Donald Trump's lawyers investigating special counsel Robert Mueller's team

a reply to: alphabetaone

None of what you said even seems relevant to the reason I had posted. Counter-intelligence is merely a way of preventing spying activity by a foreign entity. How is that refuting a single thing that i pointed out? Unless you're merely trying to accentuate the fact that I was right.

You asked about where it was stated the investigation has been going on for a year. It came from comey himself.
www.latimes.com...

FBI Director James B. Comey told Congress that the FBI launched its investigation into Russian meddling in the U.S. elections nearly nine months ago. He said the FBI started investigating the matter in July and that its work was still in the early stages.

So yeah the investigation has been going on now for over a year.

As far as Jim Comey's testimony, why dont you post an audio clip during his testimony under oath where he states that the closed door meetings with Donald Trump were the Obama administrations "idea" first so that I can hear it for myself. I dont recall that little soundbyte.

How about the transcript
www.cnn.com...

The Director of National Intelligence asked that I personally do this portion of the briefing because I was staying in my position and because the material implicated the FBI's counter-intelligence responsibilities. We also agreed I would do it alone to minimize potential embarrassment to the President-Elect. Although we agreed it made sense for me to do the briefing, the FBI's leadership and I were concerned that the briefing might create a situation where a new President came into office uncertain about whether the FBI was conducting a counter-intelligence investigation of his personal conduct.

It was not trump who instigated alone one on one meetings.
That came from the ic.
If it is good for one it is good for all.

Mueller has a clearly partisan hack investigative team with no focus, no boundaries, and no investigative parameters.

a reply to: TacSite18

What you watergaters like to leave out is that 5 people were arrested initially at the BEGINNING of the investigation. How many people have been arrested in the "russia" debacle? 0
How many were caught red handed? 0

That makes a big difference.
It has not even been proven that anyone broke the law in this "russia" debacle. No one has been charged a year in.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Ah I see you were taking all your responses afterwards into that context. Thanks for explaining.

Do you have a problem with entrenched bureaucracy when it suits your own political agenda though? Assuming you are a Republican or conservative who supported the Republicans this last election cyclone, are you pleased or dismayed at the stalling of Obama's last supreme court nomination for Judge Garland, and the eventual supplanting of that nomination through said stalling tactics to seat Gorsuch on the bench?

a reply to: Damiel



Trump asking if he can pardon his family members, team, or himself, uh, do you all still think nothing stinks? Okay.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Ah I see you were taking all your responses afterwards into that context. Thanks for explaining.

Do you have a problem with entrenched bureaucracy when it suits your own political agenda though? Assuming you are a Republican or conservative who supported the Republicans this last election cyclone, are you pleased or dismayed at the stalling of Obama's last supreme court nomination for Judge Garland, and the eventual supplanting of that nomination through said stalling tactics to seat Gorsuch on the bench?

I'm not American, nor did I follow much American politics during Obama's reign. But yes I would call your example such an instance.

I include not only the stalling of political appointees, but of obstruction of policy by activist judges, leaking to the press by unnamed and unaccountable officials and sources, and so on. I also don't see this as a left/right, GOP/Dem, conservative/liberal issue, but an issue of bureaucratic dictatorship.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
So yeah the investigation has been going on now for over a year.

This is not a discussion about Russian meddling nor was what I replied to. It was about President Trump being under investigation by Robert Mueller. Unless you are agreeing that the two of those things are identical (which I cant see how you can considering Mueller wasn't installed until May 2017) then no, it has not.

The Director of National Intelligence asked that I personally do this portion of the briefing because I was staying in my position and because the material implicated the FBI's counter-intelligence responsibilities. We also agreed I would do it alone to minimize potential embarrassment to the President-Elect. Although we agreed it made sense for me to do the briefing, the FBI's leadership and I were concerned that the briefing might create a situation where a new President came into office uncertain about whether the FBI was conducting a counter-intelligence investigation of his personal conduct.

Nice try, but in your own source It was not a "meeting initiated by the former administration"

January 6 Briefing
I first met then-President-Elect Trump on Friday, January 6 in a conference room at Trump Tower in New York. I was there with other Intelligence Community (IC) leaders to brief him and his new national security team on the findings of an IC assessment concerning Russian efforts to interfere in the election. At the conclusion of that briefing, I remained alone with the President Elect to brief him on some personally sensitive aspects of the information assembled during the assessment.

I see you selectively left out that key element as well as the reasons for it because we KNOW what took place in those meetings, unlike the closed door in the Oval Office

The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such effort with a defensive briefing.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: alphabetaone

I dont know as of late there seems to be a boom of new accounts beating the DNC drum.

Guess it is just a matter of perspective.

===============

Yep, you're right. But my focus was specifically on President Trump supporters in this instance. Every election cycle there is a flurry from both sides trying to make themselves seem more relevant than their oppositions viewpoint.

I just find it amusing that some folks feel that if they just dig further they will find something, problem in my eyes his team was under investigation for a year (that we know of) and if they had anything he either would not be president, or they choose him for a reason in which case he will not get impeached.

With this administration you dont have to dig at ALL. It's right before everyone's eyes..Jr.s emails didn't release themself. And you're wrong, "his team" hasnt been under investigation "for a year", where are you coming up with that? The Russian involvement in the election cycle has been under investigation for over a year....Are you saying that "his team" is exactly equal to "Russian involvement"? That's what it sounds like to me.

OR you have the aspect that this special counsel is based off of Comey's opinion of what the president was saying, and that the president did something he had the legal ability to when he fired comey, suspicious lack of evidence that many people are running with.

Comey's opinion of what the President was saying is not even crucial as, at the time, the President was not under investigation. It's what the President did that is most damning, not opinions of what was said afterwards....removing everyone from the Oval Office to simply speak alone with the FBI Director is something that AG Sessions, as Comey's boss should have never allowed to happen. What was said behind those closed doors, simply doesn't matter.

Take from that what you will *shrugs*, I still think the democrats need to find an actual message other than not trump if they want to make up ground in the mid-terms.

I will argue with you on this. ANYONE who runs for a public office (not a partisan problem) needs to have a message. If you take "messages" as criteria for an effective Government, then right now, we're about as ineffectual as any Government could possibly be.

Repeal and Replace. Accomplished? No.
Build that wall! Accomplished? No.
Lock her up! Accomplished? No. (and likely never can be)
Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! Accomplished? No. (status quo reigns supreme)
Drain the swamp! Accomplished? No. (not just no, but HELL no...in fact swamp is becoming mired in quagmire)

All the tenets of the "message" that bear no fruit.

I did not vote for him, I advocated for a third party vote the entire election cycle, but silly me I want to wait and see what evidence comes up with, 9 out of 10 of the trump haters have already convicted him of treason in their own heads without seeing an actual piece of verified evidence, they are going purely off a partisan opinion pieces.

As for his team being investigated... FISA warrant, the one that supposedly was granted based of Jr's meeting, that is where I am getting that.

So no president in the history of the country has ever asked someone to stay behind and have a chat one on one, Okkkk got you, have fun with your circle.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Ironic that people will bitch about a pardon without charges yet be ok with a special prosecutor with no crime to prosecute.

originally posted by: Irishhaf

So no president in the history of the country has ever asked someone to stay behind and have a chat one on one, Okkkk got you, have fun with your circle.

Not the Director of the FBI, no. It's not unusual for the Vice President, Chief of Staff, Senior advisors to have confidential talks with the President...that's actually expected as they ran with and are party affiliates of the President and typically members of the Executive.

DOJ officials are and should be off-limits with respect to private conversations for this very reason.

Have fun with your ignorance.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: TacSite18

What you watergaters like to leave out is that 5 people were arrested initially at the BEGINNING of the investigation. How many people have been arrested in the "russia" debacle? 0
How many were caught red handed? 0

That makes a big difference.
It has not even been proven that anyone broke the law in this "russia" debacle. No one has been charged a year in.

I am sure the justice department will make up for it on the back end, and break the Nixon republican record of 69 indicted, and trials or pleas resulting in 48 being found guilty. They already have Flynn begging for immunity. I am sure Manafort is ready to flip for money laundering, and now that Mueller has the president's tax returns, there is most likely a long waiting line at the special prosecutor's office of sweaty folks who want to get off the Trump bus before Trump throws them under it.

a reply to: alphabetaone

so mueller is not continuing the investigation of russia meddling in the election?
i submit he is
that started in july of 16

who decided to meet pne on one wirh the potus?
it wasnt the potus was it?
it was the dni from the previous admin
comey laid the whole plan out

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: alphabetaone

so mueller is not continuing the investigation of russia meddling in the election?
i submit he is
that started in july of 16

who decided to meet pne on one wirh the potus?
it wasnt the potus was it?
it was the dni from the previous admin
comey laid the whole plan out

It did not start in july of 16:

May 17, 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller to serve as special counsel for the United States Department of Justice. In this capacity, Mueller oversees the investigation into "any links and/or coordination between Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump, and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation".[

Source

originally posted by: alphabetaone
DOJ officials are and should be off-limits with respect to private conversations for this very reason.

Have fun with your ignorance.

Speaking of ignorance care to support this false claim?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: alphabetaone
DOJ officials are and should be off-limits with respect to private conversations for this very reason.

Have fun with your ignorance.

Speaking of ignorance care to support this false claim?

The DOJ serve as the prosecutors, similar to a local DA, for the nation. They do have special investigative powers under the federal statutes, and are given a degree of independence from outside interference. I am not going to go through all the federal statutes for you. Do your own research.

As a side note: It is about as wise to start objecting to an ongoing investigation by turning it back on the prosecuters as it is to insult the entire intelligence community of the United States. Par for the course President Trump. How is that working out for ya?

Mueller is assigned to investigate Russia's possibly meddling, not Trump family. There's a clear line in the sand he cannot cross.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Ignorance: lack of knowledge or information.

You have posted nothing but opinion's, no evidence of wrong doing, no statue that was violated.

I prefer to wait for I don't know that silly thing called evidence before I make a decision.

I will admit I wanted Hillary in jail, but there was evidence the weasel Comey used legalese to get her out of trouble.

As of this moment you have butkus in the way of proof.

originally posted by: TacSite18

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: alphabetaone
DOJ officials are and should be off-limits with respect to private conversations for this very reason.

Have fun with your ignorance.

Speaking of ignorance care to support this false claim?

The DOJ serve as the prosecutors, similar to a local DA, for the nation. They do have special investigative powers under the federal statutes, and are given a degree of independence from outside interference. I am not going to go through all the federal statutes for you. Do your own research.

As a side note: It is about as wise to start objecting to an ongoing investigation by turning it back on the prosecuters as it is to insult the entire intelligence community of the United States. Par for the course President Trump. How is that working out for ya?

Which is fine however it doesn't answer the question asked. Secondly Mueller is outside the scope of his investigative mandate now.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: TacSite18

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: alphabetaone
DOJ officials are and should be off-limits with respect to private conversations for this very reason.

Have fun with your ignorance.

Speaking of ignorance care to support this false claim?

The DOJ serve as the prosecutors, similar to a local DA, for the nation. They do have special investigative powers under the federal statutes, and are given a degree of independence from outside interference. I am not going to go through all the federal statutes for you. Do your own research.

As a side note: It is about as wise to start objecting to an ongoing investigation by turning it back on the prosecuters as it is to insult the entire intelligence community of the United States. Par for the course President Trump. How is that working out for ya?

Which is fine however it doesn't answer the question asked. Secondly Mueller is outside the scope of his investigative mandate now.

I respectfully disagree. I reread it again this morning, along with the sub-references. I think it is open to interpretation, and one would have to unwind all the precedence in case law to get a better understanding.

I also understand that I am not fully qualified by education or experience to make a firm statement either way. Are you?

originally posted by: allsee4eye
Mueller is assigned to investigate Russia's possibly meddling, not Trump family. There's a clear line in the sand he cannot cross.

So here's a wild idea:

Russia meddled in the election in various ways; fomenting the the divide in the Democratic party and building bot armies to support Trump in various internet communities.

Trump Jr. meets with Russian lawyer during campaign for campaign related activities (dirt on Clinton), drawing himself into the investigation.

Now for the really crazy part: Trump's finances tie him to either the Russian mob or the Russian government through loans and debts owed by Trump to those organizations. This is why he didn't release his tax returns, this is why he doesn't want Mueller to go through his tax returns. There's a line to be drawn from the Trump family finances to the Russian government which is why the Russian government meddled in the election.

The Russian government interfered in the election to get Trump elected because he owes them money and will be much, much more willing to work with them than Clinton or Obama were; lifting sanctions, allowing them to exert their influence across Europe and the middle east, restoring the oligarch's billions of dollars that Obama froze.

That's just an idea though. Maybe there's nothing to any of this.