy on that.

                    I have been saying the same thing.

                    I am very surprised that few have taken it up.

                    Moving arround money that is not profits from illegal activities is not money laundering.

                    Manafort made lots of money providing legitimate political consulting services to unsavory people.

                    Unpleasant, but legal.

                    None of that money is taxable in the US until it returns to the US.

                    Much of what Mueller described sounder like Tax evasion.
                    It was not money laundering.

                    My understanding is that the tax evasion indictment was delayed because IRS refused to sign off.
                    They had settled with Manafort in 2014. If that is so, unless Manafort commited fraud in the settlement, the tax evasions charges are dead too.

                2. All money laundering charges require that the money is the profits of an illegal act.

                  Manafort’s money was not only earned legally – but outside the US.

                  If Manafort earned his money selling drugs to ukraininans, that would not be a US crime,
                  and his efforts to conceal the source of the funds would not be US moneylaundering.

                  I know it is hard for left wing nuts to understand but US law does not have global jurisdiction.

                    1. Our courts and congress can pass laws as they please – they have no sovereignity in foreign countries.
                      That concept is totally ludicrous.

                      We are NOT the policemen of the world.

                      What is the difference between saying Manafort can not while entirely outside of the US act in a way that would be legal for the ukrainian next to him ?
                      Or are you going to say our anti-bribery laws apply to the ukrainian too ?

                      BTW the FCPA is enforced by the SEC and the current SEC chair thinks it is crap and is not looking to enforce it Sessions has assured people it will be enforced, but unforcement is not under DOJ.

                      It appears that NO ONE has ever been prosecuted criminally.
                      Doing so would be extremely risky as SCOTUS could reject the entire law.

                      Trump is also on the record asserting that it is a horrible law – which it is, and numerous studies have demonstrated that it is incredibly destructive of US foreign investment.

                      Regardless, I strongly suspect Mueller does not have the ability to try to enforce it.

                      But again we have a left wing nut arguing for an unusual and ridiculously broad interpretation of a law for the purpose of “getting” someone they hate.

                      That is pretty much the definition of the rule of man not law.

                      Whenever you are sitting down saying – I want to get Manafort – lets go through the code to see if we can find a law that we can argue that he has broken – you are lawless.

                      You are doing exactly what Berria did in the USSR.

                      Is that a comparison you are happy with.

                      We investigate crimes – not persons. We prosecute the people who committed the crime.

                      But the focus is on the crime, not the person.

                      And that should also tell you what is wrong with the entire FBI investigation of Trump

                      What is wrong is that it was and remains an investigation of Trump.

                      The left makes not even the slightest secret that the goal is to keep looking until they can find (or create) some crime that Trump has committed.

                    2. SCOTUS keeps telling us about Congress’s ability to pass laws to address situations and in this case they did. You actually have no idea what the investigation is focusing on or what crimes have been discovered long ago or committed. You are defending someone you don’t likely believe incapable of committing any manner of crime, it would just be inconvenient if true? Fortunately, our debate is relatively meaningless as the actual Special Counsel is doing its job. Seemingly beating the press to every possible lead.

                    3. You seem to think that because the Mueller investigation tells nothing about what it is up to, that anything is possible.

                      All of us know most of the facts that are available on the outside – and we have some more knowledge as a consequence of the IG report.

                      Whatever Mueller might be investigating, he is constrained by those things we already know.

                      Whether you like it or not – that leaves very little.

                      Any Trump/Russia collusion investigation is either dead or nearly dead.
                      The means for such collusion does not exist.

                      We have a time line and a collection of things we do know.
                      Mueller can not know of something that is inconsistent with those facts or timeline.

                    5. You keep fixating on people.

                      I am not “defending people” I am defending sanity against insanity.

                      What is true is true – even if Hitler speaks it.
                      False is false even if offered as truth by a saint.

                      Stick to facts, logic and reason.

                    6. “I am not “defending people” I am defending sanity against insanity.”

                      Dhlii it appears that no amount of logic can unstick the left from believing that the law applies only where it advances their political aims. It doesn’t matter the color, race or religion. All must be equal under the law. It doesn’t matter what the ultimate aim is. All must be equal under the law. If one doesn’t like the results of the law change it but remember one shouldn’t be changing it back to meet their own desired results.

                    7. Amen.

                      Read the IG report – if the FBI/DOJ was treating the Trump investigation the way they did the Clinton investigation, the left would be up in arms having a holy war.

                      In fact they are constantly trying to setup Trump for the same claim as Clinton – mishandling classifed information – except that is impossible.

                      I agree with many that the Clinton investigation was trashed because it would lead to Obama.

                      But Obama actually can transmit classified information over a non-government email account.
                      It would be stupid. but it is nearly impossible for the president to violate the espionage act.

                      Alot is made of Trump sharing classified information about terrorists obtained from Israel with the Russians.

                      The president is allowed to do that.

                      After he Email server fiasco the ONLY government job Clinton could ever get was president.
                      Because it is the only job that does nto require passing a security clearance.

                      The president is the ultimate decider on issues of national security or classification.
                      The president can give classified information to anyone – whether they have a clearance or not.

                    8. Almost nothing Mueller has done has not been presaged by the press – though much of the press speculation has been wrong.

                      Frankly I think the Mueller investigation leaks like a seive and if they had anything we would know.

                      Regardless, Mueller is still constrained by reality.

                      What we have seen is that for a long time Mueller has been off on tangents – there is pretty much nothing he has investigated that has any bearing on his mission.

                      The left and likely Mueller are depending on flipping someone.

                      That of course presumes two things – that someone can be flipped.
                      That they have something to say.

                      We also know alot of Mueller’s past. We know that he is a pit bull, that he is very aggressive and that he will tenaciously dig down a dry hole forever.

                      That should not give you confidence. Virtually all of the high profile investigations Mueller has pursued have been failures – and the core of the failure rests with his dogged pursuit of the wrong thing.

                      The actual special counsel is doing something.
                      There is not particularly good reason to beleive he is doing anything useful.

                      He is bogged down now in the actual Russia thing – because he indicted a bunch of russians with a weak case assuming he would never have to prosecute. But indicting a corporation is stupid, because they can defend themselves without risk. And they have chosen to do so and are demanding a speedy trial and discovery and Mueller is now stalling.

                    9. “Almost nothing Mueller has done has not been presaged by the press – though much of the press speculation has been wrong”
                      In reality, most of the information uncovered by the press also came with the discovery that Mueller already had the information or had spoken with the witnesses.

                    10. enigma – you really should check out the chart in the OIG report of the connection between FBI agents and reporters. It is horrifying. With each connection is contained the number of times the individuals connected. Leaks hell, it was a sieve.

                    11. I don’t doubt at all that the FBI leaks, the organization, in general, leans fairly far right and most of the leaking is in support of those views. How many leaks were there about the Trump/Russia investigation before the election? As much as I would love to know what Mueller is doing, I only see leaks from witnesses and the White House.

                    12. enigma – it only lists contacts, not leaks, but the number is stunning both people and contacts. Take a look for yourself. It is rather eye-opening. We know from McCabe and Comey some were official or unofficial leaks.

                    13. If there is any discussion about Russian influence it should involve the Clintons, Ukranian influence, the Clintons again. They are dirty and always have been.

                      No one politician has been investigated more than Trump and to date zero of significance having to do with his Presidency has been found. I don’t know that anything of major significance has been found in his business career either.

                    14. No offense Allan but you have no idea what has been found? We’ll all see the report when it comes out. We actually do know his foundation is a sham! He’s the most sued person that ever ran for President with over 3,500 lawsuits against him. He doesn’t pay his bills, even his lawyers. How much would you be willing to bet Mueller finds zero?
                      https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/01/donald-trump-lawsuits-legal-battles/84995854/

                    15. Enigma, you will always be able to make that argument that we don’t know what has been found. We never know anything for sure but statistically, we can make good guesses.

                      With the time and resources spent if there is nothing on Trump now then we can consider the case statistically one that should be closed. One cannot progress with the type of uncertainty you advocate.

                      The foundation complaint is meaningless. The Clinton Foundation case, on the other hand, appears to involve potential criminal offenses where the investigators of that foundation have now been found to have wanted Hillary to win.

                      ” 3,500 lawsuits against him. ”

                      You have mentioned lawsuits and racism in regard to Trump many times but in the end, your quests have all failed to produce a significant claim that would prevent him from being President. You have exaggerated and, without offense, lied when you made your claims.

                      One can find something on everyone unless they died stillborn. I’ll make that bet if the claim is that what is found would have prevented him from becoming President.

                      So far the people going to jail are his attackers. Mueller, IMO and based on my standards, is unethical for he should have recused himself based on the fact that he was personally involved. Remember, he was FBI director preceding Comey and was at the FBI when some of these problems were starting to develop (or had developed). For all we know (not accusing) his time at the FBI might have caused him to be involved in some of the bad behavior of FBI officials.

                    17. Paul, while Enigma draws ridiculous conclusions on very questionable facts I prefer to deal with known facts and draw conclusions in a more judicious fashion. That is why my accusations hold up and Enigma’s don’t.

                    18. No, Allan, I won’t always be able to make a claim we don’t know what has been found. There will be a report that hopefully, Trump won’t be able to keep secret because the person in charge of the investigation, currently Rosenstein, has the ability to suppress it. Surely you want to see whats in the report. This investigation has taken less time than Watergate, far less than Benghazi and instead of finding nothing, has produced almost two dozen indictments and guilty pleas. When I claimed the 3,500 lawsuits I did provide back-up. The Federal Government and his regular tweets back up my other claims. You will be able to claim his innocence until such time comes as evidence is presented that disproves it. Unfortunately, that time is near at hand.

                    19. Enigma, claims are not facts until they have been proven. I have been involved in dozens of claims against major corporations where my side prevailed in some of them with monetary compensation. None of these claims reflect who I am. Let’s hear about the suits that Trump lost in court where he (or members of his family) was the only one involved. Let’s discuss them because almost all of your claims are nonsense and tell you nothing about Trump just like my suits above tell you nothing about me.

                      You base your arguments on unproven data much of it later to be proven wrong. Then you draw conclusions from that data and consider your conclusions additional proof. Logic is not your strong suit.

                      As far as I am concerned I want a full investigation of everyone involved and I want the data released. I am not as interested in prosecuting people for questionable activities, only the real thing. I treat Obama and Bill Clinton as I would Trump. Sometimes I defended both of them based on principle despite my dislike.

                      I like to deal in principles and to use the same principles on Democrats or Republicans, people I like and people I dislike.

                    21. “I would consider this a loss? How about you?”

                      1)Tell us your claim in your own words.
                      2)Tell us the proof in your own words.
                      3)Cite the relevant passage(s) from your article. (So we have everything in black and white)
                      4)Cite where the entire article can be found.

                      Since this is your example I assume this is the best you are aware of. If there is “a loss” that is a better example skip this one and use the other.

                      I await your response.

                    23. Demand? I asked what your claim was and what proof you had. That is a pretty reasonable request based on your last reply.

                      Enigma, is it possible that your arguments don’t exist? Absolutely. Blind hatred is not uncommon. It is a personality trait of extremely biased people and that seems to be where your problem lies.

                    24. If you wish to persuade other people – it is their requirements you have to meet.
                      You are not obligated to do so,
                      but they are not obligated to listen to you.

                      It is unlikely that you will ever persuade me – or Allan,
                      but that is because you are unable to make your argument using facts, logic and reason.
                      If you could do so, then persuasion would be trivial.

                    25. I am guessing that you have never been in a lawsuit before.

                      Settlements are the norm. They mean that both sides found a way to end it.

                      Regardless, settlement or not it is very rare that anyone “wins” a lawsuit.

                    27. For Trump – pocket change.

                      I would also note, that I doubt they will ever pay out a fraction of that.

                    28. “$25,000,000… call it what you like.”

                      Enigma if I recall the suit was for much more and that $25 million might have been considered cheap or petty cash. If that is so, who won? Obviously not the plaintiff.

                      I seem to also recall that the suit had dropped off the face of the earth at one point. Why? Attornies drop such cases when it appears they cannot win or at least win good enough to cover costs and make a bit of a profit. If that is correct then the attornies dropped the case because they felt there was no winnable case.

                      The only thing that changed and resurrected the case was that Trump became President and a lot of people wanted to attack the President. That was one way of doing so. I don’t even think the attornies for the case took a profit. They knew they could cause difficulty for the President and the President knew that his time was worth more than $25 million dollars. They settled. It sounds like a political settlement with the lawyers doing exactly what you accuse Trump of doing.

                    29. Sorry Enigma – but we know a great deal.

                      Aside from the analysis the IG’s report provides us with a great deal of facts.

                      We also know about indictments and guilty pleas.

                      We have testimony – some of which was public and of what was not the salient points have been published.

                      From all these documentary and testimonial sources we know alot of what has been reported to be true and far more to have either been false or at best inaccurate.

                      Regardless, between what we now know as true and what we now know as false.

                      We have some pretty well defined limits for what is left of th Mueller investigation.

                      We know that Mueller has prosecuted the tiniest deviations from his perception of the Truth in someone;s testimony or answers to FBI agents.
                      While a serious abuse of power, it has consequences the other way.
                      We can assume with confidence that Mueller has nothing that contradicts the testimony of those he has not indicted – or he would have indicted them.

                      You have nothing left.
                      The Mueller investigation is litterally a witch hunt – ever expanding – fueled by the left’s certainty that Trump must have done something wrong somewhere.

                      You have become lawless – the USSR, pinning the crime to the man.

                    30. You might as well go ahead and write the report for Mueller since you know so much. Mueller has all of Trump’s financial records. While you may not see it, “We” know that Donald Trump Jr has lied in his testimony to Congress as has Erik Prince. “We” know the only banks in the world willing to work with Trump have previously admitted laundering Russian money. “We” know Trump dictated a false statement involving a previously undisclosed meeting with Russians involving his son, son-in-law, and campaign manager, this was not illegal but does give you insight into his state of mind and willingness to lie. “We” know Trump has lied throughout previous depositions and it is highly unlikely he could sit through an interview with the FBI of any length and not perjure himself, not a trap, just the inability of the man to even differentiate between fact and truth.
                      So, “We” will see, you will likely discredit everything that comes out because you have your mind made up. I am not hoping to persuade you of anything, Allan can provide his checklist of demands and I choose not to play his game. The report will be the report, then we can discuss your denial.
                      If it comes back exonerating Trump, I will have egg all over my face. If it lists multiple crimes, backed up by witnesses and financial records and text messages and E-mails and contracts. You will simply deny, deny, deny. Good luck with that.

                    31. We” know that Donald Trump Jr has lied in his testimony to Congress as has Erik Prince. “

                      If that was provable – if that was even arguable – then why hasn’t Mueller indicted them ?
                      Because it is not true.

                      It is very remotely possible Mueller will come up with future information that gives him a basis to beleive that Trump Jr. or Price lied to the FBI or to congress. But it is highly improbable that he has that now, or he would have indicted them.

                    32. ” We know the only banks in the world willing to work with Trump have previously admitted laundering Russian money. ”

                      So many assumptions. As is self evident by the claims of the left that Trump is getting paid of by the Chinese or the Saudi’s or the Qatari’s or … through sweetheart bank loans.

                      “We” and that would include you – know your statement above is false.

                      Regardless, I think you will find that there have always been myriads of banks that would lend to Trump.
                      At one time he was getting the best rates from Russian banks.

                      Banks do not turn down people like Trump. They just offer interest rates higher than Trump wants to pay.

                      Every bank in the world “money launders”.

                      100% of US cash has traces of cocaine on it. It has all been used in drug deals, it has all passed through banks. The banks know this.

                      Personally I am very libertarian and would entirely eliminate money laundering as a crime.

                      If you actually conspired with criminals – then you should be charged.

                      Of someone brings you a large amount of money of unknown origen and wants to buy something from you. You should not be required by government to explore the origens of that money.

                      Nor do I think that drugs – any drugs should be illegal

                      If we are only free to make good decisions we are not really free.

                      An actual crime is when you use force (or fraud) against another without justification – defense of self, defense of others. If you are not using force, then it is not a crime.
                      Your actions might be contract violations or torts though, and government is there to enforce civil and tort law.

                    33. “We know Trump dictated a false statement involving a previously undisclosed meeting with Russians involving his son, son-in-law, and campaign manager, this was not illegal but does give you insight into his state of mind and willingness to lie. “

                      BZZT, wrong.

                      There was no obligation to disclose.
                      The left constantly seems to think that you are entitled to know what other people do.

                      Trump participated in spinning that meeting. If that is lying – then there are no words ever out of a democrats mouth that were the truth.

                      The meeting WAS about Russian Adoption. It was not SOLD to Trump Jr. as about Russian adoption.

                      If schedule a meeting with my boss to ask for a raise, and my boss spends the entire meeting telling me that if I do not get my act together I am going to get fired.

                      Is the meeting about getting a raise, or is it about getting fired ?

                    34. “We know Trump has lied throughout previous depositions and it is highly unlikely he could sit through an interview with the FBI of any length and not perjure himself”

                      You do know that ? Then I presume you can cite specifics, and you can explain why Trump rarely settles lawsuits and generally does well in them, and has never been found to lack credibility as a witness, much less charged with perjury.

                      You need to pay more attention to reality.

                    35. “We will see, you will likely discredit everything that comes out because you have your mind made up.”

                      I draw my conclusions based on those things that can be reasonably established as facts – documentation, testimony, particularly when it is consistent.

                      I further assess the probability that things we do not know to be facts are true – based on their consistency with the things we know to be true.

                      As an example it is highly unlikely that Mueller has information that demonstrates that Trump Jr.. Carter Page, …. have lied under oath – or he would have indicted them.

                      That is not a fact. But it is something with a very high probability of being true.

                      I also make inferences regarding the probability that something CAN NOT be true, given what we know to the true.

                      As an example we have identified and throughtly examing every single suggested contact between someone vaguely affiliated with the Trump campaign and anyone vaguely affiliated with Russia prior to the DNC email hack/leak.
                      None of those known contacts are of consequence. None of them are actually with The Russian government or Russian Government agents, /\ None of them are with Hackers associated with Russia.

                      Therefore it is nearly impossible for the Trump campaign to have had any before the fact involvement.
                      At the very least it would require discovering some new channel between Trump and Russia that does nto currently exist in concrete rumours.

                      That is the most damaging possible claim against Trump – prove prior involvement with the Russian’s and prior knowledge of the hacking – and Trump is getting impeached, going to jail and we are going to have one hell of a mess. The GOP will likely get exterminated in the midterms and 2020 will be a democratic landslide.

                      At the moment the odds of that are near infinitesimal.

                      But if you prove those things – I will join you in calling for Trump’s impeachment and prosecution.

                      It would be very damaging – though not nearly so bad, if The Trump campaign were tied to Russian Facebook and twitter adds.

                      That is highly improbable. Given that Trump spent more than 50M – and probably close to 100M himself on social media – why would he go to huge effort to setup a secret back channel with the russians who spent a bit over 1M in 2016 on political effort Almost all of which targeted the RUSSIAN election.

                      No amerian presidential candidate of either party is ever going to collude with Russia or any other foriegn power in any way except possible rogue elements, because the risk is huge the probability fo getting caught near certain and the reward non-existant.

                      Russian spending on the US election was something over 10K.
                      I doubt anyone in the entire upper teir of the Trump campaign would take a meeting to discus a 10K advertising program.

                      But the left constantly presumes that people engage in stupid evil deeds that no one in their right might would do.

                      If Trump (or any other candidate) were going to try to “cheat” they would not do so with the Russians.
                      That makes no sense.

                    36. “I am not hoping to persuade you of anything, ”

                      Of course your not. The tools necescary to persuade intelligent people are
                      facts, logic, reason.

                      Those are tools you not only do not know how to use, but refuse to try.

                      Once in a while someone on the left brings intelligence facts and logic to one of these debates.
                      But that is rare, and it is not you.

                    37. “The report will be the report, then we can discuss your denial. If it comes back exonerating Trump,”

                      The House and Senate reports already found no Trump/Russia collusion.
                      You have egg on your face.

                      The IG reports are not looking for collusion.
                      The IG reports on how a part of government did their job.

                      The current report demonstrates that the Clinton email investigation was conducted incredibly badly.

                      I expect the report on the FBI Trump/Russia investigation to be even more damning.

                      But it is not going to exhonerate Trump – it is going to devestate the DOJ/State/FBI/CIA as well as other Obama adminsitration actors.

                      That is the purpose of the report.
                      It is NOT going to look at the Mueller investigation at all.
                      It is NOT likely to weigh in on Trump/Russia collusion.

                      Though it will likely tell us what the FBI did, when it did it, and what it knew at that time.

                    38. Claim: “We” know the only banks in the world willing to work with Trump have previously admitted laundering Russian money.”

                      Proof: ABSENT

                      “Allan can provide his checklist of demands and I choose not to play his game. ”

                      Game? Look above Enigma. You spent the time writing out your claim but your proof was ABSENT.

                    39. I thought I was communicating with an informed populace, I didn’t realize just how much you didn’t know. The blog rules only pernit me to provide one link per post. Here’s one confirming Deutsche Bank was fined $!0 BILLION DOLLARS for their Russian money laundering scheme. Feel free to look up Bank of Cyprus and Wilbur Ross on your own.

                      http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/31/investing/deutsche-bank-us-fine-russia-money-laundering/index.html

                    40. “I thought I was communicating with an informed populace,”

                      Who knows what you are muttering about or who you are talking to Enigma. You refused to respond to a simple question. The reason is that you make things up all the time and don’t know the difference between truth and fiction.

                      I’ll repeat my earlier reply.

                      Claim: “We” know the only banks in the world willing to work with Trump have previously admitted laundering Russian money.”
                      Proof: ABSENT
                      “Allan can provide his checklist of demands and I choose not to play his game. ”
                      Game? Look above Enigma. You spent the time writing out your claim but your proof was ABSENT.

                      If your recent response was your proof, it isn’t. Perhaps you want to state in your own words what your proof is.

                    42. Enigma, you are the one that cannot respond in your own words nor put a claim and proof in the same paragraph. You like to distance yourself from your citations because you don’t even know what they say and you can’t even associate them with your arguments. You lack the logical ability to understand what proof is or the levels of proof.

                    43. Excellent!.

                      I often find that the links provided to support the claims of someone for the left do not support those claims, and sometimes ever refute them.

                      The logical skills of those on the left are appallingly bad.
                      As are those of journalist.

                    44. Dhlii, take note of this: “NEW YORK (Reuters) – Only a quarter of U.S. adults in a recent survey could fully identify factual statements – as opposed to opinion – in news stories, the Pew Research Center found in a study released on Monday.”

                      It looks like Enigma didn’t make the cut.

                    45. I am surprised it is that low.

                      Post modernism the religion of the left litterally refuses to distinguish facts from oppinions.

                      The core ideology of the left is that everything is an oppinion.

                      We can vote on whether the sun will rise tomorow – and the sun will obey.

                    46. You are communicating with informed and logical people – hence your problem.

                      Your Deutch bank link as interesting as it is actually REFUTES your claim.

                      Deutche Bank is not a Russian Bank.
                      It is the 17th largest bank in the world. and it has leant Trump money.

                      Of Course DB does business in Russia – they are one of the largest banks in the world.
                      And of course some criminals manage to have accounts with them – they are one of the largest banks in the world.

                      The fact that they are Trump’s largest creditor – speaks very well of Trump.
                      They are a german bank they have a reputation for fiscal conservatism.
                      In otherwords they would not loan money to Trump if he was a risk.

                      And remember this is all about YOUR LINK.

                      Wow, they paid a fine for money laundering – so did UBS, HSBC. SCB, Commonwealth Bank of Australia
                      BOA, WU, JP Morgan

                    47. My claim was that the only banks left in the world that would deal with Trump at that time were laundering Russian money. I never suggested they were a Russian bank (although Jared has been busy talking secretly to them as well). They were fined, not because a few criminals had accounts there, but because they were complicit in the laundering.
                      Which of the banks you mentioned were fined $10 Billion? You may think it speaks well of Trump that almost no bank would do business with him (because of his defaults and bankruptcies) and he ended up with a bank full of criminals.
                      Here is additional information about how the scheme worked which requires Deutschebank to actively assent to the plans and at other times look away.
                      You may think their worldwide reputation is for fiscal conservatism. Given the number of governments that fined them for money laundering, I think their reputation quite different.

                      https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/08/29/deutsche-banks-10-billion-scandal

                    48. “My claim was that the only banks left in the world that would deal with Trump at that time were laundering Russian money. ”
                      That would include every major bank in the world.

                      “I never suggested they were a Russian bank (although Jared has been busy talking secretly to them as well). They were fined, not because a few criminals had accounts there, but because they were complicit in the laundering.”
                      Nope they settled paying money to end a conflict.

                      It is self evident from your myriads of remarks that you do not understand that innocent people settle all the time. That a settlement does NOT establish guilt.

                      “Which of the banks you mentioned were fined $10 Billion?”
                      Settled, not “fined”.

                      “You may think it speaks well of Trump that almost no bank would do business with him (because of his defaults and bankruptcies) and he ended up with a bank full of criminals.”
                      DB is not considered by anyone “a bank full of criminals”

                    49. “Which of the banks you mentioned were fined $10 Billion?”
                      Settled, not “fined”.

                      They were fined quite a substantial amount by various entities, one of the largest being 630 Million, the $10 Billion Settlement was to keep from paying $!4 Billion so yeah, that’s a win. The one thing settlements certainly don’t establish is innocence. You and Trump seem to equate never admitting guilt with being not guilty, in his case paying out millions to keep making that claim.
                      “DB is not considered by anyone “a bank full of criminals”
                      DB has a terrible reputation internationally, just Google “Deutschebank reputation” and be prepared for the flood of articles documenting the fines and bad behavior. True they don’t go as far as to call them criminals, but since almost all the same people who committed the “misconduct” are still there and drawing bonuses. I’m comfortable with my statement. They have gone through CEO’s the the last few years like they were Donald Trump Communications Directors but that hasn’t really solved the problem.
                      http://www.dw.com/en/saving-deutsche-bank-a-tall-order/a-43303183

                    50. Settlments do not establish innocence.
                      They do not establish guilt either.

                      The objective ALWAYS for the business is its own best interests.
                      Most businesses will ALWAYS settle rather than fight even when they are completely innocent,
                      A years worth of legal fees as well as stock market losses usually dwarf any settlement.
                      As I recall BP’s market capitalization losses after DeepWater Horizon were about 50B,
                      There sales losses alone were about 1B/week
                      Do you think they cared much about 8B in settlement with the government ?

                      Businesses need to get the story out of the news.
                      Innocent guilty – the losses will be the same every day that some nasty story is running.

                      Not Trump, your comparisons just demonstrates you can’t read.
                      I do work on facts. The fact is that a settlment is not a guilty plea.
                      If you want the government to force guilty please – persaude them to do so.
                      If the government is not going to settle – they will win some cases, but they will lose alot too.

                      This is a pretty long story, But it is pretty damning
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M3P8sT4IFg
                      And if you watch it you will note that Most companies in the same position do not fight.
                      They capitulate.
                      You will note in the Root story the government kept it up for 5 years.
                      And when the case came to trial – they had nothing.
                      It is rare that a business can survive to go to trial.
                      But one of the worst parts here is that the government was actually preventing life saving medical devices from getting to the market.

                    51. I am comfortable with the assessment that you and those like you think anyone who is in business is a criminal.

                      You have still not told me what DB did that was actually wrong ?

                      Your story is they financed buying and selling things – things that were legal to buy and sell.
                      As best as I can tell you think they committed a crime because you did not like that they were facilitating buying and selling of perfectly legal things.

                    52. You think DB has a bad reputation – that is not how they are rated.
                      Regardless, you would be lucky if they would even talk to you about your borrowing money from them.

                      Their reputation is fine – higher than yours.

                      You do not seem to grasp that how much you are trusted is how much will other loan you.
                      Trump purportedly has $300M outstanding with DB – that means he is well trusted.

                      I am well aware he has gone bankrupt and lost money for himself and others.
                      But he has also made fortunes many times over.
                      And the assessment of those who lend money is he can be trusted to the tune of 300M.
                      How about you – how much will people trust you to borrow ?

                    53. All your article does is demonstrate the futility and stupidity of our financial laws.

                      As the article notes early on – the transactions did not APPEAR to be a problem.

                      And in fact they were not. They were perfectly legitimate transactions. The claim that there was something wrong with them requires this stupid beleif that you can engage in a whole lot of legal actions that ultimately add up to something illegal – because you do not like the result or the motive of those doing them.

                      Why should I care if some people in Russia manage to get their money moved from inside of Russia to outside through a several step process where each step is legal ?

                      You do not want money to be able to move out of Russia – so what ?
                      How do you have the right to dictate what other people do with what is theirs.

                      The transfer of money out of Russia REQUIRED an equal transfer of ownership of Russian companies to foreign investors. Unless those investors were defrauded there is no crime.

                      It is not the business of government to prevent people from engaging in voluntary free exchange.

                      You would be howling if govenrment imposed these kind of limits on what you could do.

                      You have not even made the case here that the money was earned from criminal activity – and you can not, as the origen is inside russia, the crime would have to be russian and no government but Russias has criminal judisdiction in Russia.

                      Are you really looking to make the US responsible for the enforcement an prosecution of crimes involving only Russians ?

                      Deutsche Bank was ranked as the best investment bank in the world in 2015.
                      That is their reuptation. Your speculation does not alter that.
                      BTW HSBC and JP Morgan – who ALSO settled for large amounts were #1 ranked in other catagories.

                      The fact is we are not really dealing with “crime” we are dealing with a tax that government is imposing on banks as a cost of engaging in legitimate business – I can assure you that is what DB and JPMorgan think.

                    55. I told you its Ranking. I did not make that up.

                      If WSJ wishes to beleive otherwise – that is its business.
                      In business banking and finance, Reputation means will people do business with you.
                      And what interest rate do they demand to do so.
                      That measure says DB is well trusted.
                      And that is the measure they care about

                    56. Enigma:

                      Take a look at City Bank where the fed pumped trillions into the bank at an interest rate more than 15% below what the bank charged those that took out loans. The initial injection from TARP was much greater than the value of all City Bank shares at the time. Is this the first time City Bank or City Bank under prior names needed to be bailed out? No.

                      So if you want to talk about Deutch Bank think of City Bank that without a bailout would have disappeared several times.

                      You are a hysteric shifting lies almost every week to hide the fact that Trump is doing a fantastic job.

                    57. I would much prefer that banks profit off of Russian Oligarchs than at the public teet.

                    58. Given established facts, and Mueller penchant for 18 USC 1001 charges at the slightest, there is an awful lot that we can logically rule out.

                      As an example we can presume at this time that Carter Page’s testimony is truthful – aside from the fact it was under Oath, Mueller would have indicted Page if he found the tiniest wedge.

                    59. The FBI is not supposed to leak.
                      Doing so is improper, and in many cases illegal.

                      I would tend to agree that the rank and file FBI likely leans right – or has in the past.
                      I think that is less true with time.

                      But the upper tiers of the FBI do not.

                      Further those at the top – mostly tend to be non-partisan. But it would be a mistake to presume that is NOT self serving and highly political.

                      Comey was highly political, politically corrupt, and self serving.
                      But he was not obviously partisan.

                      The 5 agents/lawyers the IG cited were obviously partisan and all to the left.

                      Further the leaks were nearly all favorable to Clinton, we can therefore conclude the leaker was pro-clinton.

                    60. How many leaks were there regarding the Trump Russia investigation? The leaks we’ve primarily heard about were those cherry-picked by Nunes and made public before the report. There is a whole other investigation on the leaks to Guliani, we’ll see whether those were from the left or right?

                    61. “How many leaks were there regarding the Trump Russia investigation?”
                      How many stories did WaPo and TNYT run ? Every single one of those claimed MULTIPLE government sources.

                      TNYT and WaPo stories were almost entirely anti-Trump – if you are saying Nunes was they source then he must hate Trump.

                      “The leaks we’ve primarily heard about were those cherry-picked by Nunes”
                      Bizzare – as I have noted before Nunes is the Chair of the HPSCI and a member of the Gang of Eight.

                      You can not leak to him. He is entitled BY LAW to whatever he wants from the IC.
                      You can look up the law.

                      IF someone in the FBI/DOJ provided information to Nunes – it was “whistleblowing” not leaking, and it was legal and is supposed to be protected from FBI/DOJ retaliation.

                      There is no “Trump/Russia investigation report”. If you are claiming there were leaks of the IG report.
                      Absolutely – from the moment the IG turned the report over the the DOJ/FBI things were leaking all over.
                      BTW you do not seem to understand that sometimes a pro-Trump leak comes from anti-trump sources.
                      Glenn Simpson leaked that the Steele Dossier was paid for by democrats.
                      He leaked this to friendly NYT reporters so that a more friendly storied would be run.
                      Because he knew that reporters from other outlets had gotten the story and it was coming out soon anyway. It is called spin.

                      “and made public before the report.”
                      Again it is in the interests of those being criticized by the IG to leak the story to friendly outlets like the NYT and WaPo so that the bad news is delivered with a teaspoon of sugar.

                      “There is a whole other investigation on the leaks to Guliani”
                      I am not aware of any such investigation.
                      Source ?

                      Regardless if you are asking me did agents leaning right in the FBI leak ? I am sure there were some.
                      I have no problem with the appropriate disciplinary consequences for leaking regardless of ones politics.
                      The FBI/DOJ should not be leaking ANYTHING about an ongoing investigation.

                    62. “In reality, most of the information uncovered by the press also came with the discovery that Mueller already had the information or had spoken with the witnesses.”

                      That does not contradict anything I have said.

                      There is almost nothing Mueller has done that we did not hear rumours of in the press first.
                      At the same time most Mueller stories in the press have proven false or highly inaccurate.

                      Regardless, we likely know everything Mueller knows.
                      We just do not know of what we have been told Mueller has, what Mueller actually has.

                      The Mueller investigation leaks pretty badly – though not as badly as the Clinton investigation.

                    64. If there is a Mueller report any time soon – it will find nothing of consequence.
                      I do not expect a Mueller report anytime soon, because he and the left are still hoping against hope that someone will flipp and that they will have something to tell.

                      Think about this – lets say Manafort “flips”.

                      What is he going to say ? He can say anything, he could make things up.
                      To be useful he has to tell a story that is provably true one that has evidence to support it.
                      Mueller has turn manaforts life apart. He has all his emails. his bank records, his texts,
                      Manafort has to tell a story that is consistent with his records and that those records demonstrate whatever evil thing you are hoping to find.

                      No no is going to be interested in Manafort saying “I went to Russia to meet putin in May and discuss hacking the DNC”
                      If Manafort was not in Russia in May and the DNC hack was nearly complete at the time.

                      If Manafort Flips he has to tell as story that Mueller must already know – from the evidence.
                      And if that were the case – Mueller would have indicted Manafort on that.

                      You are expecting someone to flipp and provide evidence that the most thorough investigation has not yet found. you are expecting Trump, his family papadoulis, Gates, Manafort, Page, flynn,
                      to have conspired with Russia in a way that no one has found any fingerprints of, that there is no record of, and yet all of them know of.

                      You are trying to “shoot the moon”

                      It is not happening.

                    65. I would expect Manafort would have more relevant information on Donald Jr and Jared Kushner than he would on the President but that’s just me. I think Cohen has a lot of dirt on the President but ultimately it would be icing on the cake because the financial crimes will be well documented based on records, and thanks to Cohen, text messages and audiotapes.
                      What I do suspect is that in some circles, nothing in the report will be believed although the same people readily believed Obama was a Muslim born in Africa.

                    66. “I would expect Manafort would have more relevant information on Donald Jr and Jared Kushner than he would on the President but that’s just me. I think Cohen has a lot of dirt on the President but ultimately it would be icing on the cake because the financial crimes will be well documented based on records, and thanks to Cohen, text messages and audiotapes.”
                      You can speculate however you wish – but it is just speculation.

                      Ultimately unless Mueller comes up with an actual consequential crime tied to BOTH the campaign and Russia, this is all going to explode on the left.

                      Trump’s pardon of scooter libby was a signal – to Mueller, to the people, to those being prosecuted/persecuted – if Mueller does not come up with a consequential crime tying the campaign to Russia, Trump is going to pardon all or most people caught up in process crimes.

                      I would point out to YOU, that absent tying the campaign to Russia in a crime, he will get away with pardoning everyone.

                      “What I do suspect is that in some circles, nothing in the report will be believed although the same people readily believed Obama was a Muslim born in Africa.”

                      People beleive what they want. The left reads the IG report fixates on two sentences that do not mean what they claim and ignore the rest.

                      Trump fixates on the evidence of misconduct on the part of the DOJ/FBI and extrapolates that to personal vindication. The IG report provides an excellent basis to beleive the Trump investigation was even worse.
                      But it does not prove that. Though the left would be very wise to consider that the IG’s report on the Trump investigation will likely vindicate or nearly vindicate Trump.

                    67. You noted something with respect to the press you should think about.

                      On the whole the press has vastly more investigative resources than Mueller, and far more incentive.
                      The problem with the press is there standards for evidence is lower so they produce much that is false along with the truth.

                      Regardless, my point is that one way or the other much of what has turned up has started in the press first. Of course there is alot of dross mixed with the gold.

                      I am not expecting much moving forward.

                      It is likely Mueller will get Manafort on something, and then there will be apeals and whatever he is convicted of will get whittled away. Whether Manafort will get clear of everything or just some of it, is likely years away.

                      I suspect Mueller will stall the Russia portion of the investigation as long as possible.
                      As noted – if he moves forward he must provide discovery and that will be made public very quickly.

                      Mueller already has problems with the Flynn and Papadoulis pleas, they are likely going south.

                      The SDNYC AG will probably find some taxi related nonsense to nail Cohen over.

                      The Trump foundation will pay some fines, and they will all fizzle soon.

                      The Clinton IG report was pretty bad – but it also foreshadowed stronger conclusions regarding the Trump Investigation IG report.

                      If Horowitz finds misconduct and bias in the Trump investigation – and we already have plenty of good reasons to expect that, Then Mueller has his legs cut out from under him.

                      Frankly, he already has been materially wounded. Mueller exists because of Comey’s firing and Comey’s firing is now obviously far more justified than every.
                      That challenges Mueller’s legitimacy.

                    68. dhlii, Mueller’s legitimacy is questioned on many fronts. I look at virtually all the participants as coming from the same hole. Mueller was the FBI director when all these questions arose and he passed the baton on to Comey who is central to almost everything. This investigation has been managed by those who are less than arms-length from the matters at hand and that means that they have can and likely do have a stake in the outcome. For all we know Mueller as head of the FBI might have complicity in what has occurred.

                    69. There is a tremendous amount of nepotism in the FBI/DOJ

                      Mueller/Comey/Fitzgerald and a few others were interchanging positions with each other for atleast a decade.

                      The more we learn about Mueller the more I wonder if he was not deliberately appointed with the expectation of botching this.

                      Mueller has been at the center of just about every seriously botched FBI investigation over the past 20 years. Bulger, Hells Angels, Richard Jewel, the Anthrax investigation.

                      Mueller is a pitt bull that constantly and relentlessly drives investigations into dead ends.

                      If I wanted to see trump pummeled – I would pick Mueller. If I wanted to see proof that Trump did something wrong – I would never pick Mueller.

                      That said Mueller is not personally responsible for the fact that the foundations for his investigation is illegitmate.

                      We have been dancing arround things for decades.

                      We need an appropriate means to investigate the president.
                      The only constitutional means to do so is through congress.
                      The SC concept is fatally flawed.

                      There are potentially good reason for having an SC for investigating government misconduct that does not implicate the president.

                      But we have had a mess everytime we have done that.
                      The Comey/Fitzgerald investigation of Libby is near a mirror of Mueller.

                      The AG had to recuse, The Assistant AG then appointed a friend and we had a witchhunt with an SC that was unanswerable.

                      I am happy that Mueller turned over the Cohen investigation to SD NYC – though as of yet we have no identified crime that Cohen committed.
                      Investigations and search warrants require identified crimes.

                      None of Mueller’s charges related to Manafort implicate Russia.

                      I think Mueller needs to kick Manafort back to DOJ/FBI.

                      The Papadoulis plea is ludicrously stupid. Mueller is litterally claiming that Papadoulis lied about his state of mind – and that is despite the fact that Downer and Mifsud have confirmed Papadoulis’s “state of mind”

                      The Flynn plea should have been tanked too.

                      The Russians seem to have Mueller all tangled up in court.
                      He indicted them not expecting them to defend and now they are demandinf discovery and a speedy trial, and Mueller is balking.

                      The Manafort Tampering charge is another of Mueller’s ludicrous overreaches.
                      While the contact was stupid, you contact witnesses through lawyers,
                      it was still legal Manafort sent a link to an artical and stated that he agreed with it.
                      Even if the article was claiming he was innocent, that is still not witness tampering.

                      Mueller seems to be basing the tampering claim on the beleif of the recipients that they were being asked to lie. The state of mind of the witness is IRRELEVANT.

              2. Enigma has all sorts of excuses for finding one person innocent and another guilty. In a colorblind world if one tried to assess his logic one would think these conclusions were randomly determined. I’ve followed Enigma’s posts long enough to recognize that the strongest correlation factor for Enigma’s choice is the individual’s race.

    4. Your understanding of the law makes the SC omnipotent and unanswerable.

      By your theory an SC could completely stop any administration from acting at all, by broading their investigation sufficiently to preclude the members of the administration from communicating.

      As should be self evident from the IG’s report – Comey should have been fired LONG before he was.
      As should Lynch, McCabe and several others.

      Yet in your world firing someone who damningly needed fired, is obstruction of justice – because you feel entitled to judge the motives of the person doing the firing.

      This Trump/Russia fabrication has very effectively removed much of DOJ/FBI from oversight by the president, and they are fighting against oversight by congress.

      That is an outcome that is lawless. As the left is fond of saying regarding Trump – no one is above the law.
      Not even DOJ/FBI.

      The law makes them answerable to the president – and subject to congressional oversight.

      1. Horowitz did not say that “The system was rigged.” Trump said that. Horowitz did not say that “She should never have been allowed to run.” Trump said that. Horowitz did not say “Crooked H; lock her up.” Trump said that. Horowitz did not say any of the things that Trump said. Should Horowitz be answerable to Trump anyway?

        1. That is correct, that is not what he was asked to do.

          He found 500+ pages of conduct to report on. The vast majority of that was MISconduct.

          conclusions like “she never should have been allowed to run” are reserved for the democratic party.
          Not the IG.

          Like the entire executive – Horowitz is answerable to Trump.
          That is a constitutional question, again one you are clueless about.

          Regardless, thought the left is fixating on a few narrow quotes and trying to make them much broader than they are. Horowitz’s report is quite damning.

          In fact he countered a right wing claim of a conspiracy at the top, with evidence that the FBI and DOJ are largely dysfunctional.

          I beleive he provided 5 criminal referals – that is 5 people whose conduct he thinks requires a criminal investigation, and litterally dozens that require disciplinary action.

        2. I would further note that Horowitz confirmed that the majority of the agents on the clinton investigation beleive they would have been prosecuted had they done a small portion of what Clinton did.

    5. So Clinton’s removing all of her correspondance as SecState from FOIA requests, government possession or access with violated numerous laws – including the records act – that is OK with you ?

      1. dhlii – according to the IG report, all of her emails may have ended up on Huma’s laptop. Expect to see Judicial Watch go after them now that they know they are available.

        1. Are you completely ignorant of the facts ?

          The entire Clinton Email Server thing was exposed because Judicial Watch Filed an FOIA request for some Clinton emails and the request came back – State department has nothing responsive.

          The request was so innocuous there had to be some emails that were responsive – so JW went to court.
          At that point state responded with “there are no clinton emails”.
          The court granted JW discovery and they found that Clinton was using a private email server.

          This resulted in re-opening the benghazi investigation, and the private email server was exposed.

          Early in the process emails from clinton indicating that the purpose for the private email servers was to evade FOIA requestes were uncovered.

          Not a single part of the above is speculation.

            1. I am not sure how your reply has any bearing on my comment.

              But most of these “secure” messaging apps are being featured in the IG report, and the Mueller investigation.

              Neither Horowitz, nor Mueller seem to have found them to be more than a speed bump.

              1. hey dhlii, just wanted to say that in my experience Enigma is ‘dug in’ and clinging like mad to his own preferred viewpoint like there is no tomorrow. And there is nothing you can say that will even nudge his mind to be open to other viewpoints or facts. In other words, Enigma is closed-minded. In the worst way. So don’t even bother trying to have a discussion with him. He will not budge no matter what you say or what ‘facts’ you offer.

                1. Often the purpose of responding to a specific post is not to persuade that poster, but to use their post as a platform to make my points for others who are less entrenched in their views.

  13. One of the things James Comey relied on was that the Clinton server had not been compromised. However, it had been and he knew it.

  14. Well at least things have improved for foreign powers. All they have to do is watch his tweets, give him and his family some privileges and he hands the secret superclassified stuff over in a nice meeting at the White House. Then he trashes our allies and snuggles up to dictators.

    Don’t like Hillary. Didn’t need the emails to push me over the edge but let’s be real if we are going to go after her then Trump must be next. I realize that is a very unpopular thing to say on this thread but there it is.

    1. Judge Dredd Holmes,

      Before Trump even started running for office millions of us in the USA knew the Bushes/Clinton’s/Obama & their friends needed hauled to the front steps of the Capital & (permately Fired) for being Traitors ++++, but if we did that we would likely end up as just another 3rd world banana sh*thole country.

      The question remains what do your people suggest we do with your Commie/Nazi American Hating Traitors we caught???

      I’ll look forward for your & other .

      1. You mean the Trump gang? I think they should be given all the process they are due….you know the Constitution and all that. We are a third word country….all you have to do is travel in a few first world ones to see how far we have fallen.

      2. I didnt highlight enough what I think is a very important point. We, some of us think we do or at least should, have a process of applying the law that requires judges and juries and evidence. We don’t drag people to the steps of anything and “fire them permanently”. We have real public trials and there are verdicts. I’m sorry that bothers you but if we are ever going to get back to the rule of law that is what needs to be done.

        1. The standard for firing people – even upper tier government employees is low.

          It is sufficient that the President no longer wants them.

          No reason is acceptable.

          The standard for a criminal prosecution is high.

          One of the problems with the recent IG’s report is that it is not clear about that.

          The facts in the IG’s report are far more than sufficient to terminate the employment of those involved.
          They are sufficient to find the investigation of clinton tainted and biased from the start.

          But the facts are only sufficiently damning to prosecute a few people.

          And that is how it should be.

          1. “We found no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations,” Horowitz wrote. “Rather, we concluded that they were based on the prosecutor’s assessment of facts, the law and past department practice.”

            1. Cling to that one paragraph. You are so adorable in your desperation.

            2. You do not know how to read the report.

              The statement you cite were with regard to SPECIFIC decisions or actions.
              There are other instances where Horowitz did find Bias.
              Specifically the decision to delay seeking a warrant for Weiner’s laptop.

              I would also suggest that you read the IG’s words carefully and narrowly.
              I know that is very hard for lefities.

              When Horowitz says “prosecutors” – he means prosecutors in the DOJ, and he means relative to the instant issue, not overall.

              From what I have read those far, though he found poor judgement, incompetence and misconduct in the DOJ, he did not find “documentary or testimonial” evidence of bias in the DOJ.

              I would further note that Horowitz EXPLICITY refuses to comment on the correctness of decisions.
              He strongly hints he would have made many decisions differently.

              He only looked at whether actions conformed to the law, policy guidelines or did not.
              And he found plenty that did not.

              I beleive Horowitz made only one consequential error.

              When there are so many mistakes made, and nearly all tilt things in the same direction,
              that is sufficient to conclude systemic bias.

              Horowitz made it clear in his report than though he found plenty of bias in the communications of those in the DOJ/FBI, he was not willing to conclude bias absent documentary or testimonial evidence that bias was acted on. In otherwords anything less than Strzok’s “we will stop it” text is NOT sufficient for Horowitz to find Bias. That is not the standard most of us use.

  16. What berter way to pay off a pay to play deal than casually letting a comm system be easy to hack and then blithely using it for classified information. What need of spies when for a few dollars one could hire Hillary’s Information Highway. And now it’s not a ‘could happen’ but a ‘did happen’ situation. Yes the Clinton Super Classified Information Lieway does that a more. For one gets rid of 007 and that’s nice for anti gun nutz

    1. Michael Aarethun – I had not thought of it as a pay-to-play, but there is no reason for her server to be unprotected for 6 months while she was first SoS. Huma has said, under oath, that the server was Hillary’s idea. And I started reading the report at page 300. It appears all the Clinton emails might be on Huma’s laptop, including the missing first 3 months. I am not done with the explanation of the examination of the laptop yet, they are still trying to figure out what to tell Congress and Lynch and Yates are too gutless to rein Comey in. There is really some fun stuff in the weeds of this document. 😉

      1. I have not read much. I started at the begining. The report is weird it reads –
        “we found no bias and no decisions that are outside the range of reasonsable” and then goes on to document massive systemic misconduct.

        I was particularly disturbed by the reports accepting Comey’s claim that Clinton did not have “intent”.
        I would agree that Clinton did not intend to provide classified information to foreign powers.
        If she had she would have been guilty of a much more serious violation of 18 USC 793.
        There is no intent standard for section (f), but equally important Clinton met the intent requirements for violating section (e).

        Criminal intent does not require that the accused intended to kill col mustard in the dining room with the candle stick. The only intent that is required is the intent to do something you know is wrong.
        It does not even require doing something criminal – though it must be illegal.

        Many violations of the traffic code are summary offenses, if you commit them even negligently AND someone is killed that is some form of criminally negligent homicide.

        In her Emails Clinton makes it crystal clear that she DELIBERATELY setup the private email server with the intention of preventing her communications from being subject to FOIA requests.
        That is illegal (though not criminal). It was DELIBERATE and a crime.
        One of the other revelations of the IG’s report is that Clinton’s emails – including some secret, were accessed by foreign powers.

        The above is more than sufficient intent for 18 793(e).

        It is more intent than Petreius or Deutch.

        1. dhlii – wait until you get to the Huma emails and the text msgs. Those are two nightmares.

  17. Excuse me… A Clinton dealing honestly and directly with anything? Best laugh of the week

  18. Turley, you are still worried about this? What’s the damage? Meanwhile, in the real world, we have to ponder Trump selling us out to China and North Korea. Keep your eye on the ball, sir. [And if you want to worry about unprotected messages, there’s always Comey and his.]

    1. I’ll bet you’re a little embarrassed by this post after Pompeo’s statements from Seoul Korea today aren’t you? Turns out we weren’t sold out.

    2. You can do that and worry your self into a nail biting frenzy. The rest of us consider your kind to be much the greater threat. “Us?” You aren’t part of ‘us.’ As I recall yiour side already sold US out and no you want to act the part of a true citizen?

    3. Isn’t hollywood short for snowflake ah yes so it is. The land of make believe.

      1. The land of make-believe? As if there’s anything authentic about Trump other than self-interest via self-promotion.

        Plus I t’s not like he tried starring in as many movies and TV shows as he could. What a hero.

    4. Hollywood – “selling us out”? Maybe you wanna turn off MSDNC Most of us want peace.

  19. Put her in jail. Great. Now can we get back to focusing on the empty, corrupt, and orange Swamp Thing, because he and his minions wield actual power?

    1. Orange? Yup.
      Corrupt? Maybe.
      Empty? No, and he’s gotten more done in less than two years than most presidents hope to achieve in two terms.

      1. It’s difficult responding to boring talking-points.

        He got a lot done? More than anyone else? He has one piece of major legislation passed (which, “surprisingly”, Wall Street loved), and he spent more time taking pictures with a dictator, who still has all of his missiles and warheads, than sitting in meetings. Also more tax dollars can pour into religious schools. Wow, amazing.

        The Dear Leader spends more time flying to his own properties and playing golf than any other president in US history. In that regard, yes, he’s the most tremendous fantastic very successful.

        1. By your standards of measure – Obama accomplished pretty much nothing.

          Trump has gone through his campaign promises and accomplished many, and attempted nearly all.

          Those accomplishements are almost certainly not what you want, some are not what I want.
          But inarguably they are still accomplishments.

          DoubtMeister is correct that Trump has accomplished much.

          Given that he was elected to drain the swamp – not enlarge it, his supporters are not looking for major legislative accomplishments. They are looking to see the federal govenrment beast choked until it can be drowned in a bathtub.

          Trump is not doing enough of that. But he is doing more than any president since …. Carter.

        2. “It’s difficult responding to boring talking-points. ”

          Here’s your mirror.

        3. Quoting Connie Stevens: “he’s the maximum utmost”. No, wait. She was talking about Edd Byrnes.

        4. Dave137: “Dear Leader spends more time flying to his own properties and playing golf than any other president in history.” Wrong. And why shouldn’t he have a getaway golf weekend? All the man does is work. And he donates his salary.

          1. How did you miss out on the Jonestown Massacre? Koop-Aid was not your flavor, you seem gullible enough.

            2. Right. Let’s compare Trump flying to his Florida property and playing some golf to the extensive Obama family travel and vacation tally.

              By the time Obama’s left office they had traveled every year to enjoy luxury holiday vacations, and the massive security detail that entails, to Hawaii and then luxury summer rentals hobknobbing with the elite in August on Martha’s Vineyard. Michelle took annual Aspen ski trips in February while Barack flew out to Palm Springs for his golf getaways. Michelle and the girls and her mother took annual spring break trips to Japan, Cambodia, China, African countries, South American countries, Latin America, Spain, France, etc, etc. Barack and Michelle flew to NYC for a date night. And Chicago for a date weekend. And there was Barack flying off to Florida for golf with Tiger Woods. And Fly fishing in Wyoming. And family trips to the National Parks for private tours. And when he was in town, and not otherwise finding excuses to fly around on AF One giving a speech somewhere, which was his favorite part of the ‘job’, Barack spent nearly every weekned golfing at the Joint Base Andrews course. Then there were the parties at the White House. Nearly every other week there were private concerts and parties where every celebrity athlete, musician, actor, who’s who, etc, was partying down with the Obamas at their invitation. I know this for a fact b/c a friend was a server/bartender at nearly all of these events. So let’s just say there is no question that the Obama’s took FULL advantage of the many many many PERKS of the office during their eight years there. And of course much of the press reported it this way, “much deserved” vacation time for their beloved Obamas. Imagine that.

              1. Oh and now the Obama’s are worth an estimated $100 million. And they still get pension benefits and all the perks given to former presidents. Imagine that.

                  1. “You didn’t build that” is a phrase from an 2012 election campaign speech delivered by former United States President Barack Obama on July 13, 2012, in Roanoke, Virginia. The sentence “If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that” was publicized by his political opponents during the 2012 presidential campaign, as an attack by Obama on business and entrepreneurs.” (from Wikipedia)

                    *But Obama was referring to the roads and bridges. Okey doke.

              2. TBob – my favorite was using the jet just to transport the damn dog for vacation.

    2. That would be the combination Peloschumer in their jail togs.

    3. I have read significant parts of the IG’s report.
      While it identifies a few specific instances of misconduct, from the start one of the most damning aspects of the report is that it implicates the entire FBI in misconduct.

      The use of Government devices for personal communications was pervasive.
      The use of personal devices and emails for govenrment communications was equally pervasive.

      How can one expect the DOJ/FBI to find Clinton’s conduct illegal when they were doing the same themselves – maybe to a lessor extent.

      It is also clear that the Clinton investigation was handled radically differently from the Trump/Russia investigation. Some of these differences helped clinton and some harmed her.
      While some of the differences helped Trump and some harmed him.
      Regardless the disparity between the way the investigations was handled was very significant and both violated policies procedures and guidelines.

      The FBI’s dealings with the press were egregious. McCabe’s self serving leak to WSJ appears to be just the tip of the iceberg – apparently just about everyone in the FBI has the press on speed dial and talked about ongoing investigations despite official prohibitions against that.

      Put simply the IG report puts an end to any argument that the problems at the FBI are not systemic and go far beyond politicization at the top.
      The IG finds the FBI to be an undisciplined mess, not following its own rules and procedures.

      1. Go after everyone who acted improperly. I could care less about politics.

        1. “Go after everyone who acted improperly. I could care less about politics.”

          We can agree on some things.

          Can we agree that government employees may not use non-government resources and email accounts to conduct government business ?

          That if they do so, they should at the very least be fired ?

          Can we agree that someone who has sent classified information over an internet mail service is conflicted from investigating someone for doing the same ?

          1. They should be fired AND stripped of benefits such as life-long pensions.

    4. How do you trust the same FBI that botched the Clinton investigation to investigate Trump/Russia collusion ?

      1. I don’t trust the FBI or any other portion of government, but I do expect accountability. We need Congress to engage in oversight, which is sadly uninspiring.

        There’s corruption everywhere. So electing a corrupt con-man is the best way to fix it… apparently.

        And you can’t throw out a Justice Department–appointed Special Council because of dereliction elsewhere.

        How can you trust your pilot when other pilots have crashed? There isn’t much choice, is there.

        1. I would suggest some reading up on “public choice”

          Public corruption is unavoidable. What we can do is reduce it by limiting government power.

          Given that the SC was appointed to conduct a counter-intelligence investigation, which the SC law does nto authorize, and which would not have a conflict that would require an SC.

          Yes, there is good reason to throw out the SC. Following the law, means actually following the law.

          I would BTW have no problem with a new law – one that authorizes congress to appoint an SC, and places them under Congressional oversight.

          That too has problems, but less than the current SC law. What we have now is a response to the problems with the IC law. The Mueller probe has unfortunately proven the IC law was less problematic.

          Trump should have absolutely no power to interfere in an investigation that has a strong nexus with him.
          That merely means that investigation can not be conducted by the executive branch.

          Further the current SC investigation has a different problem.

          A criminal investigation is of a Crime FIRST AND FOREMOST, we do not investigate PEOPLE, we investigate crimes. and prosecute the people who committed them.

          We are not Beria’s russia where “show me the man, and I will find you the crime” is the standard.

          Congress can investigate the president – with respect to impeachment, as a person and without reference to crimes. But only congress can do so.

Comments are closed.