Breaking: DOJ Launches Criminal Investigation Seeks Charges In Russia Probe

Every time the MSM double down on their lies, how many years do they add to their jail time?

They must understand what they are doing is treasonous.

Throw all the talking heads in jail as well, make a really big statement for the future.

P

Combine everything from the FISA IG Report, The failed Mueller Report, The Barr/Durham Investigations, and the failed Impeachment "Inquiry" and they'll have to re-open The Library of Alexandria to get everything in one place !! 😃

a reply to: xuenchen

Panic in DC, my Brother!

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: burntheships

I can't understate how badly Schiff's scheme was damaged when President Trump released the phone transcript between himself and the Ukraine President. He didn't even consider that would occur... It's without precedent.

Stupid Schiff/Pelosi still don't understand that President Trump doesn't give a damn about "how things have always been done". Dirty swamp Democrats and Republicans need to be VERY SCARED while President Trump is in charge of the Federal Government.

The call and the transcript is totally moot now...they quickly moved on the Rudy...

The New York Times originated the news that Durham's "Administrative Review" is now a "Criminal Investigation" today.

From "Sundance" who has followed and written about Spygate from day-1, here is his analysis of the accuracy of the New York Times's article, with some clarifications and explanations added.

NYT Accuracy Assessment and Clarifications: theconservativetreehouse.com...

For those of you who remember Rudy Giuliani forcefully telling Sean Hannity 3 times while discussing Joe/Hunter Biden Ukraine problems, "Keep Your Eye On Romania next, Sean!"

JOE/HUNTER BIDEN in ROMANIA...More troubling dealings and associations:

Source 1: www.nbcnews.com...

Source 2: thefederalist.com...

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: burntheships

I tend to believe that the investigation phase is completed and has been for some time.

This is the 'Book 'em Daniel' phase.

P

We could wake up one day soon to read about
an indictment or two or three. Yes, I believe that is
100% possible.

It is now even likely.

Finally something actionable!

Quick question, would interference on behalf of the impeachment effort constitute criminal conspiracy, or is it that, since the impeachment investigation began before the criminal investigation, failure to produce documents in an ongoing criminal investigation constitutes obstruction of justice? Inquiring minds want to know.

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Must be pretty big for Barr himself to put on his gum shoes.

It is. It's the difference between a banana republic and a constitutional one. That's as big as it gets for a nation.

WOW! He's really good! You know the mind of a musician is fundamentally one that is well-structured. I'm not talking about pop stars who let fame get the better of them. I mean the act of being musical makes your mind more well-ordered in things like mathematics and logic. Look it up!

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Stupidsecrets

As promised, there have been 3 critical leaks for non-Spygate followers over the past few weeks. This by-far is the biggest.

(For you UFO enthusiasts, these DOJ leaks are the equivalent of "staged disclosure".)

How is it staged. Everyone knew they were almost done and there were also known proven problems with the FBI like lying to the actual FBI to include the FBI leaking to the press. So you were thinking there would be no criminal charges at all? Please explain how you came to that conclusion.

No no, staged like a rocket launch. The first stage is from launchpad to upper atmosphere, the second stage is from stage seperation to low earth orbit, third stage is a Hohmann transfer to parking orbit. Not staged as in fake.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: xuenchen
Best part of this "matter" is, no hearings will be taking place in The House 😃 🐇

I find it humorous that you think that a court of law will be better than the House.

Unlike the House, the rules of law, evidence and due process apply.

I mostly just wanted to find an opportunity to compliment you on your sidebar info pane formatting. It's really nice, understated and classy.

I think that a ruling from a court of law IS better than a ruling from a House proceeding(or any congressional hearing for that matter) because the rules of a criminal trial are more strict. They aren't agreed upon willy-nilly from session to session, they are codified in the US Code. Congressional hearings are, in my opinion, political theater, whereas criminal and civil proceedings are nominally an exercise in the application of existing law.

Now, you might project certain things upon me, such as that I might prefer an outcome contrary to existing law, rather more in line with whatever political prejudices you may attribute to me, but that is just not the case. I think many of us, those of us who support this criminal investigation, are more interested in seeing justice served, as opposed to the court of popular opinion which has been tearing us all apart. I, for one, would like to be able to tell my sister once and for all "look, I didn't mean to hurt you by supporting the President, but look at this verdict" or on the other hand I might say "I'm sorry I hurt you by supporting the President, looking at this verdict I can see that I was wrong." We've been robbed of that for so long. I'm tired of walking on eggshells around my family. It would be nice to be able to heal that divide, finally.

I really do like the color scheme you chose for your info pane. It's very cool.

It's all pretty clear what is going on.
The Democrats got wind of some of the detail in Barr's investigation. They'd been keeping close tabs on it since Barr openly told Congress that he was looking into whether Obama's administration was spying on Trump.
As soon as they realised they were in deep trouble, the launched the impeachment scam as cover.

a reply to: thedigirati

You've misinterpreted my post again.

My comment is simple: calls for Trump's impeachment started after he became Presdient in 2017.

Your post is taking the opportunity to rail on Democrats which is cool. If you'd like to prove me wrong with, you know, actual evidence, feel free to post significant examples of Clinton or Democrats calling for Mr. Trump's impeachment before he was even inaugurated.

People were certainly upset that their "team" didn't "win" and I don't think those really count, but you can even include those if you want.

Barring that, I can suggest that you read the context of my posts more closely; that might avoid embarrassing public mistakes.

originally posted by: UKTruth
It's all pretty clear what is going on.
The Democrats got wind of some of the detail in Barr's investigation. They'd been keeping close tabs on it since Barr openly told Congress that he was looking into whether Obama's administration was spying on Trump.
As soon as they realised they were in deep trouble, the launched the impeachment scam as cover.

So, in your scenario, there are no whistleblowers, referrals from the Intelligence Community IG, transcripts from the White House which record what the President did, declaration of quid pro quo from the White House Chief of Staff ... there is only pre-emptive action by House Democrats?

Fascinating.

a reply to: Zelun

I absolutely agree that a court ruling would be more convincing than an impeachment precisely for the reasons you outlined. Further, I would like to know what the actual facts are in all this myself rather than the unending blathering from all sides about what was and wasn't done. IF there were crimes, let's convict the wrongdoers and move on. My comment to the other poster regards my doubts their stated hopes that all "Democratic enemies" are finally going to get payback in a venue where conviction requires actual evidence.

Are you talking about the "gold" color around the posting stats? That's not my doing, that's automatic based on number of posts or something.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth
It's all pretty clear what is going on.
The Democrats got wind of some of the detail in Barr's investigation. They'd been keeping close tabs on it since Barr openly told Congress that he was looking into whether Obama's administration was spying on Trump.
As soon as they realised they were in deep trouble, the launched the impeachment scam as cover.

So, in your scenario, there are no whistleblowers, referrals from the Intelligence Community IG, transcripts from the White House which record what the President did, declaration of quid pro quo from the White House Chief of Staff ... there is only pre-emptive action by House Democrats?

Fascinating.

No, there is no real whistleblower that we know of. We have some people who heard other people (who we know have a anti-Trump bias), interpreted through their own lens what that meant and then went to Schiff's office to report it.

The whistleblower rules were changed to enable the gossip to be filed as a whistleblower complaint.

The transcript shows there was nothing untoward done, so instead selective leaks about hearsay are being fed to a bias media.

The secret impeachment hearings will run and run as cover and the bias media will particpate in giving the selective leaks they get more coverage than an active DoJ investigation into claims of the biggest abuse of Govt power in history.

a reply to: UKTruth

I would offer a slight correction, there are no "real" whistleblowers that meet your definition but there certainly have been whistleblowers as certified by independent counsel and defined by Federal law.

I'd love to see backup for your claim about Federal law being changed to allow the complaint, could you share that link please?

The transcript shows clearly, and was confirmed by White House Chief of Staff Mulvaney, that there was certainly a quid pro quo in Trump's call to Zelensky. Is it illegal for POTUS to do that? Not in my opinion ... I'm on record multiple times saying I think the whole process thus far is DUMB.

Claims about "secret impeachment hearings" are simply BS and I'm tempted to say that you know it. House Committees can investigate and subpoena can control attendence at meetings as they like, as the Repubicans proved during their ascendancy circa 2015 by changing the House rules to allow this crap.

a reply to: UKTruth

The impeachment scam is actually an entire play, with Act-I, Act-II, Act-III, written and directed by Adam Schiff.

Today it was revealed by a Dem on Schiff's committee that Schiff himself will pick which witnesses will testify in public, which transcripts will be released, and what content in each transcript will be redacted.

When President Trump released the phonecall transcript between himself and the Ukraine President, it was like a hand-grenade tossed into Schiff's plan. But Schiff stuck to the script anyway, and read what he hoped would be seen as the actual wording used in that phone call between the two leaders.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: UKTruth

The impeachment scam is actually an entire play, with Act-I, Act-II, Act-III, written and directed by Adam Schiff.

Today it was revealed by a Dem on Schiff's committee that Schiff himself will pick which witnesses will testify in public, which transcripts will be released, and what content in each transcript will be redacted.

When President Trump released the phonecall transcript between himself and the Ukraine President, it was like a hand-grenade tossed into Schiff's plan. But Schiff stuck to the script anyway, and read what he hoped would be seen as the actual wording used in that phone call between the two leaders.

Yep, Schiff is the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, and due to the changes made by the Republican majority in their zeal in 2015 to the House Rules, Schiff can actually do all that.

I know that some Trump supporters tend endow every act of Mr. Trump with divine provenance, but really, releasing the transcript, then calling for Ukraine and China to investigate Biden in public the next day along with his Chief of Staff saying "Yeah, it's a quid pro quo, so what?" is really just another example in a long line of the President's egocentric bluster and the worshipful justifications of his followers (like Mulvaney.)

IMO.