Presidential Immunity

The FBI illegally spied on Trump by lying to a FISA court. That tainted the whole thing and if it was a fair system, the whole thing would have been immediately tossed instead of wasting 3 years of taxpayer time and money on something that ended with a big flop. No collusion, no case. Hillary is the one who should have been on trial for working with the Russians to interfere with the election.

Rick wrote: The FBI illegally spied on Trump by lying to a FISA court. That tainted the whole thing and if it was a fair system, the whole thing would have been immediately tossed instead of wasting 3 years of taxpayer time and money on something that ended with a big flop. No collusion, no case. Hillary is the one who should have been on trial for working with the Russians to interfere with the election.

But Rick, there was interaction between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia. I've shown this to you before. From the Mueller Report:

www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential...-the-mueller-report/

The Special Counsel investigation uncovered extensive criminal activity

The investigation produced 37 indictments; seven guilty pleas or convictions; and compelling evidence that the president obstructed justice on multiple occasions. Mueller also uncovered and referred 14 criminal matters to other components of the Department of Justice.
Trump associates repeatedly lied to investigators about their contacts with Russians, and President Trump refused to answer questions about his efforts to impede federal proceedings and influence the testimony of witnesses.
A statement signed by over 1,000 former federal prosecutors concluded that if any other American engaged in the same efforts to impede federal proceedings the way Trump did, they would likely be indicted for multiple charges of obstruction of justice.

Russia engaged in extensive attacks on the U.S. election system in 2016

Russian interference in the 2016 election was “sweeping and systemic.”[1]
Major attack avenues included a social media “information warfare” campaign that “favored” candidate Trump[2] and the hacking of Clinton campaign-related databases and release of stolen materials through Russian-created entities and Wikileaks.[3]
Russia also targeted databases in many states related to administering elections gaining access to information for millions of registered voters.[4]

The investigation “identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign” and established that the Trump Campaign “showed interest in WikiLeaks's releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton”

In 2015 and 2016, Michael Cohen pursued a hotel/residence project in Moscow on behalf of Trump while he was campaigning for President.[5] Then-candidate Trump personally signed a letter of intent.
Senior members of the Trump campaign, including Paul Manafort, Donald Trump, Jr., and Jared Kushner took a June 9, 2016, meeting with Russian nationals at Trump Tower, New York, after outreach from an intermediary informed Trump, Jr., that the Russians had derogatory information on Clinton that was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”[6]
Beginning in June 2016, a Trump associate “forecast to senior [Trump] Campaign officials that WikiLeaks would release information damaging to candidate Clinton.”[7] A section of the Report that remains heavily redacted suggests that Roger Stone was this associate and that he had significant contacts with the campaign about Wikileaks.[8]
The Report described multiple occasions where Trump associates lied to investigators about Trump associate contacts with Russia. Trump associates George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, and Michael Cohen all admitted that they made false statements to federal investigators or to Congress about their contacts. In addition, Roger Stone faces trial this fall for obstruction of justice, five counts of making false statements, and one count of witness tampering.
The Report contains no evidence that any Trump campaign official reported their contacts with Russia or WikiLeaks to U.S. law enforcement authorities during the campaign or presidential transition, despite public reports on Russian hacking starting in June 2016 and candidate Trump’s August 2016 intelligence briefing warning him that Russia was seeking to interfere in the election.
The Report raised questions about why Trump associates and then-candidate Trump repeatedly asserted Trump had no connections to Russia.[9]

Special Counsel Mueller declined to exonerate President Trump and instead detailed multiple episodes in which he engaged in obstructive conduct

The Mueller Report states that if the Special Counsel’s Office felt they could clear the president of wrongdoing, they would have said so. Instead, the Report explicitly states that it “does not exonerate” the President[10] and explains that the Office of Special Counsel “accepted” the Department of Justice policy that a sitting President cannot be indicted.[11]
The Mueller report details multiple episodes in which there is evidence that the President obstructed justice. The pattern of conduct and the manner in which the President sought to impede investigations—including through one-on-one meetings with senior officials—is damning to the President.
Five episodes of obstructive conduct stand out as being particularly serious:
In June 2017 President Trump directed White House Counsel Don McGahn to order the firing of the Special Counsel after press reports that Mueller was investigating the President for obstruction of justice;[12] months later Trump asked McGahn to falsely refute press accounts reporting this directive and create a false paper record on this issue – all of which McGahn refused to do.[13]
After National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was fired in February 2017 for lying to FBI investigators about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Kislyak, Trump cleared his office for a one-on-one meeting with then-FBI Director James Comey and asked Comey to “let [Flynn] go;” he also asked then-Deputy National Security Advisor K.T. McFarland to draft an internal memo saying Trump did not direct Flynn to call Kislyak, which McFarland did not do because she did not know whether that was true.[14]
In July 2017, the President directed former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to instruct the Attorney General to limit Mueller’s investigation, a step the Report asserted “was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”[15]
In 2017 and 2018, the President asked the Attorney General to “un-recuse” himself from the Mueller inquiry, actions from which a “reasonable inference” could be made that “the President believed that an unrecused Attorney General would play a protective role and could shield the President from the ongoing Russia Investigation.”[16]
The Report raises questions about whether the President, by and through his private attorneys, floated the possibility of pardons for the purpose of influencing the cooperation of Flynn, Manafort, and an unnamed person with law enforcement.[17]

If there was something Trump did wrong in that investigation, then he really would have been charged with something or impeached. Mueller was clueless as to some of the main points of evidence... he had no idea what Fusion GPS was, so it's easy to see he was just there because he used to vote Republican, but like the rest of that bias ground of 'investigators', he too hated Trump.

You can post pages and pages, but you can't change the final outcome, which was a big nothing.

Rick wrote: If there was something Trump did wrong in that investigation, then he really would have been charged with something or impeached. Mueller was clueless as to some of the main points of evidence... he had no idea what Fusion GPS was, so it's easy to see he was just there because he used to vote Republican, but like the rest of that bias ground of 'investigators', he too hated Trump.

You can post pages and pages, but you can't change the final outcome, which was a big nothing.

Wow. So your mind is made up and nothing will ever convince you otherwise. Yep, you're a cult member.

As The Russia Hoax Begins To Unravel, The Gaslighting Begins

thefederalist.com/2019/02/14/russia-hoax...-gaslighting-begins/

Blazer Bob wrote: As The Russia Hoax Begins To Unravel, The Gaslighting Begins

thefederalist.com/2019/02/14/russia-hoax...-gaslighting-begins/

Exactly how is the "Russian hoax" unraveling?

Perhaps reading the article would be helpful. Try to find the lies and disinformation.

Rick wrote: Perhaps reading the article would be helpful. Try to find the lies and disinformation.

If you go to a restaurant and they are serving piles of $hit in the buffet, you probably won't go back, will you? That's the federalist web site. Piles of steaming $hit. I've read some of the right wing fascist articles in the past and won't go back.

You may continue to read the right wing propaganda, but I won't

koobookie wrote:

Rick wrote: Perhaps reading the article would be helpful. Try to find the lies and disinformation.

If you go to a restaurant and they are serving piles of $hit in the buffet, you probably won't go back, will you? That's the federalist web site. Piles of steaming $hit. I've read some of the right wing fascist articles in the past and won't go back.

You may continue to read the right wing propaganda, but I won't

I read and watch left wing garbage on a daily basis and it has no effect on my mental health at all. I have the ability to read and listen to sources I may not agree with... I then have the ability to weigh that information against other sources to see who is trying to feed me crap.

The ONLY way for you to be credible would be to read an article from a source you think is bullshit and then tell us what parts are bullshit. Just dismissing the source because you can't dispute the content makes you look very uniformed.

I don't know where you went to school or if you went to college, but if you went to a decent one with decent professors, then you should have been required to look at sources and ideas from all sides so that you can use you brain to determine what is true and what is not. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Professors might tell students to go read, for example, White Nationalist newspapers to try to understand the mindset, but a steady diet of that crap is not healthy. That's why I don't go to breitbart or the federalist. It's crap and I don't need to keep going back to those fascist right wing sites.

If you actually are reading Democratic Underground or listening to Rachel Maddow or going to left leaning web sites, I applaud you. I don't think you are doing that - you're just saying it, but whatever. I won't go to those left wing sites either.