William Barr appoints U.S. attorney to investigate Russia probe origins

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
a reply to: chr0naut

Neither, as Mueller did not find that to be the case.

Konstantin Kiliminik was indicted on conspiracy to obstruct the course justice. Which Mueller, specifically, found.

Former CIA Director JOHN BRENNAN is now squarely in the crosshairs of Prosecutor John Durham.

Update: twitter.com...

a reply to: carewemust
Brennan is a jackass.

a reply to: carewemust

What makes this worse is that it is the CIA doing domestic surveillance on US citizens. Not just the FBI who "legally" can do that but the CIA should not be running active ops against citizens in the US. It shows that what many always believed is true. The Conspiracy was never there it was truth.

a reply to: chr0naut

So no Americans and no one in Trump's circle. Thanks.

a reply to: chr0naut

No assumption, you are just making a fool out of yourself, no assumption there either, both facts.

a reply to: chr0naut

What does obstruction have to do with Conspiracy to aid Russia in election interference?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
a reply to: chr0naut

Neither, as Mueller did not find that to be the case.

Konstantin Kiliminik was indicted on conspiracy to obstruct the course justice. Which Mueller, specifically, found.

Russia tried, but no American colluded, or conspired. That was Mueller's conclusion.

The Obama admin knew this was happening, even when he (Obama) went on national TV and stated that the election results couldn't be hacked or tampered with, and did nothing.

Which now begs the question of why.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

Is that the same attorney who investigated the false charges by Trump regarding voting fraud?

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Liberal Media are now foaming at the mouth again, after some Michael Flynn testimony was un-redacted today.

twitter.com...

The low-IQ idiots don't realize that the DOJ is not going to indict Flynn. But they keep hoping. Hope is all they have right now.

a reply to: Willtell

If so then the left should be willing to accept his conclusions, right?

a reply to: carewemust

So the WH counsel (or Trump's personal lawyer? Not clear) reached out and said it'd be great if he'd give them a head's up about anything the Mueller team was interested in or pressured him to provide for immunity? Is that a crime or scandal now?

a reply to: chr0naut

Lol, he was an employee of manafort's. He was charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice in the manafort case. The manafort case was about being an unregistered lobbyist, bank fraud, tax evasion, and money laundering. ALL from long before his time with trump. Yes he met with kiliminik during the campaign (he was employed with manafort) but nothing in the charges has anything to do with russia. His FARA violation wasn't even for russia, so you're full of #.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

So no Americans and no one in Trump's circle. Thanks.

Konstantin Kiliminik worked for Mannafort, in New York, and overseas, in Kiev and Moscow.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

No assumption, you are just making a fool out of yourself, no assumption there either, both facts.

I'm merely pointing out a fact. There is no statute for "presumption of innocence".

That is why the police can detain and search at random and why they can randomly stop people in traffic and shake down/drug test/breathalyze them with no reasonable evidence or basis for their suspicion.

The only thing that groups like the ACLU can do is accuse them of a racial bias. Because the legal grounds of "acting against presumption of innocence" aren't framed in law and therefore cannot be prosecuted (although, as a 'guiding principle, it does exist).

That is part of the reason you have your Miranda rights recited at you. Because anything that you say (i.e: may not factual, may have been misunderstood or misheard, may not have been serious, or or may not be actually evidenced) can be held as evidence (which it may, or may not be) against you in a court of law. The statement of Miranda rights would be legally redundant if there was a presumption of innocence unless proven guilty (i.e: unarguably evidenced).

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: chr0naut

Lol, he was an employee of manafort's. He was charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice in the manafort case. The manafort case was about being an unregistered lobbyist, bank fraud, tax evasion, and money laundering. ALL from long before his time with trump. Yes he met with kiliminik during the campaign (he was employed with manafort) but nothing in the charges has anything to do with russia. His FARA violation wasn't even for russia, so you're full of #.

Are you aware of Trump's stated position on the Ukraine, against the wishes of the then executive of the Republican Party (such as McCain), and Mannafort's directives to State Department staff (even though Mannafort was not authorized to give those directives), in regard to the Russian/Ukranian conflict, and which happened after the inauguration?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

What does obstruction have to do with Conspiracy to aid Russia in election interference?

The obstruction of justice, by witness tampering, was done by Konstantin Kilimnik.

Kilimnik was a Russian spy, employed by the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU).

Kilimnik was also an employee and advisor of Mannafort, Trump's campaign manager.

That's a fairly direct link.

It was in the Mueller report, pages 6-10 & 129-144.

So Klimnik was charged with trying to obstruct the investigation into Manafort's lobbying efforts out of Kiev (Hapsburg Group) from 2011-2014, and that is the same as the Trump campaign coordinating with the Rissians in election tampering to you? Well, that's a novel interpretation of events...

a reply to: chr0naut

That is why the police can detain and search at random and why they can randomly stop people in traffic and shake down/drug test/breathalyze them with no reasonable evidence or basis for their suspicion. 

That's not true. The police can talk to you for any reason at all. They cannot detain you against your will (as in the case of a traffic stop) without reasonable suspicion or probable cause of a specific crime or misdemeanor being committed. They cannot detain or search you at will. A search requires probable cause.

Your paragraph on Miranda isn't coherent enough to even dissect properly, but Miranda warnings are a great example of you not having to cooperate with investigators here. You never have to prove your innocence. A Miranda warning actually discourages you from accidentally incriminating yourself giving them evidence they do not have. They have the burden of producing evidence-- not you.

Put your legal degree back in the cracker-jack box you found it In. The entire body of law in the US is based on the presumption of innocence.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

No assumption, you are just making a fool out of yourself, no assumption there either, both facts.

I'm merely pointing out a fact. There is no statute for "presumption of innocence".

That is why the police can detain and search at random and why they can randomly stop people in traffic and shake down/drug test/breathalyze them with no reasonable evidence or basis for their suspicion.

The only thing that groups like the ACLU can do is accuse them of a racial bias. Because the legal grounds of "acting against presumption of innocence" aren't framed in law and therefore cannot be prosecuted (although, as a 'guiding principle, it does exist).

That is part of the reason you have your Miranda rights recited at you. Because anything that you say (i.e: may not factual, may have been misunderstood or misheard, may not have been serious, or or may not be actually evidenced) can be held as evidence (which it may, or may not be) against you in a court of law. The statement of Miranda rights would be legally redundant if there was a presumption of innocence unless proven guilty (i.e: unarguably evidenced).

They can't do any of those things. I don't know where you live, but you clearly have no knowledge of American law. In fact Kraft is about to win a lawsuit because the police detained and searched without cause, which is illegal. You can not randomly stop or search people. It's so crazy you are still arguing this making a fool of yourself.