libtard's brain begins to work
- Thread starter swampwalker
- Start date
dogcatcher
Active member
This part here.
Quote:"I'm actually getting more uncomfortable with this whole deal." he said.
Makes me wonder if he is worried about some from his own party getting caught up in the investigation.
Quote:"I'm actually getting more uncomfortable with this whole deal." he said.
Makes me wonder if he is worried about some from his own party getting caught up in the investigation.
Rocky1
New member
I'd think he's worried about potential law suits over reporting on Russian ties to Trump, that in fact did not and do not exist. At the very least, thoroughly discrediting the publications in question, tossing stories out that eventually prove total speculation and blatantly false. And, with Trump's call to investigate Hillary and the DNC for Russian ties, he may be fearful of lethal repercussions, for stirring that pot.
SixsixtyMags
Member
Anyone watch Hannity last night, he was dead on concerning what is going on and labeled it a soft coupe attempt.
Maybe there should be an investigation into this also, the unified attempt by the left to remove the democratically elected president simply because they don't want him to be president.
The leaks, the lies coming from the media, the hate rhetoric, etc. should all be investigated and looked at as a conspiracy to overthrow the POTUS. The swamp is big and deep, maybe more so than Trump ever realized!
Maybe there should be an investigation into this also, the unified attempt by the left to remove the democratically elected president simply because they don't want him to be president.
The leaks, the lies coming from the media, the hate rhetoric, etc. should all be investigated and looked at as a conspiracy to overthrow the POTUS. The swamp is big and deep, maybe more so than Trump ever realized!
Last edited:
Yep, he is scared.. this is starting to take another turn and looking at all involved in things at that time. The whole point of all of this isn't that Trump did something illegal, its about stopping him from doing the things that he promised to do during the election and they are afraid that if he actually follows through (as he has shown his commitment to do) he will be reelected and they will loose big.
This is about a big American's don't know what they are doing and we are going to take over.
Next up: a special counsel to probe Team Obama’s obstruction of justice
By using fired FBI Director James Comey to attack the new Republican administration, Democrats have opened up a legal can of worms for the Obama administration.
Under sworn questioning, Comey has veered off the topic of President Trump and Russia and revealed several damning incidents in which his predecessor’s administration politically interfered in the Hillary Clinton email investigation. And now the Senate will investigate Team Obama for obstruction of justice.
Specifically, the Senate Judiciary Committee announced last week it will hold hearings to “examine then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s involvement in the Clinton email server investigation.”
The findings of the powerful panel, which has oversight of the Justice Department and FBI, could lead to a separate criminal investigation and the naming of another special counsel — exactly what Trump needs to distract attention from his growing legal woes.
What Lynch did reeks of obstruction. According to Comey, his ex-boss:
 Ordered him to mislead the public about the criminal investigation of Clinton by calling it a “matter” rather than an investigation. (He complied with her wish, even though it made him feel “queasy.”)
 Refused to recuse herself from the case after Comey confronted her about a secret June 2016 meeting she had with former President Bill Clinton — five days before his wife was scheduled to be interviewed by the FBI. (Hillary was cleared three days later.)
There are also concerns, raised by a New York Times report, that Lynch privately assured the Clinton campaign she would keep FBI agents in check and wouldn’t let their investigation “go too far,” according to a message the FBI intercepted involving then-Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Worried his boss had a “conflict of interest” overseeing the Clinton investigation, Comey testified he “considered whether I should call for the appointment of a special counsel” to take over the case. That would’ve been the right move. Curiously, Comey instead shut down the probe and let Clinton off the hook — three weeks before her presidential nomination.
How compliant was Comey? Here’s how he responded to Lynch’s demand he “align” his rhetoric with the Clinton camp: “I just said, OK.” What other Lynch meddling did he go along with during the yearlong Hillary probe, which was marred by suspiciously generous immunity deals, favorable ground rules, a near-absence of grand jury subpoenas and a rushed closure ahead of the DNC convention?
These are questions the Senate judiciary panel, chaired by GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley, might like to ask Comey, along with: Who else was in the room during your meetings with Lynch, and did you take notes?
Any notes could be subpoenaed, along with the Wasserman Schultz document, which, contrary to recent media reports, isn’t fake. (Comey testified such reports are “nonsense.”) So might the NSA recording of Lynch’s chat with Clinton, which took place on board a government plane.
Congressional sources say Lynch will almost certainly be called to answer Comey’s allegations under oath. What did she and Bill Clinton discuss? Did the investigation come up? Why didn’t she recuse herself, despite admitting it looked bad? And did she in fact promise the Clinton campaign a whitewash?
Also on the potential witness list are Wasserman Schultz and Amanda Renteria, the senior Clinton campaign staffer with whom Wasserman Schultz claimed Lynch had been in communication.
Democrats will have a hard time dismissing the inquiry as partisan. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary panel, is on record saying Lynch’s suspicious actions are a legitimate avenue of inquiry. Those remarks provide Republicans the political cover they need to aggressively pursue Comey’s leads, and refer evidence to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution.
Because Attorney General Jeff Sessions would recuse himself from that probe, too, the case could end up in the hands of a special prosecutor, who, like Robert Mueller, would have wide-ranging authority to poke around.
That’s a nightmare scenario for Democrats, who are betting the 2018 midterms on convincing voters of Trump graft. Much to their chagrin, Comey’s testimony has given Republicans grounds to shift focus from the Russia probe back to Clinton-Obama corruption.
Witch-hunting Democrats may soon learn that turnabout is fair play.
http://nypost.com/2017/06/20/next-up-a-special-counsel-to-probe-team-obamas-obstruction-of-justice/
This is about a big American's don't know what they are doing and we are going to take over.
Next up: a special counsel to probe Team Obama’s obstruction of justice
By using fired FBI Director James Comey to attack the new Republican administration, Democrats have opened up a legal can of worms for the Obama administration.
Under sworn questioning, Comey has veered off the topic of President Trump and Russia and revealed several damning incidents in which his predecessor’s administration politically interfered in the Hillary Clinton email investigation. And now the Senate will investigate Team Obama for obstruction of justice.
Specifically, the Senate Judiciary Committee announced last week it will hold hearings to “examine then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s involvement in the Clinton email server investigation.”
The findings of the powerful panel, which has oversight of the Justice Department and FBI, could lead to a separate criminal investigation and the naming of another special counsel — exactly what Trump needs to distract attention from his growing legal woes.
What Lynch did reeks of obstruction. According to Comey, his ex-boss:
 Ordered him to mislead the public about the criminal investigation of Clinton by calling it a “matter” rather than an investigation. (He complied with her wish, even though it made him feel “queasy.”)
 Refused to recuse herself from the case after Comey confronted her about a secret June 2016 meeting she had with former President Bill Clinton — five days before his wife was scheduled to be interviewed by the FBI. (Hillary was cleared three days later.)
There are also concerns, raised by a New York Times report, that Lynch privately assured the Clinton campaign she would keep FBI agents in check and wouldn’t let their investigation “go too far,” according to a message the FBI intercepted involving then-Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Worried his boss had a “conflict of interest” overseeing the Clinton investigation, Comey testified he “considered whether I should call for the appointment of a special counsel” to take over the case. That would’ve been the right move. Curiously, Comey instead shut down the probe and let Clinton off the hook — three weeks before her presidential nomination.
How compliant was Comey? Here’s how he responded to Lynch’s demand he “align” his rhetoric with the Clinton camp: “I just said, OK.” What other Lynch meddling did he go along with during the yearlong Hillary probe, which was marred by suspiciously generous immunity deals, favorable ground rules, a near-absence of grand jury subpoenas and a rushed closure ahead of the DNC convention?
These are questions the Senate judiciary panel, chaired by GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley, might like to ask Comey, along with: Who else was in the room during your meetings with Lynch, and did you take notes?
Any notes could be subpoenaed, along with the Wasserman Schultz document, which, contrary to recent media reports, isn’t fake. (Comey testified such reports are “nonsense.”) So might the NSA recording of Lynch’s chat with Clinton, which took place on board a government plane.
Congressional sources say Lynch will almost certainly be called to answer Comey’s allegations under oath. What did she and Bill Clinton discuss? Did the investigation come up? Why didn’t she recuse herself, despite admitting it looked bad? And did she in fact promise the Clinton campaign a whitewash?
Also on the potential witness list are Wasserman Schultz and Amanda Renteria, the senior Clinton campaign staffer with whom Wasserman Schultz claimed Lynch had been in communication.
Democrats will have a hard time dismissing the inquiry as partisan. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary panel, is on record saying Lynch’s suspicious actions are a legitimate avenue of inquiry. Those remarks provide Republicans the political cover they need to aggressively pursue Comey’s leads, and refer evidence to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution.
Because Attorney General Jeff Sessions would recuse himself from that probe, too, the case could end up in the hands of a special prosecutor, who, like Robert Mueller, would have wide-ranging authority to poke around.
That’s a nightmare scenario for Democrats, who are betting the 2018 midterms on convincing voters of Trump graft. Much to their chagrin, Comey’s testimony has given Republicans grounds to shift focus from the Russia probe back to Clinton-Obama corruption.
Witch-hunting Democrats may soon learn that turnabout is fair play.
http://nypost.com/2017/06/20/next-up-a-special-counsel-to-probe-team-obamas-obstruction-of-justice/
swampwalker
New member
After listening to Comey It's hard to believe that he made it as far as he did in the FBI. Guys an emotional mess, that's udderly incompetent for that position. Feels "queasy", admits to leaking, lets Hillary go, after admitting she brakes the law. Then, admits to going along with lynch.. the list goes on with this clown. Cries like a baby after trump rightfully dumps him
BAYSTATE YOTE
New member
In 63' they used a cross fire and bullets, in 73' they used the Washington Post's Woodward and Bernstein...
2017 they are trying the press angle, if that doesn't work, then the extreme measures will be used..
I hope the President understands the forces amassing against him.. JFK sure didn't..
2017 they are trying the press angle, if that doesn't work, then the extreme measures will be used..
I hope the President understands the forces amassing against him.. JFK sure didn't..
SixsixtyMags
Member
Have often thought the same, when all else fails they may go to their last resort. All the negative rhetoric coming from the left is almost begging someone to do what that nutcase tried to do to the Republican members of congress, and there are more of them out there! They are trying to make it look like Trump is the worse thing that ever happened to America, and there are people that believe every word that is coming out of the lying liberal propaganda machine.
JMO, but this is what I'm seeing, I sure hope he also understands what he's up against, I would tend to think that he does.
JMO, but this is what I'm seeing, I sure hope he also understands what he's up against, I would tend to think that he does.
NdIndy
New member
I don't see the point in any of the federal probes and investigation. They take 1 of 2 routes.
Probe goes on forever on the basis of speculation, nothing is found.
Probe goes on forever on the basis of evidence. Guilt is found. Nothing happens.
Either path goes through several toll stations that cost several million each. They both end at the exact same location. The only difference is the scenery. I
Probe goes on forever on the basis of speculation, nothing is found.
Probe goes on forever on the basis of evidence. Guilt is found. Nothing happens.
Either path goes through several toll stations that cost several million each. They both end at the exact same location. The only difference is the scenery. I
Originally Posted By: NdIndyI don't see the point in any of the federal probes and investigation. They take 1 of 2 routes.
Probe goes on forever on the basis of speculation, nothing is found.
Probe goes on forever on the basis of evidence. Guilt is found. Nothing happens.
Either path goes through several toll stations that cost several million each. They both end at the exact same location. The only difference is the scenery. I
Yup! The corruption in the 'swamp' is very deep.
Probe goes on forever on the basis of speculation, nothing is found.
Probe goes on forever on the basis of evidence. Guilt is found. Nothing happens.
Either path goes through several toll stations that cost several million each. They both end at the exact same location. The only difference is the scenery. I
Yup! The corruption in the 'swamp' is very deep.