Special Counsel Mueller Impanels Washington Grand Jury in Russia Probe

a reply to: Xcathdra

You know, I've wondered about that. In a sense, I believe you are correct, but remember, the Trump supporters are in fly-over country. They can scream and complain all they like; it has no effect whatsoever in the Blue zones like NYC, LA, Seattle,etc., no effect at all. They lack much in the way of any suasion except for the voices of the numbskulls they send to Congress, who say little at all and get little if any TV face time unless they are darlings of the left.

In a sense, the leftists, the DC insiders club and the media have already rendered Trump a lame duck. And the Republicans in Congress are backing away from him as well. They won't pass any bills of substance. Honestly, the truth be told, many of these so-called Republican legislators look a lot more like centrist Democrats in brown Republican suits. The party has no core, no leadership, no goals and zero discipline.

originally posted by: rnaa
Clinton was impeached for not giving a straight answer to a question the Grand Jury had no business asking. The Senate refused to convict him. He was never removed because he was never found guilty of a high crime or misdemeanor.

He was impeached for lying under oath. Contrary to popular belief "high crimes and misdemeanor" is a political question and not a criminal one. Congress decides what a high crime and misdemeanor is, not law.

originally posted by: rnaa
It is not a criminal offense for a consenting adult to have oral sex with another consenting adult.

It is when you lie about it under oath.

originally posted by: rnaa
He did not 'lose' his law license, though he might have had he not voluntarily given it up. And his Grand Jury testimony was 100% of the issue. He has been eligible to apply for reinstatement of his license since 2006, but has not done so.

He lost it for 5 years and was fined $25k dollars.

originally posted by: rnaa
The only thing about the status quo that this President is threatening is (1) how is anybody ever going to trust America again and (2) where are all the entrenched moneymen going to put all the loot that Trump is stuffing into their (and his) pockets.

The Clintons took care of all you listed long before Trump got into politics.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Seems to be an agenda at work

a reply to: Xcathdra

He was impeached for lying under oath.

Yes. And he was found innocent.

Contrary to popular belief "high crimes and misdemeanor" is a political question and not a criminal one. Congress decides what a high crime and misdemeanor is, not law.

Correct. The House of Representatives charged him (impeached) and the Senate found him innocent.

It is when you lie about it under oath.

No it isn't. It is NEVER a criminal offense for two adults to have consenting sex and it was beyond the reasonable purview of the Grand Jury to have asked such a question and put him in that position. The issue was 100% something between him, his family, and Lewinski to deal with - not a Federal Grand Jury.

And the Senate agreed with me.

As you say, it is up to Congress (the House and the Senate) to decide what is and what is not an impeachable offense. In the case of Bill Clinton, they decided that dissembling about an affair that had zero impact on the President's effectiveness in office was not a "high crime" and was not a "misdemeanor" worthy of removal from office.

More importantly to history, the People of the United States agreed with the Senate. He was more popular when he left office than at any time during his 2 terms; in fact he is in the top 5 most popular Presidents at end of term.

a reply to: rnaa

Lets try this again -

When 2 adults engage in sexual contact, and Clinton then lies under oath about that contact, it is in fact illegal. Hence the perjury article and the obstruction of justice article.

It failed in the Senate because no Democrat voted for it.

As for his popularity it says something about Democrats. Apparently corruption and lying are ok if you have a D next to your name.

Hasn't everyone including CNN admitted that this whole thing is completely BS? Why are we still focusing on this? Why are we still letting ourselves be distracted by this?

The closest thing they have to any evidence is the constantly regurgitated (and slightly modified each time) phrase: "according to experts..."

No. Trump did not collude with Russia or the Kremlin. They didn't have to.

a reply to: Xcathdra

What if Trump is asked to go before the Grand Jury under oath and is asked if Comey's testimony was truthful, what if he says "I did not ask everyone to leave the room"....

Then Sessions gets called up and asked the same question and he said "yeah sure Trump told us all to leave"

Then Trump is open to a perjury case.

I honestly don't think we are getting too far way form that kind of situation playing out.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Asking a question, getting an answer is one thing. Corroborating that answer is something else entirely.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Not sure if you seen this yet but there seems to be evidence that a GJ was happening with the Clinton investigation

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: rnaa

Lets try this again -

When 2 adults engage in sexual contact, and Clinton then lies under oath about that contact, it is in fact illegal.

Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it true and you have repeated these two lies often enough. Please cease and desist.

"When 2 adults engage in sexual contact," it is not a crime. You have to STOP asserting such a blatant falsehood. SEX BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS IS NOT ILLEGAL.

Grand Juries are empaneled to gather evidence about possible crimes and to determine whether or not there is enough evidence to warrant a prosecution. They are not empaneled to play 'gotcha'.

There was nothing actual or potentially illegal about the affair (it may have been different had Lewinski charged harassment, but she didn't because it wasn't). Ken Starr was running a fishing expedition that spent $40 millions trying to find something on Clinton (and 5 other independent investigations a further $40 million) and had absolutely failed. He had to find something. So he engaged in entrapment. He published a pornographic report about it. And he dragged the country through an episode that embarrassed the country in front of the world.

As to your second lie: Lying under oath is not in fact always illegal. Here is the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on perjury:

Perjury is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.[1][A] Contrary to popular misconception, no crime has occurred when a false statement is (intentionally or unintentionally) made while under oath or subject to penalty—instead, criminal culpability only attaches at the instant the declarant falsely asserts the truth of statements (made or to be made) which are material to the outcome of the proceeding. For example, it is not perjury to lie about one's age except where age is a fact material to influencing the legal result, such as eligibility for old age retirement benefits or whether a person was of an age to have legal capacity.

In Clinton's case, it is up to the Congress to decide whether or not the "lie" about his affair had any material influence on the legal result - which in the case of the President of the United States means his ability to carry out his Constitutional duties. The House of Representatives asked the question (impeachment), and the Senate answered in the negative, and the American People agreed with that verdict.

a reply to: rnaa

When you are under oath and you intentionally lie when asked a question, it is illegal. The fact he denied relations with Lewinsky and then later admitted they had relations is in fact perjury because he lied under oath.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? It was the basis for his losing his law license for 5 years and facing a 25k fine.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Xcathdra

You know, I've wondered about that. In a sense, I believe you are correct, but remember, the Trump supporters are in fly-over country. They can scream and complain all they like; it has no effect whatsoever in the Blue zones like NYC, LA, Seattle,etc., no effect at all. They lack much in the way of any suasion except for the voices of the numbskulls they send to Congress, who say little at all and get little if any TV face time unless they are darlings of the left.

Who do you think feeds (amongst other similer things) those blue zones? Last time I was there I saw very few farms in NYC, LA and Seattle.

If those fly over folk had the gumshun they could let their presents be felt.

originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: soberbacchus

Read his response to my initial post. He is equating an eyewitness testimony to corroboration of facts. Since this entire case is based purely on fabricated speculation driven by nothing more that false accusations and an over abundance and boy do I mean an over abundance of complete media hype bullshlt...there has never once been ANY evidence of collusion.

Therefore they have zero hard evidence.

I think you are confused between the terms "evidence" and "conclusions".

There is a TONNAGE of evidence of collusion.

Not the least of which is a dossier gathered by a highly respected ex-MI6 agent including a dozen plus sources making claims...many of which have come to pass in specific ways as the Dossier said they would.

More than one "Sources" of the Dossier has been murdered or found dead under suspicious circumstances.

Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn have both had to retro-actively declare themselves agents of a foreign government dating back to their tenure working for Trump.

Both Manafort and Flynn have finances that they can not account for involving Foreign Governments.

More than a half-dozen trump associates and appointees have been caught outright lying about the existence of, number of, and content of conversations with Russian Agents...Trump Jr. included.

Recusals and resignations...

People do not lie about things unless they are looking to hide things.

There is a MASSIVE amount of evidence suggesting illegal activity and collusion.

But there are no conclusions yet as to whether actual collusion took place.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: rnaa

When you are under oath and you intentionally lie when asked a question, it is illegal. The fact he denied relations with Lewinsky and then later admitted they had relations is in fact perjury because he lied under oath.

Correct.
Jeff Sessions perjured himself in his congressional testimony.
Michael Flynn committed multiple felonies lying on DOD clearance forms and in FBI interviews.

Robert Mueller now has a Grand Jury to Subpoena witnesses to testify Under Oath...and if they end up lying about anything not directly related to the investigation, they can be prosecuted/impeached. Just like Clinton was...Correct?

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Xcathdra

What if Trump is asked to go before the Grand Jury under oath and is asked if Comey's testimony was truthful, what if he says "I did not ask everyone to leave the room"....

So Monica Lewinski was still a hazy he said/she said until the famous Blue Dress (Physical Evidence).

As far as What Trump and associates might get caught up in (Apart from the obvious working with a foreign government to win an election)...I suspect it will be finances..Trump's finances are fast an loose and no doubt involve bribes both domestic and international. The Dossier specifically cited that his dealings with Chinese companies involved illegal activity in multiple ways and Trump straight up paid off the Florida AG to drop his university lawsuit...even cooked the books and was forced to "re-file" with a correction when it was uncovered by the press.

Trumps finances will be where people get burned..no blue dress.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: rnaa

As for his popularity it says something about Democrats. Apparently corruption and lying are ok if you have a D next to your name.

Hi lied about a BJ.

I think most people found that irrelevant to being POTUS.

Newt Gingrich, the GOP Leader of the House that led the Impeachment? Whilst Impeaching Clinton, Gingrich was having an affair with another woman...he finally ended up bringing the divorce papers to the Hospital to have his wife sign them whilst she was recovering from having a tumor removed.

I suspect THAT "says something" about "republicans" and their bitter pretend moral outrage.

a reply to: soberbacchus


Hi lied about BJ. 

I think most people found that irrelevant to being POTUS


thats why the senate said no???
why he was allowed to continue in office?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: soberbacchus


Hi lied about BJ. 

I think most people found that irrelevant to being POTUS


thats why the senate said no???
why he was allowed to continue in office?

Because The GOP (Led by Newt Gingrich who was cheating on his ill wife at the time) did not have enough votes.

That's the thing about "impeachment"...it is not a legal proceeding.

Congress could impeach Trump this afternoon if they had the will to.
They could also choose not to impeach him whatever damning evidence Mueller might present.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Interesting how all of your "evidence" doesn't include Donald Trumps name.

Show me evidence where Trump is a foreign agent. The accusation is Trump is a foreign agent not those associated with him.

Just because you know someone who robs banks doesn't make you a bank robber.

originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: soberbacchus

Interesting how all of your "evidence" doesn't include Donald Trumps name.

Oh...Just his Campaign Chief? Chief National Security Advisor, Son-in-Law and Attorney General and his own son?

Just because you know someone who robs banks doesn't make you a bank robber.

Just because the leaders of your company and your children are all mobsters, doesn't make you a mobster.

You asked for "evidence"...that is strong evidence...conclusions one way or another will follow.