5 things to watch: Coats, Rogers, McCabe and Rosenstein testify

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: face23785

he won't get impeached for this.

but, he's up to his eye balls in money laundering with the Russians, lol, that'll be what gets him impeached!

There is a better chance of that than for obstruction.

Senator Wyden was right though, either Coats lied to Congress or the Washington Post's story is inaccurate. I'm glad he made that distinction, because it's more likely that the Post's story, which was not 2nd, not 3rd, but 4th hand reporting, is inaccurate.

a reply to: shooterbrody

There's an equal chance of both, because there's zero public evidence of either.

a reply to: face23785


bunch of subpoenas went out last week. isn't trump trying to lawyer up as well? lol

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: face23785


bunch of subpoenas went out last week. isn't trump trying to lawyer up as well? lol

I'll give you some credit for trying to hold some ground after such a devastating day for the fake news narrative of 'obstruction of justice'. Hang on to your collusion story as tight as you can, but don't be afraid to let it go when it's time, otherwise you'll drive yourself crazy. Friendly advice.

a reply to: face23785

True about the no evidence.
Especially after today.

It will be interesting to see how the MSM spins this as ABC reported last night comey wont say anything about obstruction tomorrow.

The only person or persons to get real trouble out of this may be the ones who unmasked flynn.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: face23785


The only person or persons to get real trouble out of this may be the ones who unmasked flynn.

Which remains the only crime we know of - at least the leaking of that information.

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: face23785


bunch of subpoenas went out last week. isn't trump trying to lawyer up as well? lol

If subpoenas mean you're guilty, looks like Obama is in trouble.

a reply to: UKTruth

oh, I definitely believe he tried to obstruct. no one on that panel answered the question... they sure as hell didn't say no!

I'm WAY more interested in what Mueller's investigation will uncover!!!!!!! way more!!!! i guess trump is too seeing as he's trying to lawyer up. 'trying' being the operative word.

a reply to: knoxie

Then you're uninformed. If he tried to obstruct justice, they would've been required to notify the Justice Department and they would've notified Congress. Every one of those Senators knows that, they're just taking advantage of the fact that many citizens, like yourself, don't know that. Also, obstruction of justice is illegal, and Rogers and Coats both specifically said they've never been asked to do anything illegal by anyone. You need to learn to read between the lines instead of just being told what to think by the media.

a reply to: face23785

i remember McCabe during the last open hearing say the fbi is very concerned regarding money laundering, he didn't mention trump specifically, but i can read between the lines. lol

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: face23785

i remember McCabe during the last open hearing say the fbi is very concerned regarding money laundering, he didn't mention trump specifically, but i can read between the lines. lol

Stop doing the lines, you'll think more clearly.

a reply to: knoxie

So you expect the acting Director of the FBI to tell Congress he was not concerned with money laundering? lol and you think you can read between the lines?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: face23785

i remember McCabe during the last open hearing say the fbi is very concerned regarding money laundering, he didn't mention trump specifically, but i can read between the lines. lol

Stop doing the lines, you'll think more clearly.

that's all you got???

oh my, bless your heart in two.

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: face23785


bunch of subpoenas went out last week. isn't trump trying to lawyer up as well? lol

what subpoenas ?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: face23785

True about the no evidence.
Especially after today.

The only person or persons to get real trouble out of this may be the ones who unmasked flynn.

Unmasking/Leaking to the Media. Media publishing classified info. Both will be punished.

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: UKTruth

oh, I definitely believe he tried to obstruct. no one on that panel answered the question... they sure as hell didn't say no!

I'm WAY more interested in what Mueller's investigation will uncover!!!!!!! way more!!!! i guess trump is too seeing as he's trying to lawyer up. 'trying' being the operative word.

Actually they all said he didn't try to obstruct justice - very clearly.

Even msnbc is backtracking...
www.nbcnews.com...

"I have never been directed to do anything I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate," Rogers said at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing Wednesday, under questioning from Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the ranking Democrat

"I have never felt pressured to intervene or interfere in any way with shaping intelligence in a political way or intervene in an investigation," Coats said.

that just about wraps up the obstruction bs

This is what the hearing was actualls supposed to be about...

One of the main things that bothers civil libertarians about how 702 is used is that once data on Americans is collected and deemed relevant intelligence, it is stored for five years, and the FBI can search it for nearly any reason without a warrant. That means information collected without a warrant, and queries without a warrant, can be used to prosecute an American. "It strikes me as bootstrapping to say we collected it legally under 702 and then we can go look at these American persons," King said during the hearing. "I believe that the Fourth Amendment imposes a warrant requirement." But when a presidential commission recommended that Obama change that provision, he declined. The FBI told him the warrantless searches were extremely useful.

Of course obama didnt move to change the law; he had an election to win....

a reply to: carewemust

The media can only be legally punished for publishing classified info under very specific circumstances. Most of the time only the initial leaker is prosecuted.

Edit: Just to be clear, I don't agree with this, but this is how it's been done in the past.

Comey's opening statement for tomorrow

drive.google.com...

If this is it Democrats - tomorrow is going to be very disappointing for you too.