Revisiting the 2016 Russia Hoax

Since you state " It is really hard to do a real well researched and vetted IC Assessment in four months." You must certainly be impressed at how accurately the IC actually was since both Radcliff and the Republican-led Senate Committee both agreed with it.

 

If I said this was just some score settling between IC Republicans over what IC Democrats did on the way out the door in ‘16, would that make sense? The IC Democrats committed a procedural foul with the IC Assessment and IC Republicans want it on the official record that it happened.

 

My issue with the assessment was not the conclusions because at a high level I think they were correct. For example, the FBI knew it was a Russian MCA that hacked the DNC server back in the late summer of ‘16. And the US IC knew what Russia was up to around the same time. The issue was the inclusion of the Steele Dossier in the IC Assessment that was not vetted but still stated that the Trump Campaign was actively involved. It was the equivalent of saying “We think the Trump Campaign was involved but we have not had enough time to verify it.” Something like that should not be in a completed IC Assessment.

 

There is zero doubt that Russia tried to interfere in the 2016 election.

This is patently false. There was, depending on how one defines it - “collusion”. Trump called for Russia to back DNC servers, and they immediately started working on that, and did.

Collusion per se is not a crime. There was not enough evidence to pursue a criminal conspiracy to tamper with the election. Mueller was clear in saying that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, they just didn’t have enough to prove it.

They absolutely did have enough to pursue obstruction of justice, but they typically avoid obstruction if they can’t prove the underlying charge.

 

Since when do prosecutors tell the public before a trial "that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, we just didn’t have enough to prove it"?

 

Call it treason. I wonder if that has a statute of limitations?

 

Can Obama claim Presidential Immunity in this case? Was it an official act?

 

Not sure, but can't go after a sitting President. Definitely need to lock the traitor up in 3 years. Should have already.

 

the left will never admit the Russia hoax perpetrated by Hillary Clinton

 

Lol... nice try, but I'm talking about Obama.

 

Bill Clinton lied while under oath before a Grand Jury. Do you think he should be locked up?

 

I'm no legal scholar, but in my opinion there should be legal consequences for this, but they would fall short of incarceration.

IMO it would take a more serious crime to warrant incarceration. Something like; inciting a riot, criminal conspiracy to overturn an election, stealing and withholding classified documents, or colluding in an election with a foreign adversary.

 

The Senate should have impeached him like the House did. He should at least been kicked out of office.

 

Dear leader has so many trials, to which trial might you be referring? Concerning Mueller:

• No Exoneration: Mueller's report states, "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
• DOJ Policy on Indicting a Sitting President: Mueller cited the Department of Justice policy prohibiting the indictment of a sitting president as the reason for not making a decision on charging obstruction.

 

Please read the posts above where the evidence proves it was not a hoax.

 

Please show me another example of the DoJ ever claiming that they "did not exonerate" someone.

 

The Steele Dossier was a Hoax. And there people that still claim it is not. And there are reporters that got TV deals and promotions for hyping it up.

 

FYI:
The prosecutor also must show that the defendant lied knowingly. If they innocently misremembered something, this is not perjury. Finally, the statement often must be material, which means that it must be something that could affect the proceeding or decision. If a witness says something irrelevant, this may not be perjury even if they knowingly lied.

The subject matter of the case in which Clinton testified was alleged sexual harassment of Paula Jones, it wasn't Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Not going to look for links now at the time multiple former US Attorney or Assistant US Attorney stated Clinton would have never been charged in any other context.