Finally, liberal MSM admits "collusion" doesn't exist

a reply to: dasman888

Revealing all the charges is like the dance of the seven veils. It builds to a climax. The best is yet to come.

a reply to: DJW001


Agreed on that DJW. Just wondering if it is going to be how you think, or how we think.

Everything we've seen suggests Podesta is nervous right now. He suddenly resigned from his lucrative job after several decades and that isn't the action of a man feeling good about himself.

Either way, we will have to wait and see

a reply to: JoshuaCox


No, that admits it was for the purpose of obtaining dirt on Hillary. That is opposition research.

How is Hillary/her associates going to Fusion/Chris Steele (a UK foreign influence) any less serious than this? Are you discriminating against Russia?

British collusion is just as serious as Russian influence.

...and hopefully those da*n British influencers will get their day at the gallows! Tar and feather all the foreign influences AND our corrupt pols.

a reply to: JBurns

Right. "Collusion" is not a crime.

Espionage, accepting foreign donations for a US Political Campaign, Money Laundering, Fraud, Failure to register as a Foreign Agent (FARA), Lying to federal agents and/or Security Clearance Documetns etc. etc. ARE.

But more to the point. President's aren't Impeached for crimes. They can be impeached for virtually anything.
So Mueller can still make a determination of "Collusion" in the end, albeit it won't be an indictment.

He can and obviously will issue indictments for any and all criminal activity associated with the "collusion" along the way.

Nixon's Impeachment and resignation was preceded by something like 12 indictments of various stripes. I think the first was as simple as breaking and entering by his minions.

Sidenote: I thought anyone remotely following this story thus far already understood that "Collusion" was not a "legal" term.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: JoshuaCox

How is Hillary/her associates going to Fusion/Chris Steele (a UK foreign influence) any less serious than this? Are you discriminating against Russia?

British collusion is just as serious as Russian influence.

No. The US relies on British Intelligence all the time and vice versa.

Gathering intelligence on Russian operations and participating in Russian Operations are two very different things.

One is what US Intelligence Agents are paid to do, the other will get them prosecuted for Espionage.

Certainly your political bias hasn't corrupted your thinking so thoroughly you are incapable of distinguishing between the two?

a reply to: soberbacchus


Hillary/DNC/Steele are not part of US intelligence apparatus. Nice try though. Steele isn't MI6 anymore, so that argument doesn't work either. And even if he were, why share his "information" with a campaign instead of our authorities? Why did DNC/Clinton have to pay for his work if it is State sanctioned intelligence?

British collusion! DNC/UK-Russian collusion!

Again nice try. But Hillary is not an intelligence authority. The DNC is not an intelligence authority. Chris Steele is a citizen of a FORIEGN nation that provided information to influence our election against Trump.

If you're going to feign outrage over this Russia nonsense, then you must also affirm Steele/Clinton's wrong doings. Otherwise, you're just being a discriminatory hypocrite.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: JoshuaCox

How is Hillary/her associates going to Fusion/Chris Steele (a UK foreign influence) any less serious than this? Are you discriminating against Russia?

British collusion is just as serious as Russian influence.

No. The US relies on British Intelligence all the time and vice versa.

Gathering intelligence on Russian operations and participating in Russian Operations are two very different things.

One is what US Intelligence Agents are paid to do, the other will get them prosecuted for Espionage.

Certainly your political bias hasn't corrupted your thinking so thoroughly you are incapable of distinguishing between the two?

Just wanted to quote this to prevent editing.

You are justifying British influence in our election by what? Trying to claim Steele (not a current spook)/Clinton/DNC are what? Intelligence operatives? Give me a break.

One is what US Intelligence Agents are paid to do

Clinton is not an intelligence agent! The DNC is not an intelligence agency! Steele is NOT an intelligence agent (he's retired). Steele is no more an intelligence agent than I am a police officer (I'm also retired). FYI, national intelligence operations don't need funding from a political campaign to collect information about that campaign's adversary for the purpose of influencing/interfering in the electoral process. They call that "interference/influence" not "intelligence." False equivalency!

British collusion! British influeeeeeeence!!

a reply to: JBurns

There are two Podestas. Two. One worked on the Clinton campaign. The other one just resigned from a political consulting group bearing the Podesta name. He may have been collaborating with Paul Manafort as a Russian agent. If he did not declare this activity and laundered money he should be charged. Repeat: Tony Podesta did not work on the Clinton campaign, so please ignore the shills trying to confuse the two.

a reply to: soberbacchus


You're 100% mistaken sir. Presidents may NOT be impeached for anything. The Constitution says "High crimes and misdemeanors."

The Constitution says exactly what it means: high crimes and misdemeanors. That doesn't equate to "anything." The Constitution is very clear, and leaves no room for interpretation/play.

In fact, I'm about 100% certain we'd have a patriot revolution if Trump was impeached for any reason other than high crimes/misdemeanors.

a reply to: JBurns

Steele was not acting as a British agent, as you admit. So what is your point? I think the post you are reacting to makes the point that it is one thing to sek out research from a national of a friendly government, and another to accept an offer from an unfriendly government.

a reply to: DJW001


I am aware of that. Aren't you at all curious what other connections he had?

But yes, I agree, this is in reference to ANTHONY Podesta not John. Although there is no doubt John will be the subject of at least an investigation, considering his links to the dossier which was illegal used to obtain FISA warrants (a serious offense).

The dossier was a known political tool (which Clinton funded) and then paraded it as actual intelligence/information instead of partisan drivel. That unsubstantiated (and partially discredited) document was then used to obtain FISA warrants against their opposition (Team Trump). That is a crime, which is actively being investigated.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: soberbacchus


You're 100% mistaken sir. Presidents may NOT be impeached for anything. The Constitution says "High crimes and misdemeanors."

The Constitution says exactly what it means: high crimes and misdemeanors. That doesn't equate to "anything." The Constitution is very clear, and leaves no room for interpretation/play.

In fact, I'm about 100% certain we'd have a patriot revolution if Trump was impeached for any reason other than high crimes/misdemeanors.

Since "high crimes and misdemeanors" are not specifically defined, the phrase can mean anything. Hence, Presidents can be impeached for anything. Obstruction of justice and espionage would meet anyone's definition high crimes.

a reply to: DJW001


He was using connections he made as a British agent, and obtained information from Russians (oh no!).

The fact that he isn't an agent but a FOREIGN INFLUENCE that accepted money from the Clinton campaign to drudge up specious information from less than credible sources which was then used to influence voters against Trump is my entire point.

You can't complain about Russian "propaganda" without complaining about Clinton/British propaganda.

The UK is NOT the United States. They have no more of a right to influence/interfere in our election than any Russia/Chinaman/Indian/North Korean/etc.

a reply to: DJW001


It is certainly defined: Felonies and misdemeanors. That is to say that some federal law has to be broken, then your GOP majority congress has to agree that it is impeachable.

Democrats can't impeach a ham sandwich on their own, these days.

Besides, any reason would have to pass approval of Trump's heavily armed base. Therefore, some made up law/charge isn't going to fly. You think this country is close to civil war now? Try looking at it after the People's President is illegally removed from office - oh boy! A little birdie told me that any attempt to remove him (illegally) from office would result in very bad things happening and the duly elected/lawful government being quickly restored. For some reason, I doubt you'd like the new gov very much though.

a reply to: JBurns

Wrong, on all counts. We do not know whether the dossier was used to obtain any of the multiple FISA warrants, nor would that necessarily be illegal. Hilary Clinton did not pay for the dossier, her campaign hired an outside agency who hired a private detective. It was a conservative news agency that initially funded the research. The House and Senate already have enough to investigate; the Podesta investigation is political kabuki.

a reply to: DJW001


We'll see.

a reply to: JBurns

WTF? He freaking LOST the popular vote! His heavily armed supporters would not stand a chance against Federal troops if they did try to mount an insurrection.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: soberbacchus


You're 100% mistaken sir. Presidents may NOT be impeached for anything. The Constitution says "High crimes and misdemeanors."

The Constitution says exactly what it means: high crimes and misdemeanors. That doesn't equate to "anything." The Constitution is very clear, and leaves no room for interpretation/play.

In fact, I'm about 100% certain we'd have a patriot revolution if Trump was impeached for any reason other than high crimes/misdemeanors.

Thanks for that.

Let's take a look at "High Crimes and Misdemeanors'?

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials,
such as perjury of oath,
abuse of authority,
bribery,
intimidation,
misuse of assets,
failure to supervise,
dereliction of duty,
unbecoming conduct,
and refusal to obey a lawful order.
Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.

en.wikipedia.org...

I counted 7 valid impeachable charges that could be levied at Trump right now even before the multiple investigations concluded.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: DJW001


It is certainly defined: Felonies and misdemeanors. That is to say that some federal law has to be broken

You need to study grade-school civics.

General incompetence is a valid cause for Impeachment.
"Unbecoming Conduct?"
"Failure to supervise?"
"Intimidation?"

a reply to: JBurns

A) Fusion GPS was originally contracted by by one of the republican nominees. When trump won the nomination the DNC picked up the tab..

B) fusion gps is a known opposition research firm, not an adversary foreign government...





If you look any deeper into all the conservative conspiracies I have seen, none hold up..

They are the most obvious of deflections..

Just to point out another trump lie.. the Steele dossier has not been discredited..

I’m not saying it’s true, but all the trump cheer leaders keep saying it has been debunked and if absolutely has not.