• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Feds received whistleblower evidence in 2017 alleging Clinton Foundation wrongdoing

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mach said:
j-mac, you politely asked on what crimes was SC appointment based on.
Russia hacking the DNC and it's release of those emails to help the Trump administration.
Trump's firing of the lead investigator in an investigation he wanted to stop.
Those are the two suspected crimes, that have evidence, and prompted the appointment of SC.
I fulfilled your request, but FYI I got that straight off wikipedia, it's not really a big mystery (it's sourced, read it if you like).



Who has?

Also, campaign finance violations are from the Attorney's office in the SDNY.
Mueller is still working the Russian meddling, along with any ties to the Trump campaign, and other matters that may arise..
From that I am expecting
- obstruction, possibly perjury, possibly conspiracy - Trump
- Stone perjury and hopefully conspiracy
- Corsi perjury and possibly conspiracy
- Don Jr. perjury, maybe conspiracy

Could be more for all we know, they have kept the lid on tight.
Click to expand...
And I appreciate your response Mach...

As for using Wiki for anything to me is suspicious, but, the bottom line is that we don't know, and will not know until the matter is concluded by Muller.

The sourcing on wiki points to a slew of articles all speculating on these matters.

If, what you are saying is that years of dragging the country through this crap fest is going to result in a handful of perjury cases, and some Russian nationals that will never see an American court, then I would say not only did I predict that, but that it was a terrible precedent for Democrats to set...God help us going forward...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Hatuey said:
The problem is that both were investigated. Republicans had half a dozen investigations going at one point on Hillary. None came to the conclusion the right desperately wanted. So they blamed Comey, they blamed Obama, and everything except the people carrying out the investigations that didnt justify the prosecutions they wanted to see.

Compare that to Mueller.



Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...
"Charities" are allowed to make unethical decisions with donors money. As far as I'm aware, it's not illegal for either Trump to have his "charity" buy a picture of him and more than it was illegal for the Clinton's to have their "charity" pay for Chelsea's wedding. Just unethical.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
cpwill said:
"Charities" are allowed to make unethical decisions with donors money. As far as I'm aware, it's not illegal for either Trump to have his "charity" buy a picture of him and more than it was illegal for the Clinton's to have their "charity" pay for Chelsea's wedding. Just unethical.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
We should hear from Huber Thursday....

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
 
j-mac said:
If, what you are saying is that years of dragging the country through this crap fest is going to result in a handful of perjury cases, and some Russian nationals that will never see an American court, then I would say not only did I predict that, but that it was a terrible precedent for Democrats to set...God help us going forward...
Click to expand...
You're clearly incorrect in two fundamental ways though.

1. The FBI and Trump's actions and his own Deputy AG's response, are the ones conducting these investigations based on criminal evidence.
NOT THE DEMOCRATS. Republicans control exec and house and senate, and DOJ is non-partisan and under the executive. Not counting the joke of a House investigation, and the ongoing Senate investigation, all Republican.
And this would have ended a year+ ago if Trump's campaign folks did not obstruct, and all cooperated from day one. Trump included. He's still lying about it.

2. Republicans pursued Bill for 4 years with whitewater ending in perjury trap about an affair, and impeached the president for it.
Republicans pursued Hillary for since...well, they are still harassing her, about the emails. Benghazi x8 + these past two years they have continued to pursue her even after being cleared over and over.
With no serious criminality, Republicans CHOOSE to investigate, based only on partisan harm.

Despite your protest, Republicans have factually set this precedent, and Democrats have yet to follow it.
 
cpwill said:
"Charities" are allowed to make unethical decisions with donors money. As far as I'm aware, it's not illegal for either Trump to have his "charity" buy a picture of him and more than it was illegal for the Clinton's to have their "charity" pay for Chelsea's wedding. Just unethical.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The Trump Foundation is NOT a "charity" it is a "private foundation" and not all of the rules that apply to "charities" apply to a "private foundation". However, one of the rules that DOES apply to a "private foundation" that does NOT apply to "charities" is the rule against "self-dealing".

An example of "self-dealing" would be if "The Donald Duck Foundation" were to purchase a bigger than life size portrait of its founder (Mr. D. Duck) and then give it to Mr. Duck to hang in Mr. Duck's "D. Duck Inc." office that was located in "Duck Tower".

As for the Clinton Foundation paying for Ms. C. Clinton's wedding, you can find ALL of the shockingly illegal details HERE.

As you can see, the situation with respect to Mr. Duck's "self-dealing" and Ms. C. Clinton's wedding expenses are 100% identical.

Right?
 
cpwill said:
"Charities" are allowed to make unethical decisions with donors money. As far as I'm aware, it's not illegal for either Trump to have his "charity" buy a picture of him and more than it was illegal for the Clinton's to have their "charity" pay for Chelsea's wedding. Just unethical.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

er uh CP, did you ever figure out that "paid for Chelsea's wedding" was a lie? At some point even you have to realize you are being lied to.
 
cpwill said:
"Charities" are allowed to make unethical decisions with donors money. As far as I'm aware, it's not illegal for either Trump to have his "charity" buy a picture of him and more than it was illegal for the Clinton's to have their "charity" pay for Chelsea's wedding. Just unethical.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Actually it WOULD be illegal for Mr. Trump's "charity" to pay for something that Mr. Trump would become the beneficial owner of and it would also be illegal for Ms. Clinton's "charity" to pay for her daughter's wedding.

Of course the fact that Ms. Clinton's "charity" did NOT pay for her daughter's wedding does not change the fact that it would have been illegal for it to have done so had it done so.

On the other hand, the fact that Mr. Trump's "charity" DID pay for the painting does not change the fact that it would have been illegal for it to have done so had it done so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom