Trump's getting arrested on March 21

[mspart]

Fake  news   https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/22/politics/legal-drama-surrounding-trump-reaches-a-fever-pitch/index.html

The Manhattan grand jury that has been hearing evidence in the case pertaining to Trump’s alleged role in a scheme to pay hush money to an adult film star will sit on Thursday, a source familiar with the investigation told CNN.

As always, they need better sources.  

mspart

[mspart]

2 hours ago, El Luchador said:

Did they lock her up? Did she commit a serious crime?  The answer is no and yes. She is a prime example of what is wrong.  

Correct!

mspart

[Mike Parrish]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

Correct!

mspart

So why aren't you guys cheering for the triumph of the rule of law with Trump?

[Nailbender]

If he broke the law. Lock him up. Along with all the rest of them.

[LJB]

9 hours ago, Mike Parrish said:

So why aren't you guys cheering for the triumph of the rule of law with Trump?

should they cheer because he did or did not get arrested?????

i am still so unclear on this whole thing...

should we cheer for an ongoing witch hunt that has proved fruitless yet again?

should we cheer for the charade or the result?

 

[Mike Parrish]

2 hours ago, LJB said:

should they cheer because he did or did not get arrested?????

i am still so unclear on this whole thing...

should we cheer for an ongoing witch hunt that has proved fruitless yet again?

should we cheer for the charade or the result?

 

Proved again fruitless?!

TRUMP announced he was getting arrested, not anybody in the DA's/AG's office...

You can't fault law enforcement for not following Trump's made up timeline.

[headshuck]

Yeah you don’t believe that. The whole leak was probably designed to distract Americans from the latest crisis. Banking meltdown?

[LJB]

13 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

Proved again fruitless?!

TRUMP announced he was getting arrested, not anybody in the DA's/AG's office...

You can't fault law enforcement for not following Trump's made up timeline.

this was the answer i was looking for...

thanks, boo...

[Mike Parrish]

New Lincoln Project ad

 

[Plasmodium]

5 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

New Lincoln Project ad

 

Some artistic liberty, but savage nonetheless!!

[LJB]

sooooo savage!!!!!

[mspart]

18 hours ago, Mike Parrish said:

So why aren't you guys cheering for the triumph of the rule of law with Trump?

So why aren't you guys cheering for the triumph of the rule of law with HIllary?

mspart

[Mike Parrish]

11 minutes ago, mspart said:

So why aren't you guys cheering for the triumph of the rule of law with HIllary?

mspart

There was no case.

 

[mspart]

Yeah right.   She broke the law.   Comey decided it didn't meet the threshold to take action on a presidential candidate.   It is now clear Comey was siding with Hillary and not siding with Trump.   So there was a case, it was not moved on.

Do you honestly think is Joe Schmoe or Mike Parrish kept his emails on a remote server with classified and non classified communications on it that he would likewise be exonerated?   Of course not.  He'd be in prison currently and rightfully so.  Hillary got special treatment, simple as that.

mspart

[Mike Parrish]

36 minutes ago, mspart said:

Yeah right.   She broke the law.   Comey decided it didn't meet the threshold to take action on a presidential candidate.   It is now clear Comey was siding with Hillary and not siding with Trump.   So there was a case, it was not moved on.

Do you honestly think is Joe Schmoe or Mike Parrish kept his emails on a remote server with classified and non classified communications on it that he would likewise be exonerated?   Of course not.  He'd be in prison currently and rightfully so.  Hillary got special treatment, simple as that.

mspart

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Quote

 

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.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

 

[Plasmodium]

5 hours ago, mspart said:

So why aren't you guys cheering for the triumph of the rule of law with HIllary?

mspart

Honest question - do you believe Hillary is well regarded in liberal/progressive circles?

[Mike Parrish]

lololol

https://abcnews.go.com/US/meadows-top-trump-aides-ordered-testify-jan-6/story?id=98101813

[mspart]

On 3/24/2023 at 4:46 PM, Mike Parrish said:

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

 

Since when does law enforcement hold back filing and take the opportunity to speak for a prosecutor?   If there is no evidence of wrong doing, which Comey admits there is, then no charges are filed.   It is not up to the investigators to determine what a prosecutor will or will not do.   Just more trying to "not get involved in the election process", while trying to insert yourself completely.  

Read that statement from Comey again, and using what we know Hillary actually did, and see if there was no intent on her part to do anything untoward.   It is obvious she had intent to deceive.   But the law was not applied because the investigators presumed to be in the role of a prosecutor and wanted her to win rather than Trump.   Keep in mind the words of Strzok. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45173015

A veteran FBI agent who exchanged anti-Trump text messages with a colleague during the election has been fired from the FBI, his lawyer has said.

Peter Strzok has been accused by Republicans of being biased against Donald Trump, and seeking to prevent his election victory.

Mr Trump has pointed to the text exchanges as evidence of bias in the special counsel's Russia probe.

Mr Strzok served on the Russia probe and the Hillary Clinton email inquiry.

During the election, Mrs Clinton was investigated by the FBI over her use of a private email server to handle sensitive government documents during her time as secretary of state.

Mr Strzok exchanged text messages that disparaged Mr Trump with FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with whom he was having an affair.

In one exchange, Ms Page asks: Trump is "not ever going to become president, right? Right?!"

Mr Strzok responds: "No. No he won't. We'll stop it."

Everything is on the up and up here.   Nothing to see here.   It all just goes away. 

mspart

[Mike Parrish]

Again, from the document.

 

Quote

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.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

You're trying to read things into this that aren't supported by the report.

 

[RYou]

11 hours ago, Mike Parrish said:

Again, from the document.

 

You're trying to read things into this that aren't supported by the report.

 

"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. "

Comey had no authority to make that decision or that statement.  Clearly, he was friendly front for Clinton.  

[Mike Parrish]

2 hours ago, RYou said:

"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. "

Comey had no authority to make that decision or that statement.  Clearly, he was friendly front for Clinton.  

He had every authority to make that statement.

[mspart]

Essentially he is the police.   The police don't have the authority to say what a reasonable prosecutor would or would not do.   Neither did Comey.   They are to gather evidence and present that to the DA (in the case of the police) or in this case, the Justice Dept and they decide what they will or will not prosecute.  It was presumptive of Comey to do that.  

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/james-comey-clinton-emails-225124

“It’s not just unusual, it’s unprecedented,” said Matthew Miller, who was director of the Office of Public Affairs for the Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder and now works at strategic advisory firm Vianovo. “He’s put himself into the middle of a political campaign in a way that will call into question the legitimacy of the office.”

“You’ll now have people in the middle of a campaign able to say, ‘Well, the FBI director said Hillary Clinton was careless,’” Miller added. “That’s not the FBI director’s job to do, and the rules are set up to prohibit that kind of behavior.”

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/421530-no-glory-in-james-comey-getting-away-with-his-abuse-of-fbi-power/

Consider his conduct during the 2016 presidential election, leading up to his controversial press conference and public announcements, which were widely condemned by both Republicans and Democrats. As here, Comey failed to inform the Justice Department or the attorney general of his intended action. In doing so, he was far outside the clear policies and protocols. Indeed, the first public act of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was to issue a memo excoriating Comey for his “serious mistakes” and citing former federal judges, attorneys general, and leading prosecutors who believed that Comey “violated longstanding Justice Department policies and tradition” along with “his obligation to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the traditions of the department and the FBI.” Rosenstein further added that Comey “refused to admit his errors.”

So there are those that feel that Comey did not have the authority to do what he did here. 

mspart

[Plasmodium]

9 hours ago, RYou said:

"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. "

Comey had no authority to make that decision or that statement.  Clearly, he was friendly front for Clinton.  

Don't know a thing about his authority in that decision, but I do know Comey contributed to Trump's win by declaring her under investigation days before the election.

[LJB]

15 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Don't know a thing about his authority in that decision, but I do know Comey contributed to Trump's win by declaring her under investigation days before the election.

[mspart]

I love those guys!!   They were my favorite on the Muppet Show.

mspart