quote:

Trump allows the Mueller witch hunt to morph into a complete fishing expedition working against him and anyone in his administration but yet allows these high crimes to exist with nary a single question being asked. Very strange.

Assuming Trump is as clean as he says he is, the investigation will find nothing notable on him. All of that effort. All of that manpower. Nothing burger.

Should he stop or otherwise interfere then he will be accused of hiding something or assumed to be guilty. So he lets the investigation run its course.

After nothing is found, well then it's Hillary's turn. Kind of hard to complain about it at this point isn't it? Trump let them look as deep as they wanted and didn't lift a finger to stop them. Surely the left won't have a problem once it's their turn to do the same.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

Trump allows the Mueller witch hunt to morph into a complete fishing expedition working against him and anyone in his administration but yet allows these high crimes to exist with nary a single question being asked. Very strange.

Assuming Trump is as clean as he says he is, the investigation will find nothing notable on him. All of that effort. All of that manpower. Nothing burger.

Should he stop or otherwise interfere then he will be accused of hiding something or assumed to be guilty. So he lets the investigation run its course.

After nothing is found, well then it's Hillary's turn. Kind of hard to complain about it at this point isn't it? Trump let them look as deep as they wanted and didn't lift a finger to stop them. Surely the left won't have a problem once it's their turn to do the same.

If there was something substantive there Mueller would have found it by now.
I don't think Trump will ever drop the hammer on Hillary regardless of the fact that it appears to be low hanging fruit to indict her as well as others and that she is actively working against him.

You don't understand how the left operates. If Trump would direct the DOJ to investigate Hillary and the Obama administration or appoint a special prosecutor the left wold howl like gut shot dogs!

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by rduckwor:
justice does not exist.

I wouldn't go that far, but this thread was created almost 15 months before the Presidential election, so your cynicism is not without merit.

I know justice moves slowly; I would simply like to see some motion.

RMD

Dems Double Down on Distraction to Obscure Uranium One Scandal
By Thomas Lifson

It is now clear to anyone who filters through all the media chaff on condolence calls that the FBI and Department of Justice allowed a criminal conspiracy to proceed, endangering national security, but enriching the Clintons, and have been covering up the evidence. The two people responsible for targeting the Special Counsel on Trump and Russia are directly responsible for the cover-up.

Yesterday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing produced plenty of video clips of Al Franken badgering Jeff Sessions, making him look off-balance. That might comfort the sensibilities of Trump haters, but it is all a phony distraction. It is now clear that real collusion with Russians did take place. Between Secretary of State Clinton’s machine and the Russians.

Greg Jarrett, a lawyer and fearless Fox News correspondent, lays out the case that racketeering laws apply to the Uranium One scandal.



There is much more to this clear-eyed presentation, including Jarrett’s call for Mueller and Rosenstein to resign, since they were responsible for the investigation, kept quiet and allowed it to unfold, and kept it secret. It is well worth five minutes.

The old bromide that “the cover-up is worse than the crime” derives from Watergate, a third-rate burglary, criminally. Endangering national security through racketeering could be a very serious crime indeed. But the cover-up, implicating the pinnacle of our justice and law enforcement hierarchies could be even bigger, if you think about it. When you lose the police and prosecutors, you are no longer a functioning democratic republic.

No matter how much chaff the media generates, about half the public (46%, according to a poll released today) believes the media makes up stuff about Trump. And the Truth will out.

The key figure in blowing open the Uranium One scandal is the FBI informant:

…[a] confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.

That witness is represented by Victoria Toensing, and is going to end up testifying before Senator Grassley’s committee, though there may be another fight by Dems to try to suppress the testimony. That would be foolish, only implicating them down the road when this busts open.

John Solomon reports in The Hill:

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday sought permission to interview an FBI informant who helped agents uncover a major corruption scheme by Russian nuclear officials seeking to aggressively expand their American business under the Obama administration.

The undercover witness, who has not been publicly identified, spent nearly five years helping agents build a case that resulted in one of Russia's top nuclear industry officials in the United States, a Russian financier and an American trucking executive to plead guilty in 2015 to charges related to a racketeering scheme that prosecutors said involved bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering.

The informant possesses information about the extent of Russian efforts to curry favor inside the United States that he has been prevented from disclosing to the courts and Congress because he signed an FBI nondisclosure statement, his lawyer Victoria Toensing told The Hill on Tuesday.

The undercover witness was threatened by Justice officials when he tried to disclose some of the information in a lawsuit during last year's election, forcing him to withdraw his legal action, the lawyer alleged.

I am not schooled in the niceties of the law, but it seems to me a non-disclosure agreement under a previous attorney general can be waived by the current attorney general. Especially when the NDA covers up the original AG's potential misbehavior. But even if there is a lawsuit to be launched, it looks bad for the Dems to be covering up such a huge scandal.

This is real.

There is evidence.

AG Sessions just got his own man in place at the head of the Criminal Division of the FBI. Now, actual investigations can begin and grand juries convened, as warranted. Witnesses can be called to those grand juries and placed under oath and on the record – with no counsel on hand. Ignoring that subpoena will get you thrown in jail, not just censured. Once the records of the Clinton Foundation are in hand, the work of Charles Ortel will be of tremendous assistance to prosecutors.

The Clinton machine has gotten away with big crimes for big money for decades. China picked up access to our aerospace technology vaulting ahead its missile programs during the Bill Clinton administration, and Clinton re-election campaign entities got illegal money from Chinese sources. Some of it in paper bags.

But there is at least a chance that this time around, with a president who doesn’t play by the old rules favoring his opponents, that the wheels of justice can resume turning for the Cintons, as they are supposed to do for all of us.

http://www.americanthinker.com...um_one_scandal_.html

"It's hard to keep track of all of those deals. They're all in the past." Hillary Clinton 2017

Be careful of Bullett Button Gregg. Just sayin’.

Looks like Senator Grassley is looking into the matter.

Grassley probes Clinton 'conflicts of interest' amid new questions in Russia uranium deal
Judson Berger
By Judson Berger, Fox News

A top Senate Republican is probing potential “conflicts of interest” for Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration regarding the 2010 approval of a controversial uranium deal with a Russian company, amid new details about donations from “interested parties” and an FBI corruption probe involving employees of the same Russian firm.

“This committee has an obligation to get to the bottom of this issue,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said Wednesday, at the start of a hearing with Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

The Hill reported a day earlier that the FBI had evidence as early as 2009 that Russian operatives used bribes, kickbacks and other dirty tactics to expand Moscow’s atomic energy footprint in the U.S. -- but the Obama administration approved the uranium deal benefiting Moscow anyway.

Grassley on Wednesday released a series of letters he fired off last week to 10 federal agencies, addressing those issues in detail and raising the question of whether the committee that approved the transaction was aware of the FBI probe. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) included then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...ia-uranium-deal.html

I certainly hope that that "confidential U.S. witness" has the best security money can buy.

The Clinton crime family will have him killed without batting an eye.

Pure theater. Nothing will be done. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand the laws that Hillary violated WRT classified information. Violations that any other American not so well connected would have been criminally indicted for. Sessions can't seem to walk and chew gum at the same time. He may be going after illegals and terrorists, but he is turning a blind eye to government corruption and violations of national security. All because of a persons social status.

BROKEN. That's what the "Just Us" department is. "Meet the new owner, same as the last owner".

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Agreed, mbinky.

Look...Like everyone here, I'd love to see that witch in the clink. I hate to interject coitus interruptus on your "Hillary's going to jail" wet dreams, but ain't shit gonna happen to the hag. She's the 21st Century "Teflon Don". The sooner y'all realize that, the better off you'll be. As Junior in Platoon said, "Free your mind, your ass will follow".

Just think how glorious it WOULD be, after y'all have unassed this notion, that you wake up one morning to find that the bitch HAS been indicted and going to face trial for [fill in the blank...treason is what I'd hope for]. DAMN...my coffee would taste so much sweeter that morning. But I'm not holding my breath. I'm not trying to throw a wet blanket on this party...I'm just trying to be a realist, as I'm usually pretty reactionary.

I had a theory for which I was called names quite a few times that Muller was never appointed to investigate Trump but to hide Clinton/Obama stuff OR just find some counter measure to make a deal with Trump.
It was never about impeachment or any of that bull media is feeding us.

People are certain that Clinton will never pay for her crimes, just as people were certain that she would inevitably be the POTUS.

Didn't work out that way, did it? And all the cynicism won't change it.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Pure theater. Nothing will be done. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand the laws that Hillary violated WRT classified information. Violations that any other American not so well connected would have been criminally indicted for. Sessions can't seem to walk and chew gum at the same time. He may be going after illegals and terrorists, but he is turning a blind eye to government corruption and violations of national security. All because of a persons social status.

BROKEN. That's what the "Just Us" department is. "Meet the new owner, same as the last owner".

The less you know, the easier it seems.

Right now health care and the tax bills are priority so next year, they will be looking at the FBI and other Government departments to combine or eliminate to reduce Government costs. It takes time to drain the swamp. After all, you have to worry about downstream pollution and at times a turd clogs the sewer pipe.

Who knows, maybe half the FBI personnel will be fired or forced to resign.

quote:

Originally posted by 41:
It takes time to drain the swamp. After all, you have to worry about downstream pollution and at times a turd clogs the sewer pipe.

Yes.... and Hillary is the biggest turd. She is the drain plug.
Go after her... and the flow begins.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
The less you know, the easier it seems.

Always with the snide remark. Correct, I know KNOTHING about the handling of classified information. I haven't had the applicable laws and how they are violated drilled into my head for the past twenty odd years. I don't need to be a lawyer to see when the law has been violated, and then selectively enforced.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
The less you know, the easier it seems.

Always with the snide remark. Correct, I know KNOTHING about the handling of classified information. I haven't had the applicable laws and how they are violated drilled into my head for the past twenty odd years. I don't need to be a lawyer to see when the law has been violated, and then selectively enforced.

I have no doubt you know quite a bit about handling classified information, the regulations, etc. What I don’t see is any understanding of or appreciation for the requirements of successfully prosecuting a federal criminal case, the hurdles to be overcome, the drawbacks, the resources, the policy considerations, and the burden of proof the government must meet.

These cases are not as simple as they seem. A 7-11 stick up is relatively easy, the facts are not extensive, witness testimony, often video, is typically persuasive and relatively unambiguous, the jurors easily absorb the implications and meaning and relevance of evidence and confidently deal with those.

Complex federal white collar crimes often come with none of these characteristics. Moreover, there is typically a very well funded, well investigated, sophisticated defense able to challenge each and every evidentiary issue.

Success at these prosecutions is uncertain, believe it or not. Read the history of the Enron prosecutions. You would think the criminal activity involved would have resulted in dozens, scores, of convictions. There were some convictions, all but a few reversed on appeal.

Review the efforts to convict mob bosses. There were lots of indictments, far fewer resulting in convictions. It is true some were sullied by jury tampering.

Go back and read about the conviction of Senator Ted Stevens which resulted in him being defeated for re election, and which was thrown out by the trial judge who also ordered an investigation of the prosecutors for gross professional misconduct.

I recall the indictment of former Governor and Treasury Secretary John Connally, in the mid-70’s, for taking a bribe in connection with milk price supports. The prosecutors thought they had him. They had the testimony of the bribe payor and everything. Connally was acquitted after a lengthy trial. The accuser wasn’t the fair haired boy they thought, the details he claimed were not supported in some material respects, Connally testified himself and vigorously denied the insinuations and contradicted many of the key claims, apparently believably.

Even Meyer Lansky beat the rap when he was accused of a crime involving receiving a large cash payment in Miami on a certain date. His wife then produced a hotel receipt proving they were in Boston in that date.

It may be that DOJ is wrestling with major issues of security which would be revealed, or threatened to be revealed in a public trial. You can be absolutely certain that any indictment will be fought with resources exceeded only by the government.

Is it impossible? No, but it is a proper policy to be reluctant to indict when you have doubts about obtaining a conviction.

It is unseemly to be so confidant, not having had the luxury of examining the evidence, when the experienced pros, who have, are hesitant.

quote:

Is it impossible? No, but it is a proper policy to be reluctant to indict when you have doubts about obtaining a conviction.

There will always be doubts....

Thus "be reluctant to" rather than "never". I think it was Scalia who was recently quoted as saying that if a judge never writes an opinion that they aren't entirely sure about then that judge isn't working hard enough to understand and apply the law. That's why you make every argument you can as best you can, but without fighting every last argument into the last ditch - you want to persuade that judge to come down on your side when they aren't quite sure.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
I certainly hope that that "confidential U.S. witness" has the best security money can buy.

The Clinton crime family will have him suicided killed without batting an eye.

fixed it for ya