Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
BUT WAIT!
Just when we thought it was all over and there was no one new involved.... Surprise! Yet another name comes forward and now they want to interview him as part of the investigation!
Meet David Geovanis, who went to school with Trump at Wharton and then went to work in - you guessed it! - Russia. It seems he owned the land Trump wanted to build his hotel on in Moscow. Of course, David Geovanis works for Oleg Deripaska who is tied into (Surprise!) Paul Manafort....
You just can't make this shit up.
|
Wrong. Trump was not planning to build in Moscow. Some other people were planning to build in Moscow, and they were hoping to license the Trump name. That's it. OMG impeach! LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
So over a dozen investigations into Hillary turned up.... Nothing. One investigation into Trump returned with over thirty indictments, people pleading guilty left and right, and people going to prison. I mean, Trump's campaign manager is actually in prison right now.
But hey.... Those emails huh?
|
This is also false.
FBI’s top lawyer believed Hillary Clinton should face charges, but was talked out of it
For most of the past three years, the FBI has tried to portray its top leadership as united behind ex-Director James Comey’s decision not to pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for transmitting classified information over her insecure, private email server.
Although in the end that may have been the case, we now are learning that Comey’s top lawyer, then-FBI General Counsel James Baker, initially believed Clinton deserved to face criminal charges, but was talked out of it “pretty late in the process.”
ADVERTISEMENT
The revelation is contained in testimony Baker gave to House investigators last year. His testimony has not been publicly released, but I was permitted to review a transcript.
During questioning by Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), Baker was unequivocal about his early view that Clinton should face criminal charges.
“I have reason to believe that you originally believed it was appropriate to charge Hillary Clinton with regard to violations of law — various laws, with regard to mishandling of classified information. Is that accurate?” Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor, asked Baker.
Baker paused to gain his lawyer’s permission to respond, and then answered, “Yes.”
He later explained why he came to that conclusion, and how his mind was changed:
“So, I had that belief initially after reviewing, you know, a large binder of her emails that had classified information in them,” he said. “And I discussed it internally with a number of different folks, and eventually became persuaded that charging her was not appropriate because we could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — we, the government, could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — she had the intent necessary to violate (the law).”
Asked when he was persuaded to change his mind, Baker said: “Pretty late in the process, because we were arguing about it, I think, up until the end.”
Baker made clear that he did not like the activity Clinton had engaged in: “My original belief after — well, after having conducted the investigation and towards the end of it, then sitting down and reading a binder of her materials — I thought that it was alarming, appalling, whatever words I said, and argued with others about why they thought she shouldn’t be charged.” ... article continues...
-----------------------
But yeah I'm sure she didn't do
anything wrong! Not her!!
