The FBI Desperately Wants to Let Trump Off the Hook

[onthedarkside]

 

The way conservatives tell it, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is a hive of anti-Trump villainy, filled with agents looking for any excuse to hound the former president with investigative witch hunts.

 

But the thing to understand about Donald Trump’s legal troubles is that they exist not because federal agents are out to get him, but despite the fact that the FBI is full of Trump supporters who would really like to leave him alone.

 

This morning, The Washington Post reported that FBI investigators clashed with federal prosecutors over the decision to search the former president’s residence, where highly classified documents were found despite Trump’s insistence that he had none.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/03/fbi-trump-mar-a-lago-raid-prosecution/673251/

 

[vandeventer]

Yes the FBI wants to take Mr. Trump off the hook as he has done nothing wrong. But the FBI's hook is a big one, will it catch Sleepy Joe, or perhaps Hillary, time will only tell.

Edited March 2, 2023 by vandeventer

[Emster23]

"The FBI Desperately Wants to Let Trump Off the Hook"

Whoever writes these insipid headlines might take the time to read the news article first, to get a general idea what article is about. Some in FBI wanted him "off the hook, to take his word all documents turned over" is more like it.

[Eric Loh]

25 minutes ago, vandeventer said:

Yes the FBI wants to take Mr. Trump off the hook as he has done nothing wrong. But the FBI's hook is a big one, will it catch Sleepy Joe, or perhaps Hillary, time will only tell.

He was caught with both his hands in the cookie jar and in the case of Mahattan's grand jury he was caught with his pants down. Fulton county district attorney had his 'perfect' phone call to Brad Raffensperger and Special Counsel Jack Smith has sizable evidence. TRump's blantant criming are gifts to the grand jury. Meanwhile, it's crickets as far as Joe and Hillary are concern. Nothing to see and nothing to hear about. If you have something, please share. 

[dotcalm]

6 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

He was caught with both his hands in the cookie jar and in the case of Mahattan's grand jury he was caught with his pants down. Fulton county district attorney had his 'perfect' phone call to Brad Raffensperger and Special Counsel Jack Smith has sizable evidence. TRump's blantant criming are gifts to the grand jury. Meanwhile, it's crickets as far as Joe and Hillary are concern. Nothing to see and nothing to hear about. If you have something, please share. 

Really, so can you produce the "sizeable evidence" Jack Smith has, in consideration of the fact that "almost all of the proceedings are sealed, and filings and decisions aren’t public."

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/16/politics/secret-grand-jury-special-counsel-trump/index.html

 

While you're at it, can you review Trumps call, in it's entirety, with Raffensperger and point out where Trump committed a crime.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html

 

I'll wait.

 

 

Edited March 2, 2023 by dotcalm

[Eric Loh]

24 minutes ago, dotcalm said:

Really, so can you produce the "sizeable evidence" Jack Smith has, in consideration of the fact that "almost all of the proceedings are sealed, and filings and decisions aren’t public."

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/16/politics/secret-grand-jury-special-counsel-trump/index.html

 

While you're at it, can you review Trumps call, in it's entirety, with Raffensperger and point out where Trump committed a crime.

 

I'll wait.

 

 

Your wait wouldn't be long before indictments start coming in beginning with Georgia. By any standard measure, his effort to cajole and bully Raffensperger to steal an election could be prosecuted under Georgia law. He has crashed through legal and ethical boundaries in his criminal undertakings. Indictments from Jack Smith will soon step up the pace with his indictments for the 2 cases that he handled. Materials from the Jan 6 committee and the classified documents found on Mar-la-Go are going to be a rich amount of evidences for indictments. Get your popcorn ready. It will be wild. 

Edited March 2, 2023 by Eric Loh
wrong word

[Tug]

I read this a bit differently to me the FBI were also worried about tarnishing their image by serving the ex president a search warrant furthermore all the enuendo aside the search was incredibly fruitful he was caught dead to rights hoarding and hiding top secret documents.I also think some of the FBI agents were concerned for their families and their personal safety we all know Donnie is a very vindictive nasty individual who has a sizable cult following 

[ozimoron]

10 hours ago, vandeventer said:

Yes the FBI wants to take Mr. Trump off the hook as he has done nothing wrong. But the FBI's hook is a big one, will it catch Sleepy Joe, or perhaps Hillary, time will only tell.

What happened to the FBI is conspiring with the democrats narrative?

[dotcalm]

5 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Your wait wouldn't be long before indictments start coming in beginning with Georgia. By any standard measure, his effort to cajole and bully Raffensperger to steal an election could be prosecuted under Georgia law. He has crashed through legal and ethical boundaries in his criminal undertakings. Indictments from Jack Smith will soon step up the pace with his indictments for the 2 cases that he handled. Materials from the Jan 6 committee and the classified documents found on Mar-la-Go are going to be a rich amount of evidences for indictments. Get your popcorn ready. It will be wild. 

 

5 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Your wait wouldn't be long before indictments start coming in beginning with Georgia. By any standard measure, his effort to cajole and bully Raffensperger to steal an election could be prosecuted under Georgia law. He has crashed through legal and ethical boundaries in his criminal undertakings. Indictments from Jack Smith will soon step up the pace with his indictments for the 2 cases that he handled. Materials from the Jan 6 committee and the classified documents found on Mar-la-Go are going to be a rich amount of evidences for indictments. Get your popcorn ready. It will be wild. 

So, you cannot present the "sizeable evidence" you claim the SC has?

 

You sir, are spreading misinformation and making false statements. You should state up front you are expressing your own opinion rather than making false claims you cannot corroborate.

 

How about Trumps call to Raffensperger..., and the criminality, ex culpability? Can you describe what evidence exists indicating criminality during Trump's phone call with Raffensperger? Any evidence, ANYTHING?

 

Edited March 2, 2023 by dotcalm

[dotcalm]

41 minutes ago, dotcalm said:

Materials from the Jan 6 committee

What "material" support a finding of criminality of any actions of Trump?

 

Can you cite just one example of evidence of a crime committed by Trump concerning the 1/6 protests?

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, dotcalm said:

What "material" support a finding of criminality of any actions of Trump?

 

Can you cite just one example of evidence of a crime committed by Trump concerning the 1/6 protests?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? You do know that the Special Counsel Jack Smith is investigating Trump, right? He recently subpoenaed Ivanka Trump which is a sign that indictments are coming soon.

 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, dotcalm said:

What "material" support a finding of criminality of any actions of Trump?

 

Can you cite just one example of evidence of a crime committed by Trump concerning the 1/6 protests?

Here's a summary of the possible criminal charges against Trump from the J6 committee

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64034782

Here's a link to the J6 committee report as well as links to supporting materials

https://www.govinfo.gov/collection/january-6th-committee-final-report?path=/gpo/January 6th Committee Final Report and Supporting Materials Collection/Final Report

 

[Eric Loh]

10 hours ago, dotcalm said:

 

So, you cannot present the "sizeable evidence" you claim the SC has?

 

You sir, are spreading misinformation and making false statements. You should state up front you are expressing your own opinion rather than making false claims you cannot corroborate.

 

How about Trumps call to Raffensperger..., and the criminality, ex culpability? Can you describe what evidence exists indicating criminality during Trump's phone call with Raffensperger? Any evidence, ANYTHING?

 

You can live in your denial fantasy but you have to accept certain facts on the judiciary front. Federal prosecutors fiery court filing in August regarding the classified documents found at Mar-la-go and efforts by Trump to obstruct the investigation are violations of Espionage Act, Improper handling of federal records and obstruction of a federal investigation. The Jan 6 committee treasure trove of findings have uncovered enough evidence to indict Trump. Jack Smith has subpoenaed Pence, Ivanka and Jared moving up the ladder for possible indictment of Trump. Trump's phone call prompted the Georgia criminal investigation by Willis. The foreperson has given hints about possible indictments. All these have freaked out Trump as he lashed out with unhinged rants attacking prosecutors and family members. He looks like a guilty and desperate man living in fear of impending criminal charges. 

[ozimoron]

The lying party.

 

Jim Jordan's FBI 'whistleblowers' were paid by Trump ally and spread J6 conspiracy theories

 

A trio of witnesses being called as "whistleblowers" by the GOP committee investigating the "weaponization" of government were paid off by a Trump ally and spread conspiracy theories, reported The New York Times on Thursday.

 

"The roster of witnesses, whose interviews and statements are detailed in a 316-page report compiled by Democrats that was obtained by The New York Times, suggests that Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, the chairman of the panel, has so far relied on people who do not meet the definition of a whistle-blower and who have engaged in partisan conduct that calls into question their credibility," said the report. "And it raises questions about whether Republicans, who have said that investigating the Biden administration is a top goal, will be able to deliver on their ambitious plans to uncover misdeeds at the highest levels."

 

https://www.rawstory.com/fbi-whistleblowers/

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

The lying party.

 

Jim Jordan's FBI 'whistleblowers' were paid by Trump ally and spread J6 conspiracy theories

 

A trio of witnesses being called as "whistleblowers" by the GOP committee investigating the "weaponization" of government were paid off by a Trump ally and spread conspiracy theories, reported The New York Times on Thursday.

 

"The roster of witnesses, whose interviews and statements are detailed in a 316-page report compiled by Democrats that was obtained by The New York Times, suggests that Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, the chairman of the panel, has so far relied on people who do not meet the definition of a whistle-blower and who have engaged in partisan conduct that calls into question their credibility," said the report. "And it raises questions about whether Republicans, who have said that investigating the Biden administration is a top goal, will be able to deliver on their ambitious plans to uncover misdeeds at the highest levels."

 

https://www.rawstory.com/fbi-whistleblowers/

As the article pointed out, these people are basically conspiracy theorists. And even if they weren't being paid by Trump supporters, the fact is that they don't qualify as the kind of whistle-blower who worked inside an organization accused of corruption and is a personal witness to that corruption.

 

[ozimoron]

wait, there's more lies

 

Inside Jim Jordan’s Disastrous Search for a ‘Deep State’ Whistleblower

Trump officials and GOP lawmakers are working together to deliver on Jordan's promise to reveal an anti-Trump conspiracy. So far, they've produced a 'dumpster fire'

 

In early February, Republicans brought an FBI veteran to Capitol Hill whom they hoped would expose a “deep state conspiracy” among Democrats and their accomplices in the intelligence community. The GOP witness was part of a network of “whistleblowers” — funneled to congressional Republicans’ new Weaponization of Government panel by allies of Donald Trump — to reveal covert attacks on the former president and broad, anti-conservative discrimination.

 

In the interview, the witness, former FBI supervisory intelligence analyst George Hill, had admitted he had little or no firsthand knowledge of alleged “deep state” scandals. Instead, he brought baggage of his own: a history of inflammatory commentary on social media.

 

According to portions of transcripts reviewed by Rolling Stone and sources familiar with the exchange, Hill repeatedly declined to respond to the questions and cited his First Amendment rights.

 

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/jim-jordan-weaponization-committee-trump-deep-state-1234690041/

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

wait, there's more lies

 

Inside Jim Jordan’s Disastrous Search for a ‘Deep State’ Whistleblower

Trump officials and GOP lawmakers are working together to deliver on Jordan's promise to reveal an anti-Trump conspiracy. So far, they've produced a 'dumpster fire'

 

In early February, Republicans brought an FBI veteran to Capitol Hill whom they hoped would expose a “deep state conspiracy” among Democrats and their accomplices in the intelligence community. The GOP witness was part of a network of “whistleblowers” — funneled to congressional Republicans’ new Weaponization of Government panel by allies of Donald Trump — to reveal covert attacks on the former president and broad, anti-conservative discrimination.

 

In the interview, the witness, former FBI supervisory intelligence analyst George Hill, had admitted he had little or no firsthand knowledge of alleged “deep state” scandals. Instead, he brought baggage of his own: a history of inflammatory commentary on social media.

 

According to portions of transcripts reviewed by Rolling Stone and sources familiar with the exchange, Hill repeatedly declined to respond to the questions and cited his First Amendment rights.

 

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/jim-jordan-weaponization-committee-trump-deep-state-1234690041/

A "whistleblower" who takes the Fifth. It is to laugh.

[onthedarkside]

A post with unattributed quotes has been removed, those quotes came from a site seperate to CNN and were not included with a link to the source.

 

If your going to copy quotes then a link must be provided from a credible source.

 

Replies also removed

[dotcalm]

13 hours ago, placeholder said:

Here's a summary of the possible criminal charges against Trump from the J6 committee

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64034782

No can do:

 

"The committee cannot charge Mr Trump or his associates themselves, and the justice department is not obligated to follow the committee's referrals."

(from the BC link u quoted)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64034782

 

The committee used the term "argued", "believes", and other loose meaningless terms to advance their nonsense and unfounded claim of insurrection which the FBI stated did not take place, here are the J6 statements (from the BBC article u quoted) which in no way amount to evidence but merely their opinions:

Conspiracy to defraud the United States

"The committee believes Mr Trump"

 

Conspiracy to make a false statement

"The committee claims Mr Trump and his backers' planned to submit"

 

Insurrection

"The committee argued that Mr Trump encouraged his supporters to come to Washington and cause havoc..."

 

"believes", "claims", "argues" are not evidence, at least not in the American judicial system. So, there, again, there is NO evidence of criminality. If it was then everyone and anyone could be accused of a crime, any crime and prosecuted on he/she's say so. Sorry, it don't work like that.

 

 

Edited March 3, 2023 by dotcalm

[ozimoron]

Just now, dotcalm said:

No can do:

 

"The committee cannot charge Mr Trump or his associates themselves, and the justice department is not obligated to follow the committee's referrals."

(from the BC link u quoted)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64034782

 

The committee used the term "argued", "believes", and other loose meaningless terms to advance their nonsense and unfounded claim of insurrection which the FBI stated did not take place, here are the J6 statements (from the BBC article u quoted) which in no way amount to evidence but merely their opinions:

Conspiracy to defraud the United States

"The committee believes Mr Trump"

 

Conspiracy to make a false statement

"The committee claims Mr Trump and his backers' planned to submit"

 

Insurrection

"The committee argued that Mr Trump encouraged his supporters to come to Washington and cause havoc..."

 

"believes", "claims", "argues" are not evidence, at least not in the American judicial system. So, there, again, there is NO evidence of criminality. If it was then everyone and anyone could be accused of a crime, any crime and prosecuted on he/she's say so. Sorry, it don't work like that.

 

 

He said "from" the J6 Committee, not "by" the J6 Committee. It is common knowledge that the J6 committee made referrals to the DoJ. The AG appointed a special counsel to investigate. It will be the Attorney General who indicts Trump.

[placeholder]

32 minutes ago, dotcalm said:

No can do:

 

"The committee cannot charge Mr Trump or his associates themselves, and the justice department is not obligated to follow the committee's referrals."

(from the BC link u quoted)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64034782

 

The committee used the term "argued", "believes", and other loose meaningless terms to advance their nonsense and unfounded claim of insurrection which the FBI stated did not take place, here are the J6 statements (from the BBC article u quoted) which in no way amount to evidence but merely their opinions:

Conspiracy to defraud the United States

"The committee believes Mr Trump"

 

Conspiracy to make a false statement

"The committee claims Mr Trump and his backers' planned to submit"

 

Insurrection

"The committee argued that Mr Trump encouraged his supporters to come to Washington and cause havoc..."

 

"believes", "claims", "argues" are not evidence, at least not in the American judicial system. So, there, again, there is NO evidence of criminality. If it was then everyone and anyone could be accused of a crime, any crime and prosecuted on he/she's say so. Sorry, it don't work like that.

 

 

As You follow the link to the January 6 reports homepage, you would note that there are several links to evidence.

[placeholder]

36 minutes ago, dotcalm said:

No can do:

 

"The committee cannot charge Mr Trump or his associates themselves, and the justice department is not obligated to follow the committee's referrals."

(from the BC link u quoted)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64034782

 

The committee used the term "argued", "believes", and other loose meaningless terms to advance their nonsense and unfounded claim of insurrection which the FBI stated did not take place, here are the J6 statements (from the BBC article u quoted) which in no way amount to evidence but merely their opinions:

Conspiracy to defraud the United States

"The committee believes Mr Trump"

 

Conspiracy to make a false statement

"The committee claims Mr Trump and his backers' planned to submit"

 

Insurrection

"The committee argued that Mr Trump encouraged his supporters to come to Washington and cause havoc..."

 

"believes", "claims", "argues" are not evidence, at least not in the American judicial system. So, there, again, there is NO evidence of criminality. If it was then everyone and anyone could be accused of a crime, any crime and prosecuted on he/she's say so. Sorry, it don't work like that.

 

 

And I don't understand why you included that explanation from the BBC about the limitation on the committee's powers. Do you believe that the committee investigating Hunter Biden has prosecutorial powers? I've got news for you: no house or senate committee has the power to indict anyone or sentence anyone on criminal charges.

[candide]

3 hours ago, ozimoron said:

The lying party.

 

Jim Jordan's FBI 'whistleblowers' were paid by Trump ally and spread J6 conspiracy theories

 

A trio of witnesses being called as "whistleblowers" by the GOP committee investigating the "weaponization" of government were paid off by a Trump ally and spread conspiracy theories, reported The New York Times on Thursday.

 

"The roster of witnesses, whose interviews and statements are detailed in a 316-page report compiled by Democrats that was obtained by The New York Times, suggests that Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, the chairman of the panel, has so far relied on people who do not meet the definition of a whistle-blower and who have engaged in partisan conduct that calls into question their credibility," said the report. "And it raises questions about whether Republicans, who have said that investigating the Biden administration is a top goal, will be able to deliver on their ambitious plans to uncover misdeeds at the highest levels."

 

https://www.rawstory.com/fbi-whistleblowers/

Coming from Jim Jordan, we knew it was <deleted>. It just confirms it.

[candide]

1 hour ago, dotcalm said:

No can do:

 

"The committee cannot charge Mr Trump or his associates themselves, and the justice department is not obligated to follow the committee's referrals."

(from the BC link u quoted)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64034782

 

The committee used the term "argued", "believes", and other loose meaningless terms to advance their nonsense and unfounded claim of insurrection which the FBI stated did not take place, here are the J6 statements (from the BBC article u quoted) which in no way amount to evidence but merely their opinions:

Conspiracy to defraud the United States

"The committee believes Mr Trump"

 

Conspiracy to make a false statement

"The committee claims Mr Trump and his backers' planned to submit"

 

Insurrection

"The committee argued that Mr Trump encouraged his supporters to come to Washington and cause havoc..."

 

"believes", "claims", "argues" are not evidence, at least not in the American judicial system. So, there, again, there is NO evidence of criminality. If it was then everyone and anyone could be accused of a crime, any crime and prosecuted on he/she's say so. Sorry, it don't work like that.

 

 

The conclusions from the committee are not the evidence. The evidence is in the testimonies by trusted Republicans (not <deleted> fake paid whistleblowers with conspiracy theories records), messages, recordings and documents.

 

Anyway, nice to see that you adhere to new principles re. producing evidence. When do you start apply them to your own posts?

Edited March 3, 2023 by candide

[dotcalm]

42 minutes ago, candide said:

The conclusions from the committee are not the evidence. The evidence is in the testimonies by trusted Republicans (not <deleted> fake paid whistleblowers with conspiracy theories records), messages, recordings and documents.

 

Anyway, nice to see that you adhere to new principles re. producing evidence. When do you start apply them to your own posts?

I don't need evidence", refer to the links and if you disagree with my conclusion(s) or comments based on the supporting reference links, refute them, or try to if you think you are up to it, or not.

 

Up to you, but the gaslighting is not required, and if you don't like or agree with my comments you are welcome to not read them, I couldn't care less one way or the other. At least you read them, but seem unable to add anything valuable to the conversation?

[candide]

1 hour ago, dotcalm said:

I don't need evidence", refer to the links and if you disagree with my conclusion(s) or comments based on the supporting reference links, refute them, or try to if you think you are up to it, or not.

 

Up to you, but the gaslighting is not required, and if you don't like or agree with my comments you are welcome to not read them, I couldn't care less one way or the other. At least you read them, but seem unable to add anything valuable to the conversation?

Sorry, I thought what was discussed was evidence. Was I wrong?

 

You comnented on the conclusions of the report, from a committee, not on the evidence produced.

 

The evidence is displayed in the other link, not the BBC article.. Now if you want to discuss about evidence, and possibly contest the evidence produced, you are welcomed to comment on it..

Here's the link again:

https://www.govinfo.gov/collection/january-6th-committee-final-report?path=/gpo/January 6th Committee Final Report and Supporting Materials Collection/Final Report

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/2/2023 at 11:00 PM, dotcalm said:

While you're at it, can you review Trumps call, in it's entirety, with Raffensperger and point out where Trump committed a crime.

While no crime has yet been proven in a court of law, who knows what the future holds for Mr Trump, but in the meantime it's a pity that so many ignore "innocent till proven guilty".

Personally, I hope he's found guilty of something that will eliminate him from the presidential contenders in 24, as I greatly fear that if he does stand he'll split the GOP vote and allow the Dems to keep the big chair and IMO that would be a catastrophe.

[Isaan sailor]

More “news” articles from leftist media.  Last week, CNN.  This time The Atlantic.  Next week Bezos’ WaPo, or perhaps MSNBC.  All red meat for liberals—enjoy.

[placeholder]

19 minutes ago, Isaan sailor said:

More “news” articles from leftist media.  Last week, CNN.  This time The Atlantic.  Next week Bezos’ WaPo, or perhaps MSNBC.  All red meat for liberals—enjoy.

Why the "quotes"? Are you claiming that the documents showing that Fox News Hosts didn't believe the claims of voting fraud are counterfeit. Not even Fox News, which produced those documents, is claiming that.

You seem to be operating on automatic pilot.