JEFF SESSIONS Says the Mueller Probe into President Trump Needs to End Now.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: rickymouse

Your statement isn't exactly true as Mueller has argued that mana fort was a back door to Russia. Also his findings haven't been fully revealed. There are charges not made public yet.

There are? Can you point me to where the additional charges not made public have been talked about by Mueller's team?

www.politico.com...
www.cnn.com...

The lawsuit Manafort filed sought to bar Mueller from bringing future charges against him

Paul Manafort Had a Suspected Role as 'Back Channel' Between Russia and Trump Campaign, DOJ Says

time.com...

None of those links refer to already charged but not made public indictments. Again, show me where additional charges have be filed against them? Manaforts lawyers tried to prevent any future ones, but they did not say any were pending ect.



The Time article is talking about back Channels, isn't really an Illegal offense itself. Back Channels happen all the time. If the Back Channel was to influence the Election via Russian influence, you might have a case. If they had that kind of info, he already would have been charged with it. It would be a Smoking Gun.

Show me that Smoking Gun or even indications of the Gun being used. So far we don't have any public evidence of that.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xtrozero

Probably about as much as Monica had to do with whitewater.

That is true, but does that make it right? The difference is Clinton put her in a job for 2 years paid for by our taxes and he did it all while being President. Kind of a big difference than if he had sex with someone years before he was President.

But you bring up a good point that I have posted to in the past. With these investigations when they can not find anything they then focus on creating perjury basically out of thin air, and that is what we consistently see, and what they got Clinton on.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: carewemust

Jeff Sessions was also an enemy of the civil rights movement, and refuses to accept scientifically valid advice about cannabis.

What he says, in terms of the worth of his critical thinking processes, can be assumed therefore to be HIGHLY suspect.

Like Freedom of Speech and Assembly????


LOL


LOL. Cannabis? Really? Now cannabis becomes the measuring bar? The DOJ doesn't make laws, they enforce them. Your civil rights comment is blather as well.

I hope you know that the justice department and police unions are one of the bigger groups lobbying to keep cannabis illegal. Also, Sessions has done more than a few things that have inhibited the legal cannabis wave because he wants to keep the plant illegal. Don't pretend like the DOJ and Sessions are innocent here and "just doing their job".

Yep, a perfect example of the priorities of the left. Cannabis,LMAO. Give me my doobies. That way I wan't have anything but a smile on my face as the whole thing goes down. My contempt.

Isn't it sad in this day and age that Leftists seem to stand for more personal freedoms that the so-called conservatives?

Like Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly and the Right to Bear Arms? LOL

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: rickymouse

Your statement isn't exactly true as Mueller has argued that mana fort was a back door to Russia. Also his findings haven't been fully revealed. There are charges not made public yet.

There are? Can you point me to where the additional charges not made public have been talked about by Mueller's team?

www.politico.com...
www.cnn.com...

The lawsuit Manafort filed sought to bar Mueller from bringing future charges against him

Paul Manafort Had a Suspected Role as 'Back Channel' Between Russia and Trump Campaign, DOJ Says

time.com...

None of those links refer to already charged but not made public indictments. Again, show me where additional charges have be filed against them? Manaforts lawyers tried to prevent any future ones, but they did not say any were pending ect.



The Time article is talking about back Channels, isn't really an Illegal offense itself. Back Channels happen all the time. If the Back Channel was to influence the Election via Russian influence, you might have a case. If they had that kind of info, he already would have been charged with it. It would be a Smoking Gun.

Show me that Smoking Gun or even indications of the Gun being used. So far we don't have any public evidence of that.

Nope.

They had proof. Not just evidence with scooter and it still took 2 years.

And I may have mispoke. What I meant was we have no idea what all the charges will be or what evidence will be presented.

Yet you seem very sure even though there is no precedent for your claims.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xtrozero

Probably about as much as Monica had to do with whitewater.

That is true, but does that make it right? The difference is Clinton put her in a job for 2 years paid for by our taxes and he did it all while being President. Kind of a big difference than if he had sex with someone years before he was President.

But you bring up a good point that I have posted to in the past. With these investigations when they can not find anything they then focus on creating perjury basically out of thin air, and that is what we consistently see, and what they got Clinton on.

Exactly. I was against it back then as well. I am against fisa courts etc..

At the same time my longterm knowledge of the subject let's me understand the reality of what is going on vs what is media and partisan baloney.

Guys like nunes are as bad as the comey's.

Hell scooter libby had physical proof and the case went on for years.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: rickymouse

Your statement isn't exactly true as Mueller has argued that mana fort was a back door to Russia. Also his findings haven't been fully revealed. There are charges not made public yet.

There are? Can you point me to where the additional charges not made public have been talked about by Mueller's team?

www.politico.com...
www.cnn.com...

The lawsuit Manafort filed sought to bar Mueller from bringing future charges against him

Paul Manafort Had a Suspected Role as 'Back Channel' Between Russia and Trump Campaign, DOJ Says

time.com...

None of those links refer to already charged but not made public indictments. Again, show me where additional charges have be filed against them? Manaforts lawyers tried to prevent any future ones, but they did not say any were pending ect.



The Time article is talking about back Channels, isn't really an Illegal offense itself. Back Channels happen all the time. If the Back Channel was to influence the Election via Russian influence, you might have a case. If they had that kind of info, he already would have been charged with it. It would be a Smoking Gun.

Show me that Smoking Gun or even indications of the Gun being used. So far we don't have any public evidence of that.

Nope.

They had proof. Not just evidence with scooter and it still took 2 years.

And I may have mispoke. What I meant was we have no idea what all the charges will be or what evidence will be presented.

Yet you seem very sure even though there is no precedent for your claims.

You can have proof but not evidence? That's new to me. I thought Evidence was Proof.

We haven't been made privilege to any new charges. Of that I am sure. I haven't seen proof or evidence that additional charges have been done against Gates or Manafort or Flynn either. In fact Flynn's case looks pretty flimsy and the First Judge had been removed from the case.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: rickymouse

Your statement isn't exactly true as Mueller has argued that mana fort was a back door to Russia. Also his findings haven't been fully revealed. There are charges not made public yet.

There are? Can you point me to where the additional charges not made public have been talked about by Mueller's team?

www.politico.com...
www.cnn.com...

The lawsuit Manafort filed sought to bar Mueller from bringing future charges against him

Paul Manafort Had a Suspected Role as 'Back Channel' Between Russia and Trump Campaign, DOJ Says

time.com...

None of those links refer to already charged but not made public indictments. Again, show me where additional charges have be filed against them? Manaforts lawyers tried to prevent any future ones, but they did not say any were pending ect.



The Time article is talking about back Channels, isn't really an Illegal offense itself. Back Channels happen all the time. If the Back Channel was to influence the Election via Russian influence, you might have a case. If they had that kind of info, he already would have been charged with it. It would be a Smoking Gun.

Show me that Smoking Gun or even indications of the Gun being used. So far we don't have any public evidence of that.

Nope.

They had proof. Not just evidence with scooter and it still took 2 years.

And I may have mispoke. What I meant was we have no idea what all the charges will be or what evidence will be presented.

Yet you seem very sure even though there is no precedent for your claims.

You can have proof but not evidence? That's new to me. I thought Evidence was Proof.

We haven't been made privilege to any new charges. Of that I am sure. I haven't seen proof or evidence that additional charges have been done against Gates or Manafort or Flynn either. In fact Flynn's case looks pretty flimsy and the First Judge had been removed from the case.

Proof is not evidence.

And what you have seen doesn't mean anything at all.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: rickymouse

Your statement isn't exactly true as Mueller has argued that mana fort was a back door to Russia. Also his findings haven't been fully revealed. There are charges not made public yet.

There are? Can you point me to where the additional charges not made public have been talked about by Mueller's team?

www.politico.com...
www.cnn.com...

The lawsuit Manafort filed sought to bar Mueller from bringing future charges against him

Paul Manafort Had a Suspected Role as 'Back Channel' Between Russia and Trump Campaign, DOJ Says

time.com...

None of those links refer to already charged but not made public indictments. Again, show me where additional charges have be filed against them? Manaforts lawyers tried to prevent any future ones, but they did not say any were pending ect.



The Time article is talking about back Channels, isn't really an Illegal offense itself. Back Channels happen all the time. If the Back Channel was to influence the Election via Russian influence, you might have a case. If they had that kind of info, he already would have been charged with it. It would be a Smoking Gun.

Show me that Smoking Gun or even indications of the Gun being used. So far we don't have any public evidence of that.

Nope.

They had proof. Not just evidence with scooter and it still took 2 years.

And I may have mispoke. What I meant was we have no idea what all the charges will be or what evidence will be presented.

Yet you seem very sure even though there is no precedent for your claims.

You can have proof but not evidence? That's new to me. I thought Evidence was Proof.

We haven't been made privilege to any new charges. Of that I am sure. I haven't seen proof or evidence that additional charges have been done against Gates or Manafort or Flynn either. In fact Flynn's case looks pretty flimsy and the First Judge had been removed from the case.

Proof is not evidence.

And what you have seen doesn't mean anything at all.

OK...... You think the massive sieve that is Washington, wouldn't have leaked something proving the Trump Campaign Collusion with Russia during the Election?

So now the Lack of evidence made public is now Proof that there is Evidence or there could be evidence? My head hurts.

Time eventually will tell what actually happened. The Russians don't seem to be so slick as to cover their tracks, according to the mainstream Narrative.

So far we ALL don't have any evidence that proves Collusion via Trump and the Russians.

There Does seem to have been some collusion at the FBI and DOJ and we actually have "some" evidence of it. What was the Insurance Policy they spoke of and the Meeting in Andy's Office? Why did the Steele Dossier come into play when it was known to be an Opposiiton funded research and the Second Dossier was From Sid Bluementhal?

a reply to: pavil

The media thinks Americans are dumb sheep. Just waiting for Russians to "trick" us every day. CNN's White House correspondent Jim Acosta said so in an interview with the Variety tabloid this week.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: rickymouse

Your statement isn't exactly true as Mueller has argued that mana fort was a back door to Russia. Also his findings haven't been fully revealed. There are charges not made public yet.

There are? Can you point me to where the additional charges not made public have been talked about by Mueller's team?

www.politico.com...
www.cnn.com...

The lawsuit Manafort filed sought to bar Mueller from bringing future charges against him

Paul Manafort Had a Suspected Role as 'Back Channel' Between Russia and Trump Campaign, DOJ Says

time.com...

None of those links refer to already charged but not made public indictments. Again, show me where additional charges have be filed against them? Manaforts lawyers tried to prevent any future ones, but they did not say any were pending ect.



The Time article is talking about back Channels, isn't really an Illegal offense itself. Back Channels happen all the time. If the Back Channel was to influence the Election via Russian influence, you might have a case. If they had that kind of info, he already would have been charged with it. It would be a Smoking Gun.

Show me that Smoking Gun or even indications of the Gun being used. So far we don't have any public evidence of that.

Nope.

They had proof. Not just evidence with scooter and it still took 2 years.

And I may have mispoke. What I meant was we have no idea what all the charges will be or what evidence will be presented.

Yet you seem very sure even though there is no precedent for your claims.

You can have proof but not evidence? That's new to me. I thought Evidence was Proof.

We haven't been made privilege to any new charges. Of that I am sure. I haven't seen proof or evidence that additional charges have been done against Gates or Manafort or Flynn either. In fact Flynn's case looks pretty flimsy and the First Judge had been removed from the case.

Proof is not evidence.

And what you have seen doesn't mean anything at all.

OK...... You think the massive sieve that is Washington, wouldn't have leaked something proving the Trump Campaign Collusion with Russia during the Election?

So now the Lack of evidence made public is now Proof that there is Evidence or there could be evidence? My head hurts.

Time eventually will tell what actually happened. The Russians don't seem to be so slick as to cover their tracks, according to the mainstream Narrative.

So far we ALL don't have any evidence that proves Collusion via Trump and the Russians.

There Does seem to have been some collusion at the FBI and DOJ and we actually have "some" evidence of it. What was the Insurance Policy they spoke of and the Meeting in Andy's Office? Why did the Steele Dossier come into play when it was known to be an Opposiiton funded research and the Second Dossier was From Sid Bluementhal?

What has Mueller leaked?

Notice the doj and fbi won't give up the info until the last minute and then it's leaked immediately.

It ain't Mueller.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: carewemust

Jeff Sessions was also an enemy of the civil rights movement, and refuses to accept scientifically valid advice about cannabis.

What he says, in terms of the worth of his critical thinking processes, can be assumed therefore to be HIGHLY suspect.

Like Freedom of Speech and Assembly????


LOL


LOL. Cannabis? Really? Now cannabis becomes the measuring bar? The DOJ doesn't make laws, they enforce them. Your civil rights comment is blather as well.

I hope you know that the justice department and police unions are one of the bigger groups lobbying to keep cannabis illegal. Also, Sessions has done more than a few things that have inhibited the legal cannabis wave because he wants to keep the plant illegal. Don't pretend like the DOJ and Sessions are innocent here and "just doing their job".

Yep, a perfect example of the priorities of the left. Cannabis,LMAO. Give me my doobies. That way I wan't have anything but a smile on my face as the whole thing goes down. My contempt.

Isn't it sad in this day and age that Leftists seem to stand for more personal freedoms that the so-called conservatives?

Like Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly and the Right to Bear Arms? LOL

Exactly.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: pavil

The media thinks Americans are dumb sheep. Just waiting for Russians to "trick" us every day. CNN's White House correspondent Jim Acosta said so in an interview with the Variety tabloid this week.

I guess you include the fox narrative as well?

Or since it fits your conformation bias that version is the truth?

originally posted by: pavil



So now the Lack of evidence made public is now Proof that there is Evidence or there could be evidence? My head hurts.

I think the big thing here is the DOJ sees a lack of evidence, and the FBI even said Trump is not under investigation, so what else can there be unless the FBI goes to the DOJ and say we have stuff, which it seems they have not done.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: pavil



So now the Lack of evidence made public is now Proof that there is Evidence or there could be evidence? My head hurts.

I think the big thing here is the DOJ sees a lack of evidence, and the FBI even said Trump is not under investigation, so what else can there be unless the FBI go to the DOJ and say we have stuff, which it seems they have not done.

The doj does not see a lack of evidence. Jeff sessions reused himself and can't examine the case. The doj is prosecuting.


And it's not my fault pavil doesn't know the difference between proof and evidence and that the libby case took years even while having actual proof of a crime.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: carewemust

Jeff Sessions was also an enemy of the civil rights movement, and refuses to accept scientifically valid advice about cannabis.

What he says, in terms of the worth of his critical thinking processes, can be assumed therefore to be HIGHLY suspect.

Like Freedom of Speech and Assembly????


LOL


LOL. Cannabis? Really? Now cannabis becomes the measuring bar? The DOJ doesn't make laws, they enforce them. Your civil rights comment is blather as well.

I hope you know that the justice department and police unions are one of the bigger groups lobbying to keep cannabis illegal. Also, Sessions has done more than a few things that have inhibited the legal cannabis wave because he wants to keep the plant illegal. Don't pretend like the DOJ and Sessions are innocent here and "just doing their job".

Yep, a perfect example of the priorities of the left. Cannabis,LMAO. Give me my doobies. That way I wan't have anything but a smile on my face as the whole thing goes down. My contempt.

Isn't it sad in this day and age that Leftists seem to stand for more personal freedoms that the so-called conservatives?

Like Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly and the Right to Bear Arms? LOL

Exactly.

Wow. Really?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: pavil



So now the Lack of evidence made public is now Proof that there is Evidence or there could be evidence? My head hurts.

I think the big thing here is the DOJ sees a lack of evidence, and the FBI even said Trump is not under investigation, so what else can there be unless the FBI go to the DOJ and say we have stuff, which it seems they have not done.

The doj does not see a lack of evidence. Jeff sessions reused himself and can't examine the case. The doj is prosecuting.


And it's not my fault pavil doesn't know the difference between proof and evidence and that the libby case took years even while having actual proof of a crime.

Cmon now. What proof or evidence has been made public that shows collusion by the Trump Campaign with Russia?

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: carewemust

Jeff Sessions was also an enemy of the civil rights movement, and refuses to accept scientifically valid advice about cannabis.

What he says, in terms of the worth of his critical thinking processes, can be assumed therefore to be HIGHLY suspect.

Like Freedom of Speech and Assembly????


LOL


LOL. Cannabis? Really? Now cannabis becomes the measuring bar? The DOJ doesn't make laws, they enforce them. Your civil rights comment is blather as well.

I hope you know that the justice department and police unions are one of the bigger groups lobbying to keep cannabis illegal. Also, Sessions has done more than a few things that have inhibited the legal cannabis wave because he wants to keep the plant illegal. Don't pretend like the DOJ and Sessions are innocent here and "just doing their job".

Yep, a perfect example of the priorities of the left. Cannabis,LMAO. Give me my doobies. That way I wan't have anything but a smile on my face as the whole thing goes down. My contempt.

Isn't it sad in this day and age that Leftists seem to stand for more personal freedoms that the so-called conservatives?

Like Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly and the Right to Bear Arms? LOL

Exactly.

Wow. Really?

Yes. I do not see people on the Left calling for journalists to be jailed for having dissenting opinion. I do not see the Left calling people that assemble peacefully terrorist rioters and thugs.

Both Left and Right want to further restrict our right to bear arms, with even the president saying we need to forego due process...in the process.

So that seems to be a toss-up.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: pavil



So now the Lack of evidence made public is now Proof that there is Evidence or there could be evidence? My head hurts.

I think the big thing here is the DOJ sees a lack of evidence, and the FBI even said Trump is not under investigation, so what else can there be unless the FBI go to the DOJ and say we have stuff, which it seems they have not done.

The doj does not see a lack of evidence. Jeff sessions reused himself and can't examine the case. The doj is prosecuting.


And it's not my fault pavil doesn't know the difference between proof and evidence and that the libby case took years even while having actual proof of a crime.

Cmon now. What proof or evidence has been made public that shows collusion by the Trump Campaign with Russia?

What I said was.

The scooter libby case had proof early on and lasted for two years.

It was a rebuttal to you saying if there were proof the case would be over.


Whitewater went on for 4 years and never found a thing....except a bj.

originally posted by: luthier



The doj does not see a lack of evidence. Jeff sessions reused himself and can't examine the case. The doj is prosecuting.

2018 is a strange year it seems. In the past it always seemed the DOJ would tell the FBI when to jump and how high. Even under Obama the FBI would not even flinch without AJ giving their blessing to do so. Now we have Trump that it seems the DOJ has zero influence over the FBI and the AJ is so far removed from the DOJ that he doesn't have a single clue. We also have the FBI stonewalling Congress and that seems rather strange too.

With all this said, I still find it very hard to believe that Sessions hasn't had briefings as to where the case is at and going.

When we talk about recluse (Take oneself out of a process or position of judgment) that doesn't mean 100% removed as much as removed from the position to judge, so I see no issues with him getting frequent briefings to stay knowledgeable. So with him saying we should end it I would bet he has very good updated information as to why he would say that.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I am not sure the recussal in this case is the literal definition.

However it's understandable the doj and fbi don't want to let the committee see documents, they get leaked seconds afterwords.

But yes it's nuts. I have no idea bit I assume everyone is lieing.

I don't reserve it for one side.