Cohen tapes Trump

[Bazo]

Yes. Just like the Obama Campaign was charged and hit with.


So again. If he didn't violate campaign finance laws (and the author of the current laws has already said he did not), then this is another nothing burger.

If he did, given past precedent, why is this a big deal?

Because it's Trump. But what all these morons fail to see is that if for some reason they are able to get Trump out of office then we will have Pence. You know, the crazy one that talks to Jesus . It will be never ending until there is a D behind the Presidents name.

[Ironman]

You mean like crying for a decade about treason and corruption and fraud and not one single thing going on to even attempt to prosecute/indict?

Dude! Comey said himself that Clinton broke the law, but didn't think anyone would prosecute her. I guess given Clintons past, most would rather live than do what's just. Give it up man. You are so dead wrong in your argument about what has already been proven to be crimes committed.

[IkemanTX]

Typical diversion tactic

Who cares why omarosa would be in the room

She was there with mic running and caught it all on tape



Let's say she had audio and video from three different angles in 8K 3D reso.



Then what?



Keep diverting

Then I don’t give a ****....
All this bickering back and forth like little children. Either you deal with what you have been dealt (trump, who has given us tax cuts, 2 Supreme Court Justices, 20+ appellate court judges which is the most in history, gutted Obamacare, EPA rollback, holds NATO accountable for non-payment)

Or, you strengthen the other side. I can’t stand ANY politician to be honest, but at least this one delivers... even if he is a skeesball.
This is more progress done in such a short time than conservatives have gotten since probably Reagan. And all we can do is bicker about who is in charge.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jer_james]

Dude! Comey said himself that Clinton broke the law, but didn't think anyone would prosecute her. I guess given Clintons past, most would rather live than do what's just. Give it up man. You are so dead wrong in your argument about what has already been proven to be crimes committed.

Again, so the GS is the only folks that hate the Clintons? Everybody else just bows down to them?

Have you seen what has been said about Comey in this very forum?

[jer_james]

You don't even need to go there. Hillary herself committed felonies. That isn't even arguable. It's been proven in front of the nation, on live TV, in the halls of Congress.

Now we know that James Comey changed Obama's name out of the report to hide the fact that he knew about and even communicated through Hillary's felonious server. You (or better yet someone else) tell me why charges weren't brought.

That is not a conspiracy theory, those are documented facts.

It's fairly easy. Bring charges. If you can prove what you say, then bring charges. There is obviously more to what is there, or someone would have done something. There were literally thousands of people chanting lock her up, and yet here she still is.

[Clay C]

It's fairly easy. Bring charges. If you can prove what you say, then bring charges. There is obviously more to what is there, or someone would have done something. There were literally thousands of people chanting lock her up, and yet here she still is.

I didn't prove or say it. Investigators did. In front of Congress. They then said they do not believe anyone should prosecute due to "Intent". Do with that what you will, but it still doesn't change the fact that they laid out, proved, and stated she committed felonies.

[Ironman]

It's fairly easy. Bring charges. If you can prove what you say, then bring charges. There is obviously more to what is there, or someone would have done something. There were literally thousands of people chanting lock her up, and yet here she still is.

Well, this just proves Clays comment about the willfully ignorant people.

[jer_james]

I didn't prove or say it. Investigators did. In front of Congress. They then said they do not believe anyone should prosecute due to "Intent". Do with that what you will, but it still doesn't change the fact that they laid out, proved, and stated she committed felonies.

And what should her punishment be - for those "proven" felonies?

[jer_james]

Well, this just proves Clays comment about the willfully ignorant people.

“I should've worked harder to find a way to convey that it's more than just the ordinary mistake, but it's not criminal behavior, and find different words to describe that,” Comey said.

If we are using Comey's words now ...

[Clay C]

And what should her punishment be - for those "proven" felonies?

Well it appears we will never know. The reason for that is what's at question here.

[Barrett]

"I’m going to surround myself only with the best and most serious people,"We want top of the line professionals."

Clintons, Obamas, he changed his name, she broke the law, why isn't she locked up!!!!
Politicians are ALL crooks. Period!
The fact that they have the ability to skirt laws and deceive the voters is the most troublesome fact.

[Ironman]

"I’m going to surround myself only with the best and most serious people,"We want top of the line professionals."

Clintons, Obamas, he changed his name, she broke the law, why isn't she locked up!!!!
Politicians are ALL crooks. Period!
The fact that they have the ability to skirt laws and deceive the voters is the most troublesome fact.

I'll be ****ed, we agree on something.

[batmaninja]

“I should've worked harder to find a way to convey that it's more than just the ordinary mistake, but it's not criminal behavior, and find different words to describe that,” Comey said.

If we are using Comey's words now ...

Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.

That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

Your still defending the wife beater in Ohio too, right?

[texansfan]

Then I don’t give a ****....
All this bickering back and forth like little children. Either you deal with what you have been dealt (trump, who has given us tax cuts, 2 Supreme Court Justices, 20+ appellate court judges which is the most in history, gutted Obamacare, EPA rollback, holds NATO accountable for non-payment)

Or, you strengthen the other side. I can’t stand ANY politician to be honest, but at least this one delivers... even if he is a skeesball.
This is more progress done in such a short time than conservatives have gotten since probably Reagan. And all we can do is bicker about who is in charge.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Herein lies the problem with a two party system mindest
It is a us against them mentality
One that leads to I hate to say it but tribalism

Why does the GS think that Just because one criticizes trump that they are automatically Obama's bed winch?

Could a person not believe that Obama and Trump should be cellmates?

When we are admittedly siding with a liar because he "gets things done" then we have a problem

[IkemanTX]

Herein lies the problem with a two party system mindest

It is a us against them mentality

One that leads to I hate to say it but tribalism



Why does the GS think that Just because one criticizes trump that they are automatically Obama's bed winch?



Could a person not believe that Obama and Trump should be cellmates?

A person could, but let that person first get out of the way of more overall progress for conservatism than we could have ever hoped for even a couple years ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk