Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, one of Trump's most outspoken critics in the CIA (Michael Morell Former Director of the CIA) admits in an interview with Politico, that if there was any collusion, it would have already been found. Morell also admits his becoming political, and attacking Trump was something "he didn't think through".
Well this clearly shows Morell is smart enough to realize that the whole Russian conspircy is collapsing, and he wants to be the first in line to cover his backside.
Well, one of Trump's most outspoken critics in the CIA (Michael Morell Former Director of the CIA) admits in an interview with Politico, that if there was any collusion, it would have already been found. Morell also admits his becoming political, and attacking Trump was something "he didn't think through".
Well this clearly shows Morell is smart enough to realize that the whole Russian conspircy is collapsing, and he wants to be the first in line to cover his backside.
Not so fast, #91. You clearly didn't read the entire interview.
"The second point I’d make is that I wouldn’t be surprised if there were single individuals who were associated with the campaign who violated the law with respect to their interactions with the Russians on the election. Paul Manafort comes to mind. I think he has little to no integrity. There’s no way you spend that much time with the old Ukrainian government and not bump up against Russian intelligence officers a lot.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there were single individuals who faced criminal charges here with regard to their interactions with the Russians, and Paul Manafort’s a possibility. But that’s different than a conspiracy by the campaign, right?
The third thing I’d say is, every FBI investigation that I’ve ever had visibility into or been involved in, the people who they’re looking at actually don’t end up getting charged with the crime they were being investigated for. They get charged with something else. Right? And that something else in this case could be the laundering of Russian organized crime funds. And if that was done by the Trump organization—if that was done knowingly—it’s a criminal violation.
If it was done unwittingly, because you didn’t do the due diligence that’s required under U.S. law for where the money is coming from, from overseas—it’s a civil penalty. And the Trump organization gets fined. What the politics of all that is, I have no idea. That’s the third thing I’d say.
The fourth thing I’d say is, the obstruction of justice issue. In my view, when I read the statute, boy, it looks—you know, it looks like you could make a case. Now, the hard part is intent. Right? You have to intend to violate the statute. You have to intend to obstruct justice. That’s the difficult piece to prove here."
Well, one of Trump's most outspoken critics in the CIA (Michael Morell Former Director of the CIA) admits in an interview with Politico, that if there was any collusion, it would have already been found. Morell also admits his becoming political, and attacking Trump was something "he didn't think through".
Well this clearly shows Morell is smart enough to realize that the whole Russian conspircy is collapsing, and he wants to be the first in line to cover his backside.
Someone not involved in the investigation speculates about investigation. News at 11!
Spin is spin. Speculation is speculation. Facts are facts. Flynn is convicted and is cooperating. This investigation is far from over. There is evidence of intent to conspire with a foreign adversary. Don Jr's I love it emails are damning. Lets wait and see what comes out of the investigations.
Im still not seeing any evidence of Collusion by president Trump. Just lots on people around him, and a pretty clear intent to obstruct which is continuing. Fun fact-Its not known if Nixon ordered the Watergate break ins or not. But the obstruction was clear. Just like with Trump.
Spin is spin. Speculation is speculation. Facts are facts. Flynn is convicted and is cooperating. This investigation is far from over. There is evidence of intent to conspire with a foreign adversary. Don Jr's I love it emails are damning. Lets wait and see what comes out of the investigations.
They cannot use anything Flynn says.... He is a convicted liar. How sweet is that. Nothing he says will stand up in court now, or enough to get any warrants issued over any info he spouts, even if true.
His credibility was stripped on that charge.
Speculation is what the rest of the interview reveals. May be nothing, may be something. Right now though, speculation. Thru, you clearly are not thinking through the words Morrell used.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustPassinThru
Not so fast, #91. You clearly didn't read the entire interview.
"The second point I’d make is that I wouldn’t be surprised if there were single individuals who were associated with the campaign who violated the law with respect to their interactions with the Russians on the election. Paul Manafort comes to mind. I think he has little to no integrity. There’s no way you spend that much time with the old Ukrainian government and not bump up against Russian intelligence officers a lot.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there were single individuals who faced criminal charges here with regard to their interactions with the Russians, and Paul Manafort’s a possibility. But that’s different than a conspiracy by the campaign, right?
The third thing I’d say is, every FBI investigation that I’ve ever had visibility into or been involved in, the people who they’re looking at actually don’t end up getting charged with the crime they were being investigated for. They get charged with something else. Right? And that something else in this case could be the laundering of Russian organized crime funds. And if that was done by the Trump organization—if that was done knowingly—it’s a criminal violation.
If it was done unwittingly, because you didn’t do the due diligence that’s required under U.S. law for where the money is coming from, from overseas—it’s a civil penalty. And the Trump organization gets fined. What the politics of all that is, I have no idea. That’s the third thing I’d say.
The fourth thing I’d say is, the obstruction of justice issue. In my view, when I read the statute, boy, it looks—you know, it looks like you could make a case. Now, the hard part is intent. Right? You have to intend to violate the statute. You have to intend to obstruct justice. That’s the difficult piece to prove here."
Then that speaks too to everything else he said. Null. Null.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Funny he would "admit" something he would have no knowledge about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
