I've posted your remarks in quotes below and then responded with bullet points. As an aside, I posted a lot of evidence from press and government reports yesterday in my response to Bonsack's disingenuous request asking for such, so you can refer to that for more detail. I won't repeat it here.

"AGs and prosecutors are not fishing. They are investigating specific actions and they are indeed considering specific criminal charges against Trump. These include the US Attorney for DC who has stated he is considering incitement charges for 1/6, while the Manhattan DA and NY AG are considering charges related to tax fraud and campaign finance violations."
-- AGs make subjective and sometimes political determinations when deciding to pursue a case. This particular AG is an ambitious, Trump-hating Dem, and that's an important variable in evaluating the motivation for prosecution here. If he can prove a case, great, but until then, his comments and actions should be viewed as nothing more than politicized innuendo.
-- No specific crime involving Trump has been alleged. There is no "specific action", as you say, taken by Trump that is being investigated by the NYAG. Insinuations about "tax fraud" and "campaign finance violations" (LOLOLOLOLOLOL) are just imprecise speculation. I can accuse you right now of "tax fraud" with the exact same veracity that this AG has regarding Trump -- i.e., none.
-- The AG needs to identify and prove a specific crime and has not done so. They are clearly just digging for something -- anything -- they can find, which is not how our justice system works. This is a classic fishing expedition. As Beria quipped, "Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime." That's all this is. It's a disgrace. Same with Russia collusion -- an investigation in search of a crime targeted at one single individual.
-- Although I was not referring to the DC "case" in my post, I'll address it since you brought it up. Unlike the NY case, at least in the DC case there is an actual identifiable crime that was committed (the Capitol incursions, etc.), although those do not involve Trump. The incitement case is stupid, dangerous and provably false, but I have no doubt that the DC attorney will try to make it, especially given the jury pool he'd have to work with. I wouldn't be surprised if attorneys elsewhere try to do the same, including in civil court, so I guess we're in agreement on that point.

"Nobody has been charged, much less with a felony, for leaking Trump’s tax returns nor has there been any serious discussion of that happening."
-- I never said anyone had been charged. I pointed out the obvious that 1) someone indisputably leaked Trump's tax returns to the media (which happily colluded in the crime, of course) and 2) leaking tax returns is indisputably a felony.

"The DOJ IG determined that the Obama administration did not illegally spy on the Trump campaign. He found no evidence of intentional malfeasance or political bias in any actions taken. Obamagate is a lie."
-- This is false in myriad ways, but it also was not my only point on this matter nor THE only point on this matter. There's four years of mountainous evidence proving what happened here well above and beyond what Obama's IG's limited investigation delved into, and it would take an entire book to lay it out, so I'll just hit some highlights.
-- FISA warrants themselves were declared illegal due to the subsquently proven lack of predicate and the fraud perpetrated on the FISA court by the FBI/DoJ.
-- Multiple players in this government scandal (Strzok, Page, McCabe, Comey, Wolfe, Boente, Clinesmith, Ohr, etc.) were fired, demoted, reassigned and/or referred for prosecution as a result of their misconduct during this disgrace. The FBI's own attorney forged evidence and then lied to the FBI about it. Name me another investigation in history where this amount of across-the-board misconduct occurred. Explain to me why anyone would think this investigation was legitimate, given the manifest evidence of government misconduct -- PROVEN and ADMITTED -- throughout.
-- The IG -- notably an Obama appointee (LOL) -- did not say there was no intentional malfeasance or political bias. He said he couldn't "prove" political bias, which is not the same thing as saying that there was none. The point is irrelevant anyway, as 1) no one could "prove" policital bias ever (although in this case it's as clear as day), and 2) political bias is not necessary to prove the obvious misconduct on the part of the investigators. Notably, Horowitz was unable in his investigation to compel documents or testimony from anyone no longer working for the government. Additionally, he issued his report in 2019, before a ton of additional evidence was finally pried out of the hands of the DoJ/FBI in 2020 by Grenell and Ratcliffe.
-- The actual PROVEN and ADMITTED collusion between a presidential campaign and foreign countries/spies -- i.e., the Hillary/Steele dossier -- was never even investigated, which says all that needs to be said about the inherent and obvious bias in this particular process.

"Who has been charged with a felony for leaking documents related to the alleged spying/Obamagate? Name names."
-- I didn't say that anyone had been charged -- meaning in a court of law -- to have leaked confidential docs. I said docs had been leaked feloniously. Both Michael Wolfe and James Comey were found to have done so -- and admitted to doing so under oath -- which is a felony. So, those are two names. Obviously, more leaking occurred, as additional leaked info appeared in the media, but no one has been identified as the leaker. That Comey and Wolfe were not charged in court with these felonies is just one more example of how biased and corrupt the process was. Ditto for McCabe not being prosecuted. Ditto for Clinton not being prosecuted. Both of them admitted to committing felonies, but neither were prosecuted.

"The Mueller team was not 'entirely Democrat lawyers. Mueller himself is a Republican! (And by the way, he was in charge.) You have no idea whether Michael Cohen’s testimony will yet be used in bringing state charges against Trump in NY. Dan Abrams, a widely respected legal journalist, is quite certain Trump WILL face charges there. You ignore Michael Flynn’s guilty pleas. The judge in that case was seriously considering denying DOJ’s corrupt request to allow Flynn to withdraw those pleas but then Trump pardoned Flynn, making the matter moot. And lastly, you ignore the dozens of Mueller indictments of Russians who will never be brought to justice in this country."
-- I covered the IC attorneys' Dem affiliations in my post to Bonsack yesterday. So refer to that.
-- Mueller being a "Republican" is irrelevant. First, I never made that point -- I referred to the attorneys actually doing the work, not figurehead Mueller. Second, Mueller is a Rep in the same way Romney and McCain are -- establishment Never Trumpers. There's no difference between them and the Dems on a matter involving Trump. Third, as he demonstrated in his congressional testimony, Mueller had little grasp of what was going on in the investigation, IMO. It demonstrated, as had already been alleged, that he was just an incompetent figurehead put in place to give the whole crooked enterprise an air of legitimacy for the gullible. For the true head, look at Weissman, and take a peak at his past political comments, as well as his prosecutorial record (e.g., Enron/Aurthur Andersen/Merrill).
-- Flynn case, LOL. This is the poster-child for prosecutorial misconduct.
1) The whole thing was an entrapment exercise. The FBI agents already had a copy of the Flynn/Kislyak transcript before they even met with him.
2) The meeting was arranged, for obvious reasons, in violation of protocol that counsel was to be notified in advance of any such meeting with an incoming senior official.
3) The agents themselves reported after the meeting with Flynn that they did not think he was lying.
4) The FBI claimed it "lost" the agents' original 302s, providing only doctored second-hand 302s as evidence of anything upon discovery.
5) Flynn steadfastly maintained his innocence for months until the investigation bankrupted him. It was only after the FBI/DoJ/IC threatened to go after his son that he pled guilty in order to protect him. Any admission obtained under duress is not a valid admission, as you should know.
6) The FBI never, despite a court order, showed him the Brady materials required proving his innocence (i.e., that the FBI agents said they didn't think he was lying, the call transcript).
7) Once Flynn (through Powell) was able to extract some exculpatory Brady material (which had been illegally withheld) and understand how his original legal team had a massive conflict of interest in the case, he promptly withdrew his coerced guilty plea and reasserted his innocence.
8) Regardless of all of the above, the finally released transcript of the call ITSELF showed that he had never lied to begin with.

-- The indictments against the Russian companies appear issued to provide some cover for the Russian allegations to begin with. The IC bet on the Russian companies never showing up in court to defend themselves. When instead the Russian co.'s did show up to defend themselves, the IC was screwed. That was several years ago -- have you heard a peep about those cases since? I didn't think so.
-- If you want to hang your hat on Cohen's testimony being of any value in a court of law, be my guest. Did you also buy Avenatti's act?

[Post edited by Los Angeles Hoo at 01/31/2021 3:44PM]