Mueller Investigation pt5

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Retweeted

Judicial Watch
‏Verified account
@JudicialWatch

Judicial Watch President @TomFitton discussed the Trump coup in his Weekly Update: It was all based on this fraudulent dossier created by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign, secretly of course. It was known that the dossier had no credibility.

BREAKING: JW announced today that it uncovered 422 pages of FBI documents showing evidence of “cover up” discussions related to the Clinton email system within Platte River Networks, one of the vendors who managed the Clinton email system. (1/3)¬.

 

[quadraginta]

Let's see: [Lying to a Federal judge while under oath about a] Blow job in the Oval Office...

(bracketed mine)

FTFY.

Again.

Lying under oath? Meh.

We have been told repeatedly by Republican fanbois that that is just a process crime, used by vindictive prosecutors when they have no charges of substance to bring forward.

Entrapment! Prosecutorial misconduct!

Etc., etc.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Trump Tweets

“The underlying issue remains the same without a single American being indicted for Collusion with Russia, & that is a stunning end considering we were led to believe (Fake News) that something much more dramatic would happen. Why did people fall for this?” @TuckerCarlson Molly H

Because, Tucker, what you were led to believe by you own spin is irrelevant, and what you're calling "fake news" is a whole lot of circumstantial evidence that has yet to be explained. If we ever get to see Mueller's own conclusions, at least, we may or may not have an explanation, but in the meantime, Tucker, I'm reminded that willful ignorance is indistinguishable from stupidity.

 

[newyorkguy]

I like how the internet lawyering in this thread has stepped up to the level where Random Internet Stranger #3,739 is claiming to know more about the law than the person who actually wrote the law in question.

Good point. The claim was made that 28 CFR § 600.8 requires the "Special Counsel to turn over the confidential report to the Attorney General, no one else." No quote was provided, but the text in the link does not include the words 'no one else.' Here's what seems to be the relevant portion:

(c)Closing documentation. At the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.

The law quoted obviously mandates the Special Counsel to make a report to the U.S. Attorney General at the conclusion of an investigation. It doesn't outline how or why the report is to be restricted. Anyway, people haven't been asking the Special Counsel to release the report, people have been asking the Attorney General to release the report.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I'm not saying the boss boffing an intern was no big deal. But are you trying to equate Clinton's bad behavior with the friggin' Russians up to their asses in the POTUS election?

Are you trying to make perjury the crime of the century? Worse than the Russians manipulating the US elections?

Think about that for a minute before you try to defend your position. I'd like to hear a reasonable rationalization for equating those crimes.

I am 100%, totally and definitively NOT equating the two. I think if you go back and look at my posts, you’ll struggle to find any attempt from me to equate the two.

What I object to is the attempt by some to trivialize the crime that Clinton committed - lying under oath to a federal judge - as being “just about a blowjob”. I’m pretty sure if you look at the written rationale for Clinton being disbarred, for instance, you won’t find “getting a blowjob” as the proximate cause of said disbarment.

I just think it’s a tad dishonest to trivialize what Clinton did in that way.



Edited to add: I went to Google to find the wording on Clinton’s disbarment. Apparently he was never formally disbarred, so I stand corrected. One reason I frequent these boards is for my own edification, and this is a good example. Thanks for the back-and-forth.

What really happened to Clinton’s law license?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bill-clinton-fined-and-disbarred-over-the-monica-lewinsky-scandal/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010119/aponline132649_000.htm

 

[dasmiller]

What I object to is the attempt by some to trivialize the crime that Clinton committed - lying under oath to a federal judge - as being “just about a blowjob”.

<snipped>

I just think it’s a tad dishonest to trivialize what Clinton did in that way.

Concur. Forever after, whenever I saw Clinton stating anything as fact, I always thought "or you're lying." I didn't lose confidence because he did some inappropriate stuff with an intern; I lost confidence because he lied under oath. If he's willing to lie under oath, he's probably willing to lie when he's not under oath.

To be fair, that still leaves Bill as vastly more trustworthy than Donald, who tells obvious lies seemingly every time he speaks.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Nobody gives a crap what anybody thinks about Clinton getting a rusty trombone from the intern.

The problem is it being used as "Whataboutism" that should mean a fly's fart when we're talking about Trump.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Nobody gives a crap what anybody thinks about Clinton getting a rusty trombone from the intern.

The problem is it being used as "Whataboutism" that should mean a fly's fart when we're talking about Trump.

I’m not willing to do the work, but I’d be curious as to who brought “Clinton’s blowjob” into this thread in the first place.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Concur. Forever after, whenever I saw Clinton stating anything as fact, I always thought "or you're lying." I didn't lose confidence because he did some inappropriate stuff with an intern; I lost confidence because he lied under oath. If he's willing to lie under oath, he's probably willing to lie when he's not under oath.

To be fair, that still leaves Bill as vastly more trustworthy than Donald, who tells obvious lies seemingly every time he speaks.

Agree with all of that.

But my “AHA!” moment was when he wagged his finger at me and denied “sex with that woman”...and I bought it! I mean, he seemed so sincere. It’s hard to lie like that without some sort of “tell”. And the way they went after her with the “nuts and sluts” strategy was disgusting. But for the blue dress, I suspect they would have denied the affair to the very end.

 

[uke2se]

Agree with all of that.

But my “AHA!” moment was when he wagged his finger at me and denied “sex with that woman”...and I bought it! I mean, he seemed so sincere. It’s hard to lie like that without some sort of “tell”. And the way they went after her with the “nuts and sluts” strategy was disgusting. But for the blue dress, I suspect they would have denied the affair to the very end.

That's actually a good point. You believed him, and you felt betrayed after you became aware of the truth.

Just imagine what's in store for Trumpists. I think that goes some way to explain why they are so averse to facts.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Agree with all of that.

But my “AHA!” moment was when he wagged his finger at me and denied “sex with that woman”...and I bought it! I mean, he seemed so sincere. It’s hard to lie like that without some sort of “tell”. And the way they went after her with the “nuts and sluts” strategy was disgusting. But for the blue dress, I suspect they would have denied the affair to the very end.

And that's great.

What does it have to do with Trump?

 

[Fast Eddie B]

And that's great.

What does it have to do with Trump?

Nothing.

Let’s move on.

But let’s also try not to misstate what Clinton’s crime was. Repeatedly.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

FWIW, it's probably also a good idea not to dismiss it as "just a blowjob", given that it was all part of what was purported to be a wider pattern of sexual harassment and abuse of power re. women, and that Lewinski herself now says that due to the power imbalance involved she doesn't consider their sexual relationship to have been consensual.

 

[JoeMorgue]

FWIW, it's probably also a good idea not to dismiss it as "just a blowjob", given that it was all part of what was purported to be a wider pattern of sexual harassment and abuse of power re. women, and that Lewinski herself now says that due to the power imbalance involved she doesn't consider their sexual relationship to have been consensual.

That pretty much means any time the President has sex it's rape because there's always going to be a power inbalance.

So what the President can only bang... like the President of Russia, the Prime Minister of England, and maybe the President of China because they are the only ones as powerful as him?

 

[uke2se]

FWIW, it's probably also a good idea not to dismiss it as "just a blowjob", given that it was all part of what was purported to be a wider pattern of sexual harassment and abuse of power re. women, and that Lewinski herself now says that due to the power imbalance involved she doesn't consider their sexual relationship to have been consensual.

This is true. Clinton was a dirty old man who abused his position for sex.

Almost but not quite GOP Congressman from Alabama bad.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

That pretty much means any time the President has sex it's rape because there's always going to be a power inbalance.

So what the President can only bang... like the President of Russia, the Prime Minister of England, and maybe the President of China because they are the only ones as powerful as him?

For someone who is always calling other people out for being argumentative without substance., posting a straw man as egregious as this seems like something of an own-goal.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Wrong thread.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You're saying the President banging an intern who consented to the sex is still inherently problematic because of the power imbalance.

He's the President. Who's he not gonna have a power imbalance with?

 

[Cabbage]

You're saying the President banging an intern who consented to the sex is still inherently problematic because of the power imbalance.

He's the President. Who's he not gonna have a power imbalance with?

His wife.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

You're saying the President banging an intern who consented to the sex is still inherently problematic because of the power imbalance.

He's the President. Who's he not gonna have a power imbalance with?

Hope your doctor never advises cutting back the calories. You'll be dead of starvation within a month.