Should Obama-Hillary Dems also be investigated? prosecuted?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

More gibberish. List the actual crimes she is supposed to have committed, not asinine appeals to public opinions.

All over the internet

Strange then that you couldn’t just list them and are instead fobbing off your burden of proof to us.

But no need to even bother with that when you can just watch this rather short first video I just searched on youtube

A youtube video?

I've never even heard of this guy, I guess he is trying to sell his book.

And that credits him how?

But the mantra he repeats is pretty much exactly what you will here everyday on conservative outlets every day.

I’m asking you to list the actual crimes you claimed she committed, not asinine appeals to public opinions.

Is any or all of this stuff true? I have no idea. But there are a hell of of lot people who must think so.

So asinine appeals to public opinions then.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Opponents of Dear Leader need to be put to death. Let's not waste time investigating,

If the president really did something bad, then go ahead and impeach him.

Is this in addition to the 10 cases of abuse of power described in the Mueller Report?

All we saw this time around was a fake dossier that was used to drum up a fake investigation to waste everyone's time.

Yuo forgot to mention the European and Aussie intelligence had been talking to the US about what they were noticing while monitoring people of interest with Russian links between 2015 and 2016.

Also, just how much of the Dossier has been discredited? A few parts might be unsubstantiated, but almost none of it is discredited. That is just a bazillion lies by the right-wing about it becoming "fact".

I did not agree with the impeachment of Clinton over his blow job either. But at least in that circumstance Clinton actually broke the law (lied to congress). This time they just wasted time and money to accomplish absolutely nothing.

Mueller investigation made a profit.

 

[RVonse]

A fake investigation? For a fake investigation it sure managed to score a lot of real hits. And they actually made money on the investigation. And it's clear that the only reason His Flatulence wasn't indicted was Mueller was told he couldn't indict a sitting president.

It scored zero hits of Russia collusion. That was the charter of the investigation. Zero! At least with the Clinton/Starr investigation there was really a blow job. But this was just a big fat zero! The report could have concluded their was Russia collusion even without an indictment. It did not.

It is at least nice that they made money on the investigation but that was only because of luck. Go after enough rich people you will get lucky. That is why the IRS likes to audit rich people too. But other than shaking down other rich people caught up in this, the investigation proved to be nothing more than a distraction for the constituents. If you belong to the blue half that wanted the distraction I guess you could say that was good. But if you are part of the half who actually voted for the POTUS, the distraction effectively diminished their vote even further than it already is. For them, the distraction only makes it more difficult for the man they voted for to accomplish their expectations.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That was the charter of the investigation. Zero! At least with the Clinton/Starr investigation there was really a blow job.

Um, was 'infidelity' the charter of Starr's investigation? If not, you can't really say 'at least in this comparison.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A fake investigation? For a fake investigation it sure managed to score a lot of real hits. And they actually made money on the investigation. And it's clear that the only reason His Flatulence wasn't indicted was Mueller was told he couldn't indict a sitting president.

It scored zero hits of Russia collusion. That was the charter of the investigation.

You mean the one he obstructed?

At least with the Clinton/Starr investigation there was really a blow job.

I wasn't aware that the Whitewater investigation was about oral sex on property in Arkansas.

But this was just a big fat zero!

Well, other than the indictments.

he report could have concluded their was Russia collusion even without an indictment. It did not.

It cited Trump abused his presidential power. Does that count for anything?

 

[Gun Nut]

A fake investigation? For a fake investigation it sure managed to score a lot of real hits. And they actually made money on the investigation. And it's clear that the only reason His Flatulence wasn't indicted was Mueller was told he couldn't indict a sitting president.

It scored zero hits of Russia collusion. That was the charter of the investigation. Zero! At least with the Clinton/Starr investigation there was really a blow job. But this was just a big fat zero! The report could have concluded their was Russia collusion even without an indictment. It did not.

That was not the content of "the" report. Part 1 explained that the Russians engaged in an internet-based cold-war attack on our political system that congress should be very concerned with. Part 2 explained how Trump obstructed justice regarding part 1, and that congress should be very concerned about it. Muller also reinforced the written report verbally, by explicitly saying that they were not allowed to accuse the president of a crime, but they were allowed to clear him of it and they explicitly did not clear him of it. What does that mean? It means they found him guilty but were not allowed to say that. That is congress' job.

It is at least nice that they made money on the investigation but that was only because of luck. Go after enough rich people you will get lucky. That is why the IRS likes to audit rich people too. But other than shaking down other rich people caught up in this, the investigation proved to be nothing more than a distraction for the constituents. If you belong to the blue half that wanted the distraction I guess you could say that was good. But if you are part of the half who actually voted for the POTUS, the distraction effectively diminished their vote even further than it already is. For them, the distraction only makes it more difficult for the man they voted for to accomplish their expectations.

That's not "profit". That is recovery. If you catch bank robbers and find the money... the investigation did not "profit"... they "recovered".

 

[ZiprHead]

A fake investigation? For a fake investigation it sure managed to score a lot of real hits. And they actually made money on the investigation. And it's clear that the only reason His Flatulence wasn't indicted was Mueller was told he couldn't indict a sitting president.

It scored zero hits of Russia collusion. That was the charter of the investigation. Zero! At least with the Clinton/Starr investigation there was really a blow job. But this was just a big fat zero! The report could have concluded their was Russia collusion even without an indictment. It did not.

There was collusion all over the place. Manafort's extensive contacts with Russians making deals, Michael Flynn's contacts with Sergey Kislyak and other Russians, Papadopoulos working with Russians trying to set up a clandestine back-channel communication network with the campaign, Roger Stone giving polling data to Russians and coordinating with Julian Assange and Guccifer 2.0. And everybody lying about it. Mueller specifically said because of the lying, obstruction, use of encrypted and non-retentive communications, he could not gather enough intelligence to make charges of conspiracy that would stick.

It is at least nice that they made money on the investigation but that was only because of luck. Go after enough rich people you will get lucky. That is why the IRS likes to audit rich people too. But other than shaking down other rich people caught up in this, the investigation proved to be nothing more than a distraction for the constituents. If you belong to the blue half that wanted the distraction I guess you could say that was good. But if you are part of the half who actually voted for the POTUS, the distraction effectively diminished their vote even further than it already is. For them, the distraction only makes it more difficult for the man they voted for to accomplish their expectations.

I don't think there has been one point of fact you have actually been right on in this entire thread.

NYT-Why the Rich Don’t Get Audited

Not to mention that the US government is now the proud owner of Manafort's New York Trump Tower condo. I'm sure with that big tax break money you got you'll be sitting in on the bidding for the property at the auction.

 

[PyramidHead]

Yes

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Grand Juries would be less costly than Congressional investigations.

As stated in the OP, the press is NOT doing its job. It should be the job of the press to:

1. Become an impartial observer of the facts.
2. Be equally hated and/or liked by both sides.
3. Bring all the news to the people.

Right now the so called mainstream media is just a mouthpiece for the Democrat party. And the political junkies like Limbaugh and Hannity....well we know what they are. The only thing the press knows how to do is make money. There is no value added to society with today's so called press.

So the solution is to fix the press. Once the press is fixed, then politicians cant get away with so much anymore. But Im not sure how that should be done. Perhaps breaking them up under the anti sherman act?

The OP mentions investigations and grand jury's...but who is going to pay for all of that?

Who pays for grand jury investigations now? Who pays for juries to rule on criminal and civil cases?

If it's not worth it, then we should abolish the jury system. What could be more important to protecting our society than exposing crime and corruption among those who have power over us? Isn't the harm they're inflicting greater than that of a petty burglar who gets a jury trial?

Plus, jurors don't have to be paid professional salaries (which for Congress include not just salaries to the Congressmembers, but also to their costly staffs and lawyers). Juries can function with minimum supervision by professional lawyers and judges. And in this case, they'd probably function best without professionals participating at all, because these are easily corrupted.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Still waiting for that list of any actual crimes she's supposed to have committed.

 

[ZiprHead]

Still waiting for that list of any actual crimes she's supposed to have committed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Still waiting for that list of any actual crimes she's supposed to have committed.

Being a powerful Democrat.

 

[RVonse]

Still waiting for that list of any actual crimes she's supposed to have committed.

Its still early to post a list. But there are a LOT of things seen by everyone else that do not add up for Barr. The stuff simply glossed over by Mueller will finally see their day being scrutinized. Barr appears to be serious about it too.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Still waiting for that list of any actual crimes she's supposed to have committed.

Its still early to post a list.

"Too early"? What do you mean? She either committed a crime or did not. The question as to whether she's guilty would be too early, but you can't even provide a list of alleged crimes.

But there are a LOT of things seen by everyone else that do not add up for Barr.

Then, again, it should be exceedingly easy for you to list that LOT of things. Let's make it easy. Can you name one?

 

[RVonse]

"Too early"? What do you mean? She either committed a crime or did not. The question as to whether she's guilty would be too early, but you can't even provide a list of alleged crimes.

But there are a LOT of things seen by everyone else that do not add up for Barr.

Then, again, it should be exceedingly easy for you to list that LOT of things. Let's make it easy. Can you name one?

Sure, its easy enough to make a list. Its the proof that will be the hard part of it. Without the proof there is nothing obviously. But at least Barr is going to investigate now and that will be the first step.

1. Taking money from Russia for uranium.
2. Destroying hard drive evidence during an FBI investigation.
3. Comey and Clapper working with Clinton to subvert a legitimate POTUS election.

 

[ZiprHead]

"Too early"? What do you mean? She either committed a crime or did not. The question as to whether she's guilty would be too early, but you can't even provide a list of alleged crimes.

But there are a LOT of things seen by everyone else that do not add up for Barr.

Then, again, it should be exceedingly easy for you to list that LOT of things. Let's make it easy. Can you name one?

Sure, its easy enough to make a list. Its the proof that will be the hard part of it. Without the proof there is nothing obviously. But at least Barr is going to investigate now and that will be the first step.

1. Taking money from Russia for uranium.
2. Destroying hard drive evidence during an FBI investigation.
3. Comey and Clapper working with Clinton to subvert a legitimate POTUS election.

1. That never happened and you are a moron if you think it did. You need to expand your news sources from other than Fox and Breitbart.

2. This has already been explained to you. The FBI cloned the drive and returned the original. Possession means nothing because an exact duplicate of the data was obtained. No "evidence" was lost or blocked from the FBI. See the second sentence in number one above.

3. Way too vague to address. What exactly did they do to subvert the election?

 

[jab]

The statute of limitations has run out on Clapper and has nothing to do with the Trump campaign.

I am unaware of leaks by Comey, unless you mean his letter to congress telling them that the investigation into Clinton was being re-opened. That letter was then leaked to the press by a Republican congressperson.

Right after Trump fired Comey he asked a friend to share one of his memo's to the Washington Post.

by which time the Presidential campaign was over.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

"Too early"? What do you mean? She either committed a crime or did not. The question as to whether she's guilty would be too early, but you can't even provide a list of alleged crimes.

But there are a LOT of things seen by everyone else that do not add up for Barr.

Then, again, it should be exceedingly easy for you to list that LOT of things. Let's make it easy. Can you name one?

Sure, its easy enough to make a list. Its the proof that will be the hard part of it. Without the proof there is nothing obviously.

So, what you meant to say is that you have a list of unproven accusations, not a list of crimes.

But at least Barr is going to investigate now and that will be the first step.

No it won't, because no, he won't. There is nothing to investigate. To whit:

1. Taking money from Russia for uranium.

That has already been thoroughly debunked (links in original):

The Uranium One story alleged that Clinton helped approve the sale of a uranium mining company to Russia just as its stakeholders donated to the Clintons’ charitable foundation, seemingly creating the picture of a conflict of interest. But every part of the story was misleading. The donor who owned most of the stake in Uranium One sold it years before the deal; Clinton was part of a committee that reviewed the deal but didn’t actually have the power to vote it up or down; and there is no evidence whatsoever that the Clintons benefited financially from the deal or from their own foundation. This, however, formed the source of right-wing claims that Clinton “sold 20% of our uranium to Russia” (the deal didn’t involve an export of uranium, so this is even more wrong.)

The Factcheck piece (second link in the quote) alone debunks it:

The author of “Clinton Cash” falsely claimed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State had “veto power” and “could have stopped” Russia from buying a company with extensive uranium mining operations in the U.S. In fact, only the president has such power.

At the time of the sale, Clinton was a member of the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, which is required by law to investigate all U.S. transactions that involve a company owned or controlled by a foreign government. Federal guidelines say any one of nine voting members of the committee can object to such a foreign transaction, but the final decision then rests with the president.

“Only the President has the authority to suspend or prohibit a covered transaction,” the guidelines say.

Through a spokeswoman, author Peter Schweizer told us he meant that Clinton could have forced the issue to the president’s desk. But that’s not what he said when he appeared on “Fox News Sunday,” where he discussed the uranium deal and his upcoming book to be released on May 5.

But this from the Vox piece (first link) slams the coffin:

There are two very important things to notice here.

The first is that Clinton played little to no part in this approval process because as secretary of state, she headed an agency that was just one of many involved in the approval process — and even then, it was likely a lower-level staffer who handled the approval.

The second is that the person who donated the largest amount of money [$141M out of the $145M] to the Clinton Foundation, Frank Giustra, didn’t even benefit from the sale. That’s because he said he sold his stake in Uranium One three years before this deal — and more than a year before Clinton began serving as secretary of state.

That’s why PolitiFact debunked this conspiracy theory long ago, but that hasn’t stopped President Trump from tweeting out insinuations

She had no quid to pro quo and thus committed no crime. This is just another argument from incredulity, like every idiotic argument about her being paid--like everyone is--for giving speeches somehow just wink, wink, come ON axiomatically means she was bought, not merely paid.

And note that the only possible "crime" she could be charged with is having a "conflict of interest" and therefore not recusing herself from the process. Except, that isn't a crime. It's perhaps bad judgement, but not criminal in nature.

2. Destroying hard drive evidence during an FBI investigation.

She did no such thing:

In the summer of 2014, after Clinton had already left office, the State Department contacted her office in an attempt to recover emails on her server. Her lawyers went through the emails and identified 30,490 work-related emails and 31,830 personal emails. In December 2014, about 21 months after she left office, Clinton gave the State Department the 30,490 work-related emails totaling roughly 55,000 pages. She indicated that she deleted the others. “I didn’t see any reason to keep them,” she said at a March 10, 2015, press conference.

A Clinton lawyer told an employee of Platte River Networks – which was maintaining Clinton’s private server – “to modify the e-mail retention policy,” so that emails 60 days or older would be deleted. That would have erased the personal emails that Clinton’s lawyers did not turn over to the State Department at that time.

However, the FBI determined during its investigation that emails identified by Clinton’s lawyers as “personal” were deleted “sometime between March 25-31, 2015″ — about three weeks after the House Select Committee on Benghazi served Clinton with a subpoena on March 4, 2015, to produce any emails related to its Benghazi investigation.

Platte River Networks used a free software program called BleachBit to delete the emails — which is what Giuliani means when he says the server was “bleached.” Clinton and her lawyer told the FBI they were unaware when PRN deleted the personal emails.

During its investigation, which began July 10, 2015, the FBI tried to recover some of the deleted emails identified by Clinton’s lawyers as personal.

Note the dates. Regardless of the timing coinciding with the House Committee on Benghazi, the FBI's investigation started in July, whereas Clinton's lawyers deleted her personal emails in March.

Unless you're referring to this conspiracy theory about the fire at the Clinton's home, which is, likewise, false.

3. Comey and Clapper working with Clinton to subvert a legitimate POTUS election.

I don't even know what that means considering it was Comey's letter that most likely cost Clinton the presidency. Why would she subvert her own election?