Gowdy: FBI Acted Properly With Use of Informant

a reply to: shooterbrody

No Mueller wasn't but the FBI was.
Why are you asking that? It's not like the investigation hasn't continued since Rosenstein made that comment. Mueller can certainly have come up with something.

As for you ignoring me, you're responsible for your own behavior. If your will power is weak don't blame me. I'm not making you respond to me. That's on you. I see you're having a problem.

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Trump's cult-like sheep are only loyal to Trump. Everyone else, they will gladly throw under the bus.

Exqueeze me, but were talking about Trump, not Clinton.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gandalf77
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I disagree. Those questions were very detailed and directly related to a number of issues central to this investigation.
They weren't "designed" as a trap; that's the right-wing narrative.

He's a self-proclaimed "stable genius." All he has to do is tell the truth. Is that asking so much?

By looking at the questions, it appears they were "designed" to get information on Trump's intent in regards to certain issues.

My guess is that Trump's actions with Comey, for example, and the things he had said following Comey's firing, threw up many red flags and the questions (some) were created to discern whether Trump intended to obstruct justice or not.

Problem is you can’t question his constitutional rights/powers vis a vie intent.

Again, while he may have a right to do what he did, it may still be considered obstruction of justice, depending on the intent behind his actions.

Such a case has never been brought before a court when a president has been involved and I highly doubt a case would ever make it to court, but obstruction of justice has been part of articles of impeachment in the past.

Nixon was accused of doing something very similar and obstruction of justice was a part of his articles of impeachment.

Yeah kinda different tho.

Nixon erased tapes, 18 mins iirc.

There is no obstruction from Trump.

He can fire anyone for any reason so his INTENT and reason is moot.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: JBurns

The Russians that were indicted were the ones that slammed Facebook and social media with fake news and fake ads. He didn't indict any Americans in that part. Yet.
Those guys had nothing to do with trumps campaign or his working with Russia. Or the secret meetings or any of that back channel stuff. Those oligarchs... Those are the guys to watch. Muellers six months ahead of anything we're aware of.

Oh sure, that's why he was such a superstar back in the day, right?

Look up mueller's history.

One has to be a Lefty Honorary Deplorable to believe that Trump is the only one with "back channels" (whatever that means)

Most of this russian BS Mueller and his MSM claims, happened in the transition.

a reply to: introvert

In other words, get his side of the story.
No reason for him to lie.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: UnBreakable
Gowdy is setting himself up for a run in 2020.

He aint the only one.

Hell, Pence is probably already planning his RE-ELECTION campaign.

....and they'll all go into vapor lock when Trump gets re-elected.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Let's just worry about what he's doing now okay?

Like a stock portfolio. Past performance can only educate it can't predict.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

That is incorrect.

Perhaps you need to read about the Saturday Night Massacre, Nixon, his articles of impeachment, specifically article 1 section 4, and how his actions (pushing to fire a special prosecutor) became part of the impeachment charges.

nterfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burgerbuddy

That is incorrect.

Perhaps you need to read about the Saturday Night Massacre, Nixon, his articles of impeachment, specifically article 1 section 4, and how his actions (pushing to fire a special prosecutor) became part of the impeachment charges.

nterfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;

Trump has said he wont fire mueller or try to fire him so....there goes your theory on addin tthat to impeachment charges.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Idictments of whom though? Since you have to unseat the president before he can be prosecuted for anything.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burgerbuddy

That is incorrect.

Perhaps you need to read about the Saturday Night Massacre, Nixon, his articles of impeachment, specifically article 1 section 4, and how his actions (pushing to fire a special prosecutor) became part of the impeachment charges.

nterfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;

Trump has said he wont fire mueller or try to fire him so....there goes your theory on addin tthat to impeachment charges.

Can you provide an example of Trump saying something he actually delivered on?

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burgerbuddy

That is incorrect.

Perhaps you need to read about the Saturday Night Massacre, Nixon, his articles of impeachment, specifically article 1 section 4, and how his actions (pushing to fire a special prosecutor) became part of the impeachment charges.

nterfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;

Trump has said he wont fire mueller or try to fire him so....there goes your theory on addin tthat to impeachment charges.

It's not about firing Mueller. It's about the circumstances around Comey's firing that may be at issue, but I do not think it will be much of an issue.

a reply to: DJW001

Tax cuts. now sit down and shut up.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
there have been multiple indictments and several people have plead guilty to crimes. I'm not sure what your definition of "working" is, but to me that says that the investigation is working as intended.

Right now they would hand out parking tickets if they could, no collusion, so they will go in 360 degrees to get anything...isn't that is what a federal judge scolded them about?

a reply to: Xtrozero

That federal judge is mad because he thinks they’re just prosecuting Mueller to get to Trump. Pretty sure Mueller’s team just handed him a copy of the scope memo detailing how they were completely within their right to bring charges on Manafort.
It will be interesting to see if we get some “judicial activism” from the right. Talk about irony.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Let's just worry about what he's doing now okay?

Like a stock portfolio. Past performance can only educate it can't predict.

Walk like a duck....

Leopards don't change their spots.

Pattern of behavior.

Birds of a feather...

The vermin is dirty.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burgerbuddy

That is incorrect.

Perhaps you need to read about the Saturday Night Massacre, Nixon, his articles of impeachment, specifically article 1 section 4, and how his actions (pushing to fire a special prosecutor) became part of the impeachment charges.

nterfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;

Tricky dick?

You want to go there?

Be Careful.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burgerbuddy

That is incorrect.

Perhaps you need to read about the Saturday Night Massacre, Nixon, his articles of impeachment, specifically article 1 section 4, and how his actions (pushing to fire a special prosecutor) became part of the impeachment charges.

nterfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;

Trump has said he wont fire mueller or try to fire him so....there goes your theory on addin tthat to impeachment charges.

Can you provide an example of Trump saying something he actually delivered on?

This work?

www.glennbeck.com... paign=20180521GBDAILY&utm_term=Glenn%20Beck

A PLAUSIBLE THEORY:

Trey Gowdy is positioning himself to be Jeff Session's replacement.

1. Wednesday on FoxNews, Gowdy sided with the FBI. This is great for being confirmed as Attorney General by Senate Repubs and Dems.

2. Thursday on CBS Morning, Gowdy chastized Jeff Sessions for doing a poor job.

3. President Trump is orchestrating this "Gowdy replacing Sessions" strategy, because he didn't "blow up" over Gowdy siding with the FBI on the MOLE/SPY/INFORMANT.

See the last 4 paragraphs at: www.realclearpolitics.com...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
there have been multiple indictments and several people have plead guilty to crimes. I'm not sure what your definition of "working" is, but to me that says that the investigation is working as intended.

Right now they would hand out parking tickets if they could, no collusion, so they will go in 360 degrees to get anything...isn't that is what a federal judge scolded them about?

Right now you are just making stuff up in your head because you were just shown to be wrong about your synopsis about me.