Spectre

Trump - Russia Thread

2,056 posts in this topic

46 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

Of course they did.

 

It wouldn't be the first time Roger Stone has been caught just talking out of his *** either though. He's known for overstating his involvement in these kinds of things.

Leon Troutsky likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jpowers said:

It wouldn't be the first time Roger Stone has been caught just talking out of his *** either though. He's known for overstating his involvement in these kinds of things.

No doubt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mdrake34 said:

No doubt. 

That dude is ******* crazy. Reading that article that BO posted the other day piqued my interest so I've read several more about him. It's hard to believe he's not a caricature of some sort.

Carter likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some Republicans are discussing their plans for President Clinton — starting with impeachment

By Mike DeBonis November 3, 2016
Travis Klinefelter of Dubuque, Iowa rouses the crowd before a rally for Donald J. Trump  on Oct. 28, 2016 in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The crowd of a few thousand warmed up by chanting “Lock her up” and waving signs of Women for Trump. (Photo by David Greedy/Getty Images)

Senior Republican lawmakers are openly discussing the prospect of impeaching Hillary Clinton should she win the presidency, a stark indication that partisan warfare over her tenure as secretary of state will not end on Election Day.

Chairmen of two congressional committees said in media interviews this week they believe Clinton committed impeachable offenses in setting up and using a private email server for official State Department business.

And a third senior Republican, the chairman of a House Judiciary subcommittee, told The Washington Post he is personally convinced Clinton should be impeached for influence peddling involving her family foundation. He favors further congressional investigation into that matter.

“It is my honest opinion that the Clinton Foundation represents potentially one of the greatest examples of political corruption in American history,” said Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), who leads the Constitution and Civil Justice subcommittee. “Now that perspective may be disproven, time will tell. But given that conviction on my part, I think all options are definitely on the table.”

The impeachment talk is the latest sign that Clinton will not be handed a clean slate — let alone an extended honeymoon — by Republican lawmakers should she win the presidency.

It comes after months of accusations from GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, who has repeatedly referred to his rival as “Crooked Hillary” before and after federal investigators announced they would not charge Clinton or her associates over the email matter.

When some in the crowd at a Donald Trump rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., started chanting “Lock her up!” about Hillary Clinton on Oct. 10, the Republican presidential nominee replied: “Lock her up is right.” (The Washington Post)

Chants of “Lock Her Up!” coursed through crowds at the Republican National Convention and at dozens of Trump rallies. The FBI’s disclosure last week that it is examining potential new evidence in the email probe has offered new fuel for the attacks.

“Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency, and if she were elected, it would create an unprecedented constitutional crisis,” Trump said Wednesday at a rally in Pensacola, Fla. “You know it’s going to happen. And in all fairness, we went through it with her husband. He was impeached. . . . Folks, do we want to go through this again?”

Republican lawmakers have aggressively questioned Clinton’s State Department dealings for months, with a special committee impaneled to probe the handling of the 2012 Benghazi attacks and separate probes of the department’s personnel practices and handling of classified documents found on her private email server.

Top GOP leaders have previously indicated they will aggressively investigate Clinton if she is elected president. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said last month he considered a Clinton administration a “target-rich environment” and that “we’ve got two years’ worth of material already lined up” for investigations.

[House Republicans are already prepping for ‘years’ of investigations]

Should they keep control of the House in the next Congress, Republicans could easily launch impeachment proceedings, with political will as the most significant obstacle.

The House Judiciary Committee typically investigates charges of official wrongdoing and, if it finds them to be warranted, forwards articles of impeachment to the House floor. Articles approved by a majority of the House are then sent to the Senate for a trial, with a two-thirds majority required for conviction.

Neither Chaffetz nor House Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert Goodlatte (R-Va.) have called for Clinton’s impeachment, but they have made clear they intend to continue probing her emails. In a joint letter sent Thursday, the two chairmen called on Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch to preserve documents related to the email investigation, including the new evidence the FBI disclosed last week.

Chaffetz and Goodlatte have also asked the federal investigators to probe whether Clinton committed perjury during 2015 testimony before the Benghazi panel.

Democrats have warned voters in recent days of apparent GOP obstruction to come, citing the impeachment threats.

“It doesn’t matter what evidence . . . they’ll find something — that’s what they’re saying already,” President Obama said Wednesday during a campaign stop in Chapel Hill, N.C. “How does our democracy function like that?”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that impeaching Clinton for alleged actions that took place before the election “would be a brazen attempt to nullify the vote of the American people, outside our constitutional framework and destructive to the Framers’ intent.”

The Clinton campaign declined to comment.

But the senior Republicans say they are convinced Clinton has broken the law and are speculating that she could be criminally charged after she is elected.

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told Fox News Tuesday the probe into Clinton’s emails “will continue whether she wins or not.”

“Assuming she wins and the investigation goes forward and it looks like an indictment is pending, at that point in time under the Constitution, the House of Representatives would engage in an impeachment trial,” he said, warning of a possible “constitutional crisis.”

In a separate Fox News interview Thursday, McCaul accused Clinton of committing “treason” in mishandling classified documents.

FBI Director James B. Comey said in July there was no “clear evidence” that Clinton or associates willingly broke federal laws but “were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

[FBI agents knew of emails in early October]

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, told a Wisconsin newspaper Monday that Clinton could be impeached, citing federal laws against “willful concealment and destruction.”

“I’m not a lawyer, but this is clearly written,” he told the Beloit Daily News. “I would say yes, high crime or misdemeanor, I believe she is in violation of both laws.”

Both McCaul and Johnson have political imperatives for taking a hard line on Clinton: Johnson is locked in a close race to keep his Senate seat and has moved recently to shore up his support among his Republican base. McCaul is said to be considering a possible Senate run against fellow Republican Ted Cruz in 2018.

Former GOP congressman Tom Davis, who served on the House Oversight Committee during the first Clinton administration, warned lawmakers against overreach.

“The news reports don’t look good, but we’re a long way” from impeachment, he said. “There may absolutely be a place for this, I don’t know, but when you jump the gun way ahead, you lose the credibility of your mission before you start. And that’s my caution to both sides.”

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), a current member of the Oversight panel, called the impeachment talk “reprehensible, reckless and un-American” and called it part of a two-decade GOP campaign to undermine Democratic presidents. But he said the failure of the 1998 Bill Clinton impeachment and President Obama’s current popularity shows that perpetual opposition isn’t necessarily good politics.

“We’ve got a base, too, and for every action in politics there is a reaction,” Connolly said. “If you want to fire up our base, keep on making statements like that.”

Other prominent Republicans stopped short this week of suggesting that impeachment should be in the offing.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) called the talk “premature” during an interview on a Texas radio station Tuesday. “She hasn’t been elected or sworn into office,” he said, according to a CNN report on the interview. “And unless there is some additional evidence that the FBI director and the Justice Department would take to a grand jury, then she is not likely to be convicted of a crime.”

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), a former Judiciary Committee chairman who played a leading role in the 1998 Clinton impeachment, called talk of a Hillary Clinton impeachment “speculative” in a Wisconsin radio interview Tuesday.

But he said there would be a “constitutional crisis” should she be indicted as president. “We don’t need to go through another Watergate,” he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/03/no-honeymoon-for-hillary-congressional-republicans-openly-discussing-impeachment/?utm_term=.31f279dad553

Leon Troutsky and Big_Dog like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

Some Republicans are discussing their plans for President Clinton — starting with impeachment

By Mike DeBonis November 3, 2016
Travis Klinefelter of Dubuque, Iowa rouses the crowd before a rally for Donald J. Trump  on Oct. 28, 2016 in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The crowd of a few thousand warmed up by chanting “Lock her up” and waving signs of Women for Trump. (Photo by David Greedy/Getty Images)

Senior Republican lawmakers are openly discussing the prospect of impeaching Hillary Clinton should she win the presidency, a stark indication that partisan warfare over her tenure as secretary of state will not end on Election Day.

Chairmen of two congressional committees said in media interviews this week they believe Clinton committed impeachable offenses in setting up and using a private email server for official State Department business.

And a third senior Republican, the chairman of a House Judiciary subcommittee, told The Washington Post he is personally convinced Clinton should be impeached for influence peddling involving her family foundation. He favors further congressional investigation into that matter.

“It is my honest opinion that the Clinton Foundation represents potentially one of the greatest examples of political corruption in American history,” said Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), who leads the Constitution and Civil Justice subcommittee. “Now that perspective may be disproven, time will tell. But given that conviction on my part, I think all options are definitely on the table.”

The impeachment talk is the latest sign that Clinton will not be handed a clean slate — let alone an extended honeymoon — by Republican lawmakers should she win the presidency.

It comes after months of accusations from GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, who has repeatedly referred to his rival as “Crooked Hillary” before and after federal investigators announced they would not charge Clinton or her associates over the email matter.

When some in the crowd at a Donald Trump rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., started chanting “Lock her up!” about Hillary Clinton on Oct. 10, the Republican presidential nominee replied: “Lock her up is right.” (The Washington Post)

Chants of “Lock Her Up!” coursed through crowds at the Republican National Convention and at dozens of Trump rallies. The FBI’s disclosure last week that it is examining potential new evidence in the email probe has offered new fuel for the attacks.

“Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency, and if she were elected, it would create an unprecedented constitutional crisis,” Trump said Wednesday at a rally in Pensacola, Fla. “You know it’s going to happen. And in all fairness, we went through it with her husband. He was impeached. . . . Folks, do we want to go through this again?”

Republican lawmakers have aggressively questioned Clinton’s State Department dealings for months, with a special committee impaneled to probe the handling of the 2012 Benghazi attacks and separate probes of the department’s personnel practices and handling of classified documents found on her private email server.

Top GOP leaders have previously indicated they will aggressively investigate Clinton if she is elected president. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said last month he considered a Clinton administration a “target-rich environment” and that “we’ve got two years’ worth of material already lined up” for investigations.

[House Republicans are already prepping for ‘years’ of investigations]

Should they keep control of the House in the next Congress, Republicans could easily launch impeachment proceedings, with political will as the most significant obstacle.

The House Judiciary Committee typically investigates charges of official wrongdoing and, if it finds them to be warranted, forwards articles of impeachment to the House floor. Articles approved by a majority of the House are then sent to the Senate for a trial, with a two-thirds majority required for conviction.

Neither Chaffetz nor House Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert Goodlatte (R-Va.) have called for Clinton’s impeachment, but they have made clear they intend to continue probing her emails. In a joint letter sent Thursday, the two chairmen called on Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch to preserve documents related to the email investigation, including the new evidence the FBI disclosed last week.

Chaffetz and Goodlatte have also asked the federal investigators to probe whether Clinton committed perjury during 2015 testimony before the Benghazi panel.

Democrats have warned voters in recent days of apparent GOP obstruction to come, citing the impeachment threats.

“It doesn’t matter what evidence . . . they’ll find something — that’s what they’re saying already,” President Obama said Wednesday during a campaign stop in Chapel Hill, N.C. “How does our democracy function like that?”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that impeaching Clinton for alleged actions that took place before the election “would be a brazen attempt to nullify the vote of the American people, outside our constitutional framework and destructive to the Framers’ intent.”

The Clinton campaign declined to comment.

But the senior Republicans say they are convinced Clinton has broken the law and are speculating that she could be criminally charged after she is elected.

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told Fox News Tuesday the probe into Clinton’s emails “will continue whether she wins or not.”

“Assuming she wins and the investigation goes forward and it looks like an indictment is pending, at that point in time under the Constitution, the House of Representatives would engage in an impeachment trial,” he said, warning of a possible “constitutional crisis.”

In a separate Fox News interview Thursday, McCaul accused Clinton of committing “treason” in mishandling classified documents.

FBI Director James B. Comey said in July there was no “clear evidence” that Clinton or associates willingly broke federal laws but “were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

[FBI agents knew of emails in early October]

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, told a Wisconsin newspaper Monday that Clinton could be impeached, citing federal laws against “willful concealment and destruction.”

“I’m not a lawyer, but this is clearly written,” he told the Beloit Daily News. “I would say yes, high crime or misdemeanor, I believe she is in violation of both laws.”

Both McCaul and Johnson have political imperatives for taking a hard line on Clinton: Johnson is locked in a close race to keep his Senate seat and has moved recently to shore up his support among his Republican base. McCaul is said to be considering a possible Senate run against fellow Republican Ted Cruz in 2018.

Former GOP congressman Tom Davis, who served on the House Oversight Committee during the first Clinton administration, warned lawmakers against overreach.

“The news reports don’t look good, but we’re a long way” from impeachment, he said. “There may absolutely be a place for this, I don’t know, but when you jump the gun way ahead, you lose the credibility of your mission before you start. And that’s my caution to both sides.”

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), a current member of the Oversight panel, called the impeachment talk “reprehensible, reckless and un-American” and called it part of a two-decade GOP campaign to undermine Democratic presidents. But he said the failure of the 1998 Bill Clinton impeachment and President Obama’s current popularity shows that perpetual opposition isn’t necessarily good politics.

“We’ve got a base, too, and for every action in politics there is a reaction,” Connolly said. “If you want to fire up our base, keep on making statements like that.”

Other prominent Republicans stopped short this week of suggesting that impeachment should be in the offing.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) called the talk “premature” during an interview on a Texas radio station Tuesday. “She hasn’t been elected or sworn into office,” he said, according to a CNN report on the interview. “And unless there is some additional evidence that the FBI director and the Justice Department would take to a grand jury, then she is not likely to be convicted of a crime.”

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), a former Judiciary Committee chairman who played a leading role in the 1998 Clinton impeachment, called talk of a Hillary Clinton impeachment “speculative” in a Wisconsin radio interview Tuesday.

But he said there would be a “constitutional crisis” should she be indicted as president. “We don’t need to go through another Watergate,” he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/03/no-honeymoon-for-hillary-congressional-republicans-openly-discussing-impeachment/?utm_term=.31f279dad553

For the "dems are out on a witch hunt against Trump" crowd, coughwfwcough, if Hillary had won, the GOP would be doing the EXACT same thing to her.

"That's just speculation mdrake, you don't know that!"

Yeah, well, they said they were going to do it.  Unless they were just making another empty promise they never intended to deliver on . . .

Leon Troutsky and AF89 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

For the "dems are out on a witch hunt against Trump" crowd, coughwfwcough, if Hillary had won, the GOP would be doing the EXACT same thing to her.

"That's just speculation mdrake, you don't know that!"

Yeah, well, they said they were going to do it.  Unless they were just making another empty promise they never intended to deliver on . . .

A witch hunt to him is also the FBI investigating something regarding his campaign months before he was elected and Democrats and some Republicans not bending over for Trump at his whim. He doesn't know what it means. He's just dumb and frustrated.

Leon Troutsky and AF89 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

I ******* quit.

 

I'd really like what Nunes and O'Reilly are smoking. "It had nothing to do with Russia"...but I can't tell you what it is or who leaked it to me. 

HolyMoses likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, this Nunes stuff is weird.  He saw information about surveillance of Trump, so he had to rush and tell Trump before his own committee, even though he had this information for a long time and knew it before Trump's wiretap tweet, and it was legal but maybe not legal but also legal, and he could only view it at the White House the night before briefing Trump even though he knew it even before Trump's tweet, but he had to wait until the next afternoon to tell Trump about this thing he just learned that he had known for months.

None of his explanations about this makes sense.

Big_Dog and Carter like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Yeah, this Nunes stuff is weird.  He saw information about surveillance of Trump, so he had to rush and tell Trump before his own committee, even though he had this information for a long time and knew it before Trump's wiretap tweet, and it was legal but maybe not legal but also legal, and he could only view it at the White House the night before briefing Trump even though he knew it even before Trump's tweet, but he had to wait until the next afternoon to tell Trump about this thing he just learned that he had known for months.

None of his explanations about this makes sense.

I said this in another place, I think Nunes is trying to give grounds for an independent investigation without committing political suicide and going against the party line. It doesn't make sense otherwise, what he did, whatever the motivation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Six months into this administration and things are so fugged up that how much more can America take?

This is to the point of complete failure of our goverment period!  Comey came out on Hillary just before the election. He admits they were looking at Trump since July so why didn't he go public with that too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sturgil Simpson said:

I'd really like what Nunes and O'Reilly are smoking. "It had nothing to do with Russia"...but I can't tell you what it is or who leaked it to me. 

Fake news

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MACK2THEFUTURE said:

I said this in another place, I think Nunes is trying to give grounds for an independent investigation without committing political suicide and going against the party line. It doesn't make sense otherwise, what he did, whatever the motivation.

Or maybe Nunes is just an imbecile ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, toadfishtom said:

Or maybe Nunes is just an imbecile ?

I just don't think that makes sense. What grounds would force the Republicans to begin an independent investigation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, WOR said:

Get to the bottom is the dems position....Derp. 

They are at the bottom.  I've never seen one party so low.  I'm embarrassed for them.   The civil/political discourse from their leaders is coming through loud and clear.  I hope they get their act together and start working across the aisle for the good of the country.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Comey and Rogers reportedly cancelled on the closed House IC hearing.

I don't blame them.  The House IC is compromised under Nunes' leadership and their investigation is a farce at this point.

Leon Troutsky likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now