Looks like the Mueller team took a page out of the Evita playbook . Several dozen phones belonging to members of Inspector Javert 's Russia collusion hoax investigation team were wiped out before the Justice Department’s IG was able to review the phones. Congressional Repubs are looking to find out if there was a widespread intentional effort to conceal information from the IG and suggested that the coordinated effort could amount to “anticipatory obstruction of justice.” Sen. Grassley wrote to Barr and and FBI Director Christopher Wray “It appears that Special Counsel Mueller’s team may have deleted federal records that could be key to better understanding their decision-making process as they pursued their investigation and wrote their report . Indeed, many officials apparently deleted the records after the DOJ Inspector General began his inquiry into how the Department mishandled Crossfire Hurricane.”“Based on this new information, the number of times and the stated reasons for the deletions calls into question whether or not it was a widespread intentional effort,”

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...-phones-412757

I guess they watched as HC got away with it, so it seemed reasonable for them to give it a go. And it will likely turn out that way. I doubt that anything will ever come of it.

Defense against a corrupted DOJ is the likely answer.

So they wiped their cell phones clean as a defense against the DOJ? What??!!

Against a CORRUPTED DOJ.

Yeah. Right. Mueller's ultra holy band of crusaders had to wipe their cell phones clean to get rid of evidence of their right-doing? Well, if that's your theory, then go for it.

I did, as a corrupted DOJ is hardly a compliment. nor is my opinion they are intentionally incompetent at this point in time.

You have no evidence that Trump's DOJ is corrupt. Your hatred of Trump colors all of your opinions of him.

No hatred involved just a deep distrust of the dufus and his ilk, because he lies, cheats and steals and surrounds himself with unsavory sycophants and criminals. Maybe you see it different, but that's okay.

the DOJ was corrupted under the auspice of Mueller and then Comey. Mueller's team is just doing more damage control. The truth is that they knew early in their investigation that there was nothing there . No collusion etc. They kept the investigation going for the sole purpose of trying to entrap Trump into an obstruction of justice case . They failed at that too .

Pretty much how it goes. Many accusations, but little evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

the DOJ was corrupted under the auspice of Mueller and then Comey. Mueller's team is just doing more damage control. The truth is that they knew early in their investigation that there was nothing there . No collusion etc. They kept the investigation going for the sole purpose of trying to entrap Trump into an obstruction of justice case . They failed at that too .

---

You are the best spinner I've ever seen Tom, BARR none! Pun intended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Pretty much how it goes. Many accusations, but little evidence.

---

You mean allegations. Plenty from both sides there.

And again. Many accusations with no supporting evidence at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

And again. Many accusations with no supporting evidence at all.

---

How much has Trump (Trump properties, etc.) profited during his presidency?

I don't know. How much? And if they have profited, like most other businesses have, then what is wrong with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I don't know. How much? And if they have profited, like most other businesses have, then what is wrong with that?

---

It's illegal for a president of the U.S. to profit while in office. He hasn't separated himself from his companies and has "encouraged" foreign leaders etc. to stay at his resorts. (Pssst, it's an ethics issue.)

I won't mention how Ivanka, the president's advisor, has been raking in profits.

Pretty sure it’s not. It is illegal for any elected official to profit from his or her position, but to profit otherwise is fine. Correct?? If ivanka is making money legally, then why do you seem resentful of that? Are you also resentful of the Obama’s financial success?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Pretty sure it’s not. It is illegal for any elected official to profit from his or her position, but to profit otherwise is fine. Correct?? If ivanka is making money legally, then why do you seem resentful of that? Are you also resentful of the Obama’s financial success?

---

The Trump family is making money illegally and unethically while occupying the WH.

"Donald Trump never really got out of business. Sure, he handed day-to-day management of his companies to his children, like a lot of tycoons who get preoccupied with other interests late in life. But the president held onto ownership of his assets after taking office, ensuring that he would continue to generate money while serving in the White House. From 2017 to 2019, the president’s businesses raked in an estimated $1.9 billion of revenue."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalex.../#6d08e9be1e13

Umm, "the Obama's success" is incorrect punctuation. You, Mr. Retired School Principal and Teacher, get an F.

How are they making money illegally and unethically?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

How are they making money illegally and unethically?

---

Read the Forbes article I linked.

Any correction to your apostrophe error so you can improve your grade?

I read the passage you copied. Nothing illegal. Your hatred of Trump is coloring your thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I read the passage you copied. Nothing illegal. Your hatred of Trump is coloring your thinking.

---

I don't hate him. I feel sorry for him, wish he'd get some serious help from a good psychiatrist or two, maybe spend 6-8 weeks in a mental ward being tested with the MMPI et al, and learning how to make an egg salad sandwich or French toast.

I’ve seen pity and I’ve seen hate. I think yours is a level of hate. Hope I’m wrong for your sake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I’ve seen pity and I’ve seen hate. I think yours is a level of hate.

---

I am a Christian. I don't hate. I'd love to go out for lunch with Trump, even if we went to McDonald's. (I'd have a Filet-O-Fish, a small fries, and a small Dr Pepper.)

Then perhaps you should stop making scandalous accusations for which you have no evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Then perhaps you should stop making scandalous accusations for which you have no evidence.

---

I'M scandalous??? Forbes isn't good enough? Okay, I'll google for more.

How about this?

The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives.

And this:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ent-businesses

So has Trump done that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

So has Trump done that?

---

He's "invited" foreign leaders to stay at his hotels and resorts (and they have) -- and not for free. Please google that yourself since you don't like my links..

In what way is that a violation of the law you posted?

I don't like your links because you seem to use them to be deceptive. Your angry accusations must, at some point, be backed with evidence. So far all you have is that he is successful in business and that he has supposedly invited foreign leaders to stay at his hotels, but you put "invited" in quotes and thus continue to appear to be deceptive. Did he invite them or not? If you say he did, then do you have any real evidence of that? If you don't, then why do you suggest it is true?

If you want him to be honest, then maybe you should try it yourself. If you have anything, then state it plainly. I read the Forbes article. There is not a single allegation of illegal behavior in the text.

Here is my favorite part of your supposedly damning Forbes passage. "But the president held onto ownership of his assets after taking office..." What do those morons think he's supposed to do with his assets? Is he supposed to just give them away so as not to hold "onto ownership"? That's got to be the dumbest thing I've heard. Some presidents put them into a blind trust, thus maintaining ownership but not control. Forbes said he turned over management to his children. I really don't care. If he can be pres and make money legally, then more power to him.

Maybe you don't care about his financial dealings while he is in the WH, but many have a problem with the leader of government hocking his wares, and promoting his financial interests while in office. It wasn't the kids pushing his ambassador to get a British golf tournament on his property, nor holding a global government meeting at his resort, or pressuring foreign leaders to dig up dirt on his political foes, or smoozing world leaders to stay at his hotels. His kids running his business is as believable as downplaying the virus to avoid a panic.

No dufus defenders that's really pee on your head, not rain, and he isn't selling you an umbrella, that's a non disclosure agreement, with a no responsibility clause at his maskless rallies. Disease spreads, he dithers, but don't panic, he gets tested and you don't. he goes after his foes, and pardons his criminal friends, and ex employees and partners in crime. You jump on Mueller, and Vlad runs buck wild.

Blame Obama, it's all his fault. yeah right.

Quote:

---

pressuring foreign leaders to dig up dirt on his political foes

---

You do realize that it was actually the Obama admin that did this to Trump?

If you ever come up with some real evidence to support illegal behavior, get back with us.

Naw it's just my turn to throw rocks like you righties did to Obama for 8 years, and I don't have to hold my nose or lie about my voting decisions.

No one here has lied about his voting decisions. As for holding your nose, if you can't smell the stench from the Biden camp, then your nose is basically dead.

Is that why you held your nose because of the dufus stench?

I said I held my nose because there are aspects of the Trump presidency I don't like. I've never hidden that. It's called being honest and it's what you are not willing to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

No dufus defenders that's really pee on your head, not rain, and he isn't selling you an umbrella, that's a non disclosure agreement, with a no responsibility clause at his maskless rallies. Disease spreads, he dithers, but don't panic, he gets tested and you don't. he goes after his foes, and pardons his criminal friends, and ex employees and partners in crime. You jump on Mueller, and Vlad runs buck wild.

Blame Obama, it's all his fault. yeah right.

---

You have a talent for summarizing, tal. Plus a touch of humor (smile).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I don't like your links because you seem to use them to be deceptive. Your angry accusations must, at some point, be backed with evidence. So far all you have is that he is successful in business and that he has supposedly invited foreign leaders to stay at his hotels, but you put "invited" in quotes and thus continue to appear to be deceptive. Did he invite them or not? If you say he did, then do you have any real evidence of that? If you don't, then why do you suggest it is true?

---

I'm angry? How do you get that out of what I post? I am probably the least angry person you will ever know. Anger is not in my wheelhouse.

When you invite someone to stay at your house, you don't have your hand out to be paid by your guest. Trump always has his hand out and expects that his foreign guests royally reimburse him. That's illegal and also unethical, against the emoluents clause.

Quote:

---

If you want him to be honest, then maybe you should try it yourself. If you have anything, then state it plainly. I read the Forbes article. There is not a single allegation of illegal behavior in the text.

---

I'll have to call you and read it to you with special emphasis on the parts you apparently glossed over.

Quote:

---

When you invite someone to stay at your house, you don't have your hand out to be paid by your guest. Trump always has his hand out and expects that his foreign guests royally reimburse him. That's illegal and also unethical, against the emoluents clause.

---

Then why did you use the word "invited"? And do you have evidence that they came and stayed at his hotels at his urging?

Quote:

---

I'll have to call you and read it to you with special emphasis on the parts you apparently glossed over.

---

You don't have to call. You can just post it right here. You know, the part where they said Trump did something illegal. Go ahead and post it here. I will wait patiently. I certainly wouldn't want to have "glossed over" anything important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Then why did you use the word "invited"?

---

N.B. tongue-in-cheek quote marks are around the word INVITED. Bwahahahaha!!!

Quote:

---

And do you have evidence that they came and stayed at his hotels at his urging?

---

Urging??? It was more like ... never mind. You'll say I'm angry.

Quote:

---

You don't have to call. You can just post it right here. You know, the part where they said Trump did something illegal. Go ahead and post it here. I will wait patiently.

---

Nooooo! I wanna call you! And pretend I'm ANGRY!