US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1281

On April 05 2019 09:39 semantics wrote:

So the argument here is that it doesn't matter what X has done because Y has done something similar or worse and Y wasn't punished/punished enough. That's an argument of equity not morality, which is not exactly what i call relevant when talking criminal justice it barely counts for property law, corpus juris.

On April 05 2019 11:37 xDaunt wrote:

No, that’s not the argument at all. The argument is Trump didn’t do anything wrong, and everyone arguing otherwise are massive hypocrites in that they are willfully ignoring what Hillary and the Obama DOJ did, which is indisputably worse.

On April 05 2019 12:33 Plansix wrote:
Trump is a two bit criminal that was using his charitable organization as a check book. Flagrantly. He still owns his company while president. The man’s is rotten to the core.

It would be fun to watch folks twist themselves into pretzels try to prove Obama and Hillary were these criminal masterminds, but it’s most sad.

On April 05 2019 11:59 JimmiC wrote:
When you say anything are you including the tax evasion? Or do you feel that breaking the law in that way is not wrong?

On April 05 2019 11:58 hunts wrote:


How is it worse? How did trump do nothing wrong when his own shill barr has said he is not exonerated? Of course you're a troll and won't give evidence to what Hillary, Obama and Obama's DOJ did that's so bad, but may as well add to the list of people calling you out on your bullshit that you will shy away from answering.

There’s been so much written about the testimony of former FBI and DOJ officials to Congress and each little bit formulates a more cohesive picture of what was occurring during the probe into Hillary Clinton and that of President Trump’s campaign.

Within the thousands of pages of testimony released over the past month, the public learns more about how the bureau handled the probe into Clinton’s use of a private server to send classified government emails and the investigation into the alleged – now debunked – Trump Russia investigation.

The information raises significant questions of malfeasance, obstruction and bias in the investigations.

The testimony of James Rybicki, who served as chief of staff to former FBI Director James Comey, is one of them.

He left the FBI in January, 2018 to work in the private sector and was often cited in DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report into the bureau’s investigation of Clinton.

DOJ Tried To Block Access To Clinton Attorney Laptops

Rybicki’s testimony before the joint committee with the House Judiciary and House Government and Oversight last year reveals the intricate role of the DOJ in attempting to limit the FBI’s ability to gain access to laptops belonging to two Clinton confidants Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson.

Concern over the laptops and the FBI’s immunity agreement with Clinton’s lawyers to gain limited access to them was first reported by Fox New’s Catherine Herridge in 2016. Herridge revealed that Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson were granted immunity by the Justice Department in June, 2016, approximately one month before the FBI closed its criminal investigation into Clinton in exchange for access to the laptops that contained classified information.

Rybicki’s testimony, however, makes clear that the DOJ didn’t want to give the FBI access to the laptops. It’s also revealing in its nature, suggesting the the FBI agents – which believed the laptops contained classified information – chose to act differently than in has in other similar cases. They did not use their prerogative to obtain a Grand Jury subpoena for the equipment or issue a warrant to gain possession of them. Instead, the FBI negotiated and relied heavily on those they were investigating, Clinton and her lawyers, to set the terms of the deal, as previously reported.

As for the laptops, it is uncertain what happened them. According to then-Chairman of the House Judiciary Rep. Bob Goodlatte the FBI had a side agreements to destroy the laptops after conducting the limited search. On the other hand, other reports suggest that the FBI did not destroy the laptops but instead, are still in possession of them.

FBI spokeswoman Carol Cratty referred SaraACarter.com to Inspector General Horowitz report, which did not disclose what happened to the laptops after the FBI investigated. Cratty did not say what happened to the laptops.

....

Rybicki Testimony

Rybicki, whose testimony reviewed by SaraACarter.com but has not yet been made public, told lawmakers that the DOJ did not want the FBI to have access to six laptops in Clinton’s lawyer’s possession. And once the laptops were in the possession of the FBI the access was extremely limited. Rybicki also recounts a meeting with then Attorney General Loretta Lynch, suggesting she, along with former FBI Director James Comey and others, discussed whether or not to pursue charges against Clinton.

“Were there disagreements during the — that you’re aware of during the weekly updates, the monthly updates with the Director and disagreements internal to the FBI or with the Justice Department over what investigative techniques to use,” asked the investigator during a joint committee hearing with the House Judiciary and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Rybicki says “yes.”

“One instance that I’m recalling is whether to seek access to the two laptops belonging to the attorneys,” he said.

It was a “disagreement between the investigative team and what I will call the prosecution team,” Rybicki added.

The investigator asks “over whether to seek access to the laptops at all, or how to seek access to the laptops?”

“Whether to seek access at all…I don’t know the specific individual, but what I will call the investigative team, so the FBI side was advocating to get access to the laptops, and the Department of Justice — and again, I don’t know the level — did not want access to those laptops, or did not want to authorize access to those laptops.” Rybicki stated.

Rybicki And Strzok Testimony

IG Horowitz’s investigation did reveal the concern among FBI agents investigating the case and the limited access they had of the laptops.

“(FBI) Agents 1 and 2 told us that there were six laptops that Clinton’s attorneys had provided the FBI early in the investigation with consent to store, but not search, and that they would have liked to search these laptops.”

FBI “Agent 2 stated that he believed that these laptops may have been used to review Clinton’s emails before Clinton’s attorneys produced her work-related emails to the State Department. Agent 1 told us that he believed these laptops were used by Clinton’sWilliams and Connolly attorneys to do the “QC of the 30,000 emails after they were culled by Mills and Samuelson,” the Horowitz report stated.

Rybicki’s testimony also coincides with that provided by former FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok. Strzok stated which revealed that the DOJ also intervened on behalf of Clinton when it refused to grant the FBI access to Clinton Foundation emails.

Fitton said Rybicki and Strzok’s testimony show a pattern of behavior by the DOJ to interfere on behalf of Clinton. Judicial Watch has been in and out of the courts for years attempting to gain access to the thousands of Clinton emails.

“The court is interested and granted us discovery to see if more emails can be recovered,” said Fitton. “The FBI sought to recover the emails that Clinton deleted but of those 33,000 only 5,000 have been recovered. Typically, if the bureau believes that evidence has been destroyed they take a very aggressive approach, they raid your office or home- like they did in the (Paul) Manafort raid. That’s was the excuse they used.”

Fitton said the “DOJ should never have limited the FBI’s ability to gather evidence. And now we know something was up because we have a top FBI official complaining about it. Comey was bad enough but it was pretty clear he saw the writing on the wall with the DOJ.”

Who Made The Call To Block Access

Rybicki then tells the investigators that he can’t recall who in the DOJ upper-esccholones made the decision.

The investigator then asks, “What do you mean by authorize? You said they didn’t want to authorize?”

“(They) didn’t want to authorize access to any of it,” Rybicki answered.

“Authorize to whom,” questioned the investigator.

“The FBI,” Rybicki stated.

Rybicki also recounts a meeting in July, 2016 with then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch. He said it was during that meeting that they discussed whether or not to pursue charges on Clinton. Several days earlier on July 2, the FBI interviewed Clinton for the first time. It was several months after former FBI Director Comey had already drafted an exoneration report on her. On July 5, Comey made his controversial announcement that ‘no reasonable prosecutor’ would pursue charges against Clinton.

The FBI and DOJ reached an agreement on June 10, 2016 to obtain six the laptops but it came with extraordinary conditions. Both lawyers were given immunity. Mills, who was a witness and State Department confidant of Clinton, was allowed to sit in as an attorney for Clinton’s FBI interview. The FBI did not record the interview with Clinton and the FBI agreed to destroy the laptops after the limited search, according to then Judiciary Chairman Goodlatte.

....

On April 05 2019 13:12 JimmiC wrote:


Do you think the NYT article that described in great lengths how he did this to be not accurate?

Also, if the big issue with Hillary is the lack of secure emails, and I'm not saying that you are wrong. How do you feel about the not secure wifi at Mar lago? How do you feel about ivanka's emails? How do you feel about the security clearance given to so many people when they failed the back ground checks?

How do you feel about the blatant nepotism of him hiring his daughter into a very important position and than his son in law into an even more important position?

I'm not saying that you are wrong about the Hillary stuff. I'm saying that everything she may have done, Trump likely has one upped her. Also, if you pointed out this kind of thing it would make your position more believable but right now it seems incredibly bi partisan, and than ironic when you call out others for this.

On April 05 2019 13:27 xDaunt wrote:
and there simply is no way that Trump is aware of what all of his accountants are doing such that he could be culpable of some kind of wrongdoing.

On April 05 2019 13:27 xDaunt wrote:


Candidly, I don't remember what the NYT reported specifically. Tax law is retartedly complicated, so I'm not in particularly good position to really analyze it anyway. However, my observations hold true. Trump has been audited a ton of times without being charged for tax evasion, and there simply is no way that Trump is aware of what all of his accountants are doing such that he could be culpable of some kind of wrongdoing. And quite frankly, I don't see a good reason to take any NYT article regarding Trump at face value right now. We just went through 2+ years of the NYT knowing peddling the lie that Trump conspired with the Russians and being a tool of government actors looking to push that lie. Even now, the NYT is still publishing nonsense that is hearsay within hearsay from anonymous sources about the Mueller investigation. The NYT has zero credibility when it comes to Trump. It is fake news.



I don't think that any of those stories about Trump's security have been accurately reported on. As just one example, the reporting on Trump's personal phone usage from last fall were overblown nonsense. If there was really a problem, the feds would have been all over it already.



I don't like nepotism, but one can't deny the results here. They have acquitted themselves in these positions quite well. But beyond that, I at least understand why Trump is using them. He's having a real problems finding people that he can trust. He doesn't have access to the usual establishment GOP resources. Most of those people are simply looking to stab him in the back.



I'm not going to pretend that Trump's a saint. He's not. However, there is a huge amount of bogus reporting on things that he has supposedly done wrong. I just want people to start looking at this stuff with a critical eye. I mean, Jesus. YOU ALL WERE LIED TO FOR 2+ YEARS ABOUT THE RUSSIA COLLUSION NARRATIVE. What else do you need to wake up?

On April 05 2019 19:17 micronesia wrote:

I don't believe this is how tax law works. Having professional accountants who lie on your returns in your favor does not shield you from culpability. You still sign the returns and are responsible for their contents. If convicted, the penalty might be lower if it's obvious that you didn't intend for your returns to be full of false information that rip off the government, but the culpability is still there.