Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

DOJ told FBI “No” on charging Clinton

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by CaptUSMCNole, Mar 13, 2019 at 9:07 AM.

  1. GatorNorth

    GatorNorth Premium Member Premium Member

    10,126
    783
    848
    Apr 3, 2007
    Atlanta
    We deserve the truth on all of this, including the dossier.

    These folks serve us. And are paid by us.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2019 at 9:51 AM
    • Agree Agree x 2
  2. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    4,071
    1,052
    553
    Nov 25, 2017
    Wrong. Page trip to Russia, the speech and the meeting was verified.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. CaptUSMCNole

    CaptUSMCNole GC Hall of Fame

    2,540
    111
    253
    May 23, 2007
    NCR
    Steele did not work for a republican. GPSFusion started working for a Republican campaign but did not hire Steele until they were working for the Clinton campaign.

    The question that has not been asked is if Steele broke any laws in obtaining his information. Laws such as bribery.

    Do you really want the party in power to submit oppo research to a FISA court and be able to turn the full weight of the American IC against the opposing political party's POTUS campaign?

    Verification of third party information is required before submitting it to the FISA Court. The FBI and DOJ have to submit the information to the FISA Court swearing that they know the information to be accurate. Steele even admitted his information was "raw intel" meaning it still need verification and was not finished intel. No one has stated that the Stele information was independently verified by the FBI or IC.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2019 at 8:26 PM
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. CaptUSMCNole

    CaptUSMCNole GC Hall of Fame

    2,540
    111
    253
    May 23, 2007
    NCR
    Isn't the point of this thread that FBI investigation and DOJ charging decision are interwoven? The FBI wanted to charge Clinton and the DOJ told them "no" because the DOJ had a different opinion than the FBI on the ability to obtain a conviction of Clinton based on the FBI investigation.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2019 at 8:37 AM
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer Premium Member

    5,609
    1,451
    568
    Oct 30, 2017
    Charging Clinton would be an outcome of the investigation. You don't seek a charge before you've investigated anything (well, you shouldn't, at least).
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. fredsanford

    fredsanford Premium Member

    9,849
    213
    548
    Dec 1, 2008
    I want both of our major political parties to not nominate an international mobster for POTUS.

    Then this concern is a non-issue.
     
  7. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    4,071
    1,052
    553
    Nov 25, 2017
    That must be the point of this thread because you started the thread. Of course, the point is wrong. The argument has been made that the decision was political by Lynch, which is factually wrong. That members of the investigative team wanted to charge, but the attorneys made the decision that charging was unsupported by fact and law, is normal. Prosecutors decide to go to the grand jury, not investigators. Sadly, in this case, Comey announced the decision, which was his based on the input from the lawyers. Your obtuse references to out of context testimony notwithstanding. Lawyers have to worry about what they have to prove and what facts they have. Investigators develop facts. Disagreement by some members of the investigative team do not make the non-prosecution decision political or somehow wrong.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2019 at 8:47 PM
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. CaptUSMCNole

    CaptUSMCNole GC Hall of Fame

    2,540
    111
    253
    May 23, 2007
    NCR
    Then we would haven’t have been able to vote for either major political parties in ‘16.
     
    • Best Post Ever Best Post Ever x 1
  9. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer Premium Member

    5,609
    1,451
    568
    Oct 30, 2017
    That was an option. It's not like President Gary Johnson would have been worse than this mess.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  10. fredsanford

    fredsanford Premium Member

    9,849
    213
    548
    Dec 1, 2008
    Hillary Clinton, still not guilty of anything. No campaign officials in jail. No open counterintelligence investigation.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  11. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    4,071
    1,052
    553
    Nov 25, 2017
    But Benghazi. Private e-mail server. Uranium One. Clinton Foundation. “Lock her Up.” Sigh.
     
  12. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    4,071
    1,052
    553
    Nov 25, 2017
    As the Supreme Court held in Gorin, the subject matter covered by The Espionage Act is Military and naval establishments and national preparedness for war. That is what the Clinton emails would have to address to meet the definition of national defense secrets to violate the Espionage Act as defined by the Supreme Court’s statutory construction in Gordon. That is what the lawyers had to prove. Not that the emails had a “c” indicating classified. I know that the facts and law don’t fit the narrative of your point, but that is why prosecutors, lawyers, make these decisions. They have to prove the case. Because so called “lay” experts are not experts. This is likely why courts of military appeals construe the statute the way they do; because that is what soldiers dream with. Classified information can be a national defense secret, but not necessarily. Without real facts about the content of the emails, it is nothing more than an exercise in political derangement to argue that the decision to not charge was political. Bear in mind, too, that WW2 has started in Europe and the Pacific when Gorin was decided, so saving the Espionage Act was important to the country then and SCOTUS went out of its way to do so.
     
  13. mutz87

    mutz87 Complexified VIP Member

    34,536
    2,410
    1,786
    Aug 30, 2014
    I think this is a wrong way to interpret the dossier. Probably better to view it as raw intel rather than some deep investigation where all the facts were confirmed, say, with objective evidence. That the latter didn't happen in many instances in the report is a reason why it's controversial, but that it didn't happen doesn't equate to Steele lying or the intel being untrue. The kind of reverse corollary to this would be to provide evidence that demonstrates the intel isn't valid since simply saying it isn't doesn't make it so either.

    Point being, there seems quite a few instances in the dossier that have not been confirmed or disconfirmed.

    Don't know what the FISA court judges knew or didn't know, but I know several of them were Republican appointees, and likely not simply rubber stampers.

    But if you ask me about the use of confidential informants, that is something I am highly skeptical about.
     
  14. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    4,071
    1,052
    553
    Nov 25, 2017
    The dossier is a diversion. Waste of time to discuss and debate it. It will have little or no legal effect in any of the cases made. Little of it was used and only what they could corroborate on the Page application. If interested, Google the articles that address what has been documented to date or remains unproven. The essential premise is: they could not use the dossier to start an investigation because they couldn’t prove it. The former part of that sentence is false because the investigation did not start based on the dossier and it is information to check like anything else. The latter part of that sentence is idiotic because you have to investigate to determine truth, if you set out to investigate the allegations therein. It can o let be bad faith of it is l own to be false when it is received. The dossier is a right wing straw man for the willfully blind. The people who through that Judge Sullivan would toss the Flynn case or that Paul Manafort is being somehow railroaded because he worked for Trump. They did not listen to Judge Jackson today. The “lock her up” crowd. To get back to topic.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  15. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 GC Hall of Fame

    63,703
    10,052
    2,373
    Apr 3, 2007
    What banana republic are you talking about? That's not how we roll in the U.S.A..
     
  16. mutz87

    mutz87 Complexified VIP Member

    34,536
    2,410
    1,786
    Aug 30, 2014
    I think it's a distraction too. I also think people have treated it like it was a news report as opposed to what it is.

    Yeah, we all went 'round and 'round awhile back about it's supposed use in the FISA warrant apps. I think largely overblown.
     
  17. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 GC Hall of Fame

    63,703
    10,052
    2,373
    Apr 3, 2007
    Are you saying that this opposition research paper with all of it's false and untruths in it is enough to start spying on the POTUS while he was a candidate rep of the Republican Party and after he won the nominations and then again after he won the presidency? There were several times in which this whole which hunt could have been ruled an over reach investigation during the long drawn out process of continual FISA applications. So I'm back to the FISA court judges and their integrity in what looks like an obvious abuse by them or by the DOJ... on a flimsy fake dossier. This to me looks like a coordinated and attempted subversion... with several culprits involved. We shall see what happens when this entire process is completely vetted.
     
  18. mutz87

    mutz87 Complexified VIP Member

    34,536
    2,410
    1,786
    Aug 30, 2014
    Well, first I am saying that we cannot know whether many of the things are untruths or false. I've read through much about the dossier and it seems there are quite a few points that are unconfirmed, at least by other sources. But to answer your question, I am saying that what the FBI had in terms of evidence in support of a FISA warrant was enough.
     
  19. g8trjax

    g8trjax GC Hall of Fame

    2,554
    72
    153
    Jun 1, 2007
    Little people laws don't apply to the clintons.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. CaptUSMCNole

    CaptUSMCNole GC Hall of Fame

    2,540
    111
    253
    May 23, 2007
    NCR
    Not the case case during the majority of the ‘16 election. And also now benefiting from the “We don’t jail political opponents after losing elections” norm we have in this country.