And it Begins:Special Prosecutor To Investigate Trump And Russia

[Tibs]

So amazing how the special prosecution has been rife with an incredible amount of leaking,

I can't think of a single leak that's come out from Mueller or the Special Counsel investigators. Surely you can you name them specifically, since you state it's been 'rife with an incredible amount of leaking.'

I generally agree, but am disturbed at the use of the FBI and DOJ for political ends, but whatever

Who is 'using' the FBI and DOJ for political ends? The FBI and DOJ have an ongoing criminal investigation signed off by and supervised by Trump appointed FBI and DOJ officials.

why are you allowed to reach a conclusion now, and those who think the whole thing is vastly too politicized and who demand either some evidence of collusion or an end to the endless should "wait"?

I'm not reaching a conclusion now. I have my theories based on what I've read and know as fact. I am fighting back against the lies and disinformation I read on this board day in and day out. I've been arguing for nearly two years dating back before the election that Trump's had troubling ties to the Russians going back decades. My concerns were amplified when Trump built his campaign around Manfort, Flynn and others with clear ties to Russia. We now know the Russians deliberately interfered in this election. Clearly, the FBI/DOJ had enough evidence to begin a counter intelligence investigation into the matter. We'll see what the facts bear out.

 

[Spike]

"NO ALLEGATIONS ANY AMERICANS WERE INVOLVED"

It's OVER!

WRAP IT UP!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Mueller indictments are great news for Donald Trump

The indictments Rod Rosenstein announced are good news for all Americans. The Russians are nailed. No Americans are involved. Time for Mueller to end this pursuit of the President and say President Trump is completely innocent.

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/13/17568976/indictments-giuliani-trump-mueller

 

[Tibs]

That's cute Spike. We may very well still be at the beginning of Mueller's indictments. Going after the small fish first, getting cooperation from lesser actors, tightening the noose along the way. By the book. Not an accident Bob Mueller was appointed to lead this investigation, he's the best in the business.

As I've been saying from day one, if Trump is truly innocent and has nothing to hide, he would have run to Mueller to clear his name under oath.

Maybe if you use bigger, bolder font next time it'd be more persuasive....or edit your post and add a faux-patriotic pic of Trump and Melanija Knavs with the Queen, that would work too.

 

[Spike]

Headline News Alert!


Mueller investigation finds no American involvement or Trump collusion in DNC election hack efforts.


Nothingburger News at 11

 

[Spike]

More Breaking News


Mueller Indicts More People Who Will Never Be Arrested

No evidence that any American who communicated with DCLeaks or Guccifer 2.0 knew they were communicating with the GRU. Roger Stone breathes a sigh of relief.

This prosecution was handed off to the National Security Division of DOJ presumably because Mueller’s team humiliated itself the last time they indicted random Russians.

The people in the indictment will never be apprehended. They won’t even be inconvenienced.

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/20...rt-mueller-indicts-people-will-never-arrested


------------------

Time to close the doors on the The Mueller clown circus.

WRAP IT UP!

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Thanks for proving my point on two fronts, Tim. The Russians have a strong track record of interfering in elections, a well known fact, and two, they've never come close to doing anything on this level in the United States as what they undertook in the 2016 US Presidential election. Not in breadth, not in scope, not regarding the number of contacts and communication with a particular US campaign team. America has never been attacked in this manner during a Presidential election. The level of sophistication of the attacks, using hacking tools, back channels, cyber currency et al. We now know there are direct and clear ties to the Russian military secret service. All the while the elected President has hemmed and hawed the whole way, sending out obtuse and purposefully misleading information and point blank lies about what happened. Why do you think he's done so? What reasons would he have to do so? I don't know, you tell me. Or we can wait for Mueller to explain it in plain English.

I don't think I've read a more tone deaf response.

I posted a source you have previously said you worship as Christians do the Bible - the Washington Post. Even the WashPo, which is on a warpath to overthrow your PRESIDENT says the Russian election meddling was a great, big, fat, greasy nothing burger. You simply refuse to digest that which doesn't meet your tastes. You are convinced, as evidenced by the hyperbole you use such as "they've NEVER come close to doing anything on this level in the USA..." oooh, oooh, oooh.

Except, well...facts be damned right?

Have Russia’s efforts to steer elections changed the results?

Let’s consider the 16 elections in which Russia appears to have tried to influence the results since 2015. Of these, two — Brexit in 2016 and the Czech Republic in 2017 — turned out the way the Kremlin apparently hoped, and seven had results that partly reflected Russian interests. One example from the second group is the 2017 French presidential elections. The National Front won an unprecedented amount of support — but the pro-European Union Emmanuel Macron won. Similarly, in the United States, Hillary Clinton was defeated, but U.S. sanctions against Russia remain in place. The others were the 2016 elections in Austria, Bulgaria, a referendum in the Netherlands, and the 2017 elections in Germany and the Netherlands.

Favorable outcomes in nine out of 16 elections may seem like a lot. But it’s not at all clear that Russia’s efforts made any difference. Other factors also affected the elections: increased immigration, for instance, and the perception that established party systems weren’t responding to ordinary voters’ concerns. In fact, only three election results can be plausibly attributed even partly to Russian efforts.

And even in these, a closer look shows that Russia’s actual influence is far from clear.

First, in April 2016, a Russian disinformation campaign may have helped sway Dutch voters to reject a nonbinding referendum on the E.U.-Ukraine Association Agreement. But maybe not. Many Dutch citizens had long resented European policymaking on a wider range of issues. In any case, the Dutch parliament ignored the results and enacted the Association Agreement.

Second, in November 2016, Bulgaria elected as president Rumen Radev, a pro-Moscow candidate who had received assistance from Russian intelligence. That prompted the pro-Brussels prime minister Boyko Borisov to resign. But Borisov’s party won a plurality in the March 2017 elections — and he returned as prime minister.

Finally, as the U.S. intelligence services have unanimously concluded, Russia was heavily involved in the 2016 U.S. election. In addition to releasing hacked emails that embarrassed Clinton, the Russian government appears to have created fake Facebook and Twitter accounts to distribute negative and often false news intended to stir up outrage.

But there are reasons to be skeptical of the claim that Russia swung the election for Trump. First, Russian information warriors produced far less fake news and polarizing rhetoric than did domestic and other international sources. Russia simply added to the already deafening cacophony of inflammatory rhetoric and misinformation.

Second, the hacked emails had little obvious impact. The first batch of Democratic National Committee emails was released in July 2016, amid the two party conventions — after which Clinton’s lead increased. Similarly, after WikiLeaks released John Podesta’s emails in October, Clinton’s support increased, apparently in response to such other campaign events as the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape. Trust in Clinton remained more or less the same throughout October — not what we’d expect to see if the emails had made a difference.

Of course, Russia may still have influenced the outcome. As FiveThirtyEight’s Harry Enten notes, “the drip, drip, drip” of these email releases “makes it all but impossible to measure their effect precisely.” And Trump won by such a thin margin that even a small Russian impact could have tipped the election.

But there is far stronger evidence that other factors were more critical. For instance, public opinion shifted suddenly after Oct. 28, when FBI Director James B. Comey announced that he was reopening an investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while serving as secretary of state. And the closeness of the election mostly resulted from polarization between Democrats and Republicans that long predates Russian President Vladimir Putin or the rise of Trump.

It’s true that Russia has been increasingly trying to meddle in Western elections. But it hasn’t gotten much for its efforts — and these efforts have often backfired. For instance, the U.S. uproar about Russian interference has almost certainly made it less likely that the United States will lift its sanctions. Thus, on balance, Putin’s expansion of Russian interference may not be in Russia’s interests.

So the WashPo's conclusion...their meddling did nothing. But they did have an effect in other country's elections. Not here. So for you to say they'd done nothing on a scale like what they did in 2016 in the USA is patently, ridiculously false.

 

[Steelworth]

“The conspirators corresponded with several Americans during the course of the conspiracy through the internet,” Rosenstein said. “There’s no allegation in this indictment that the Americans knew they were corresponding with Russian intelligence officers.”

Uh yeah, that's pretty much a wrap.

 

[Steeltime]

I can't think of a single leak that's come out from Mueller or the Special Counsel investigators. Surely you can you name them specifically, since you state it's been 'rife with an incredible amount of leaking.'

Mueller was appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on May 17, 2017, but the genesis for his appointment sprung from a leak about a conversation between then-FBI Director James Comey and President Trump about former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s contacts with the Russian ambassador during the transition.

A list of leaked information from the special counsel's office (where nobody else would have had the information to leak, Tibs):

• June 3, 2017: The Associated Press revealed Mueller’s team had taken over a criminal probe of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
• July 22, 2017: Two sources claiming direct knowledge told Reuters Mueller’s investigators were hoping to use evidence of money laundering or other financial crimes to pressure Manafort to cooperate in the collusion probe.
• August 3, 2017: Citing "people familiar with the matter," the Wall Street Journal reported a grand jury had been impaneled by Mueller. White House attorney Ty Cobb said at the time he was unaware of the grand jury’s existence.
• August 9, 2017: The Washington Post reported FBI agents conducted a predawn raid of Manafort’s Virginia home on July 26 to seize documents and other materials related to Mueller’s investigation. According to the Post, people familiar with the search said a warrant sought financial records and the evidence collected included binders Manafort had prepared for his congressional testimony.
• August 24, 2017: "A source close to the investigation" provided Fox News with new details of the raid of Manafort’s house and claimed it was “heavy-handed, designed to intimidate.”
• August 25, 2017: "People familiar with the matter" informed the Wall Street Journal that Mueller was investigating Flynn’s involvement in a private effort to obtain Hillary Clinton’s email from Russian hackers.
• August 28, 2017: According to NBC News, three sources said Mueller’s investigators were focused on Trump’s role in writing a response to media reports about a meeting between campaign officials and Russians at Trump Tower in June 2016.
• September 1, 2017: The Washington Post reported Mueller’s investigators had a copy of a draft letter prepared by Trump aide Stephen Miller to justify the firing of Comey in May 2017.
• September 20, 2017: Emails reportedly turned over to [B]Mueller’s team and Senate investigators[/B] leaked to the Washington Post revealed that Manafort offered to provide private briefings to a Russian billionaire with ties to the Kremlin during the 2016 campaign.
• October 4, 2017: Reuters cited three "sources familiar with the investigation" saying that Mueller’s team had taken over the FBI’s inquiries into a dossier of allegations regarding Trump’s Russia ties compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele. Two officials also reportedly told Reuters Mueller was looking into whether Manafort or others helped the Kremlin target hacking efforts and social media posts to influence the election.
• October 27, 2017: "Sources briefed on the matter" told CNN that the first charges in Mueller’s investigation had been filed under seal. The following Monday, charges were unsealed Manafort and campaign aide Robert Gates, as well as a guilty plea by former adviser George Papadopoulos.
•November 5, 2017: NBC News reported multiple sources said Mueller had enough evidence to bring charges against Flynn and his son. According to NBC, the FBI was also investigating a possible effort by Flynn to extradite a Muslim cleric in the U.S. whom Turkish President Recep Erdogan blamed for a coup attempt.
•November 16, 2017: The Wall Street Journal cited a "person familiar with the matter" reporting that Mueller's team had subpoenaed Russia-related documents from Trump's campaign, including documents and emails written by several campaign officials.
• December 2, 2017: Multiple "people familiar with the matter" told the Washington Post that former top counterintelligence official Peter Strzok was removed from Mueller’s team because of anti-Trump texts between him and an FBI attorney with whom he was having an affair. Details of many of those texts, which were under investigation by the Department of Justice Inspector General’s Office, have since been leaked to various media outlets.
• January 2, 2018: A source detailed the physical characteristics, clothing, race, and gender of grand jury members to the New York Post and alleged that the grand jury room “looks like a Bernie Sanders rally.”
• February 17, 2018: CNN cited anonymous sources stating that Gates was close to negotiating a plea deal with Mueller and that new charges against Manafort were being prepared. Less than a week later, Gates entered a guilty plea to conspiracy and lying to the FBI, and a superseding indictment was filed against Manafort.
• February 27, 2018: CNN reported that three "people familiar with the matter" said Mueller had recently questioned witnesses about Trump’s business activities in Russia and negotiations surrounding a potential Trump Tower in Moscow.
• March 2, 2018: Witnesses and others familiar with the investigation reportedly told NBC News Mueller’s team was asking questions about Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner’s business ties. The following week, NBC cited sources familiar with the matter saying Qatari officials withheld damaging information about the United Arab Emirates’ influence on Kushner from Mueller.
• March 3, 2018: According to the New York Times, Mueller was looking into attempts by the United Arab Emirates to buy political influence on Trump and the role of Lebanese-American businessman George Nader.
• March 4, 2018: Axios obtained a copy of a subpoena sent to a former Trump campaign official by Mueller’s team. Sam Nunberg later confirmed he was the source and spoke extensively to the media about the investigation.
• March 7, 2018: "People familiar with the matter" told the Washington Post Mueller had evidence from a cooperating witness that a secret meeting in Seychelles between a Trump ally and a Russian official prior to inauguration was an attempt to establish a back channel between the administration and the Kremlin.
• March 15, 2018: The New York Times reported that Mueller had subpoenaed documents from the Trump Organization.
• April 9, 2018: The New York Times learned federal investigators had raided Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s office and hotel room. Hours later, sources told the Washington Post Cohen was under investigation for possible bank fraud and campaign finance violations.
• April 30, 2018: The New York Times obtained a list of questions Mueller wanted to ask Trump. According to the Times, the list was prepared by Trump’s attorneys after speaking to investigators but it was not given to reporters by Trump's legal team.

http://wjla.com/news/nation-world/2...investigation-and-the-problems-they-may-cause

Seriously, you think leaks about subpoenas and the closed grand jury and the charges to be brought etc. came from somewhere other than the Mueller team? Wake up, Tibs.

Who is 'using' the FBI and DOJ for political ends? The FBI and DOJ have an ongoing criminal investigation signed off by and supervised by Trump appointed FBI and DOJ officials.

If you believe that the FBI and DOJ treated Hillary the same way they are now treating Trump, you are high. Not on life, just ******* high.

So why the differing treatment? Politics. Strzok believed (and wanted) a Hillary presidency and specifically wrote that he needed to "wrap up" the e-mail investigation before the election - his words.

And you believe that none of this was politicized? Holy cow.

I'm not reaching a conclusion now. I have my theories based on what I've read and know as fact. I am fighting back against the lies and disinformation I read on this board day in and day out. I've been arguing for nearly two years dating back before the election that Trump's had troubling ties to the Russians going back decades.

You suspected Trump of some Russian misdealings, knew he was a danger based on the Russia thing, have posted numerous speculative articles and "sources" about Trump being a Russian plant, but hey, you are keeping your options open and not reaching conclusions based on your suspicions.

Just like good 'ol Peter "we have to stop him" Strzok. Okay, sure.

My concerns were amplified when Trump built his campaign around Manfort, Flynn and others with clear ties to Russia.

Manafort took over the campaign in May of 2016, after Trump had secured the delegates necessary to get the nomination. He ran the convention. He had no role in policy. Papadoupolis was a very, very minor player in the campaign. He was basically using his position to try and advance his career - akin to a ticket taker at Dodger Stadium claiming to know Dodger players to gain some notoriety.

Trump did not "build his campaign" around people with "clear ties to Russia." He built his campaign around Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway, Mike Pence, David Bossie, Michael Glassner, Jim Murphy, John Mashburn, Alan Cobb, Barry Bennett, Brian Jack, Daniel Scavino, Hope Hicks, Justin McConney, Roger Stone, Sam Clovis, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and on and on.

https://ballotpedia.org/Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign_key_staff_and_advisors,_2016

Dozens upon dozens of names ... no Russia. NONE. So why don't you go ahead and fill us in on their "connections to Russia."

We now know the Russians deliberately interfered in this election. Clearly, the FBI/DOJ had enough evidence to begin a counter intelligence investigation into the matter. We'll see what the facts bear out.

Actually, the FBI did not have adequate evidence for a counter-intelligence investigation, and you are simply being duped by left-wing web sites on this point. The entire affair was primed by an FBI informant named Mifsud, who told Papadoupolis that the Russians had e-mails embarrassing to Clinton. Papadoupolis later told the Australian ambassador (Downer) that he knew of information that might be "damaging" to Clinton.

The FBI questioned Papadoupolis, and later accused him of lying about the timing of his contact with Mifsud (who by the way denies saying anything about Clinton or e-mails). That's it. This article spells out in detail the entire matter:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/george-papadopoulos-case-needs-closer-look/

So did Papadoupolis engage in illegal activity by speaking with Mifsud and/or Downer? No. Is he charged with conspiring or colluding with Russians? No. Is he alleged to have taken any steps to conspire with Russia about the election? Once again, NO.

His sole transgression was reportedly lying to the FBI about when he met with Mifsud. Nothing more. Not one ******* thing - NOT ONE - to do with Russian collusion or the election.

You need to stop reading these leftist sites, Tibs. Those guys just feed on the irrelevant and the idiotic conspiracy theories about Trump and Russia. Do your own research. Read NYT and WaPo articles on these issues, and then fact-check those articles with publications from the National Review and the Free Beacon. Don't be a slave to a lie, my man.

 

[Tibs]

Not a single one of those leaks can be attributed to Mueller, the Special Counsel investigators, the FBI or the DOJ. But thanks for putting the time in, A for effort.

As far as the rest of your verbose post, it just shows the distance Trump supporters will go to sugarcoat facts and events to try to somehow wash Trump clean. Polish the turd all you want, it's a free country.

 

[hamster]

Mueller was appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on May 17, 2017, but the genesis for his appointment sprung from a leak about a conversation between then-FBI Director James Comey and President Trump about former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s contacts with the Russian ambassador during the transition.

A list of leaked information from the special counsel's office (where nobody else would have had the information to leak, Tibs):

• June 3, 2017: The Associated Press revealed Mueller’s team had taken over a criminal probe of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
• July 22, 2017: Two sources claiming direct knowledge told Reuters Mueller’s investigators were hoping to use evidence of money laundering or other financial crimes to pressure Manafort to cooperate in the collusion probe.
• August 3, 2017: Citing "people familiar with the matter," the Wall Street Journal reported a grand jury had been impaneled by Mueller. White House attorney Ty Cobb said at the time he was unaware of the grand jury’s existence.
• August 9, 2017: The Washington Post reported FBI agents conducted a predawn raid of Manafort’s Virginia home on July 26 to seize documents and other materials related to Mueller’s investigation. According to the Post, people familiar with the search said a warrant sought financial records and the evidence collected included binders Manafort had prepared for his congressional testimony.
• August 24, 2017: "A source close to the investigation" provided Fox News with new details of the raid of Manafort’s house and claimed it was “heavy-handed, designed to intimidate.”
• August 25, 2017: "People familiar with the matter" informed the Wall Street Journal that Mueller was investigating Flynn’s involvement in a private effort to obtain Hillary Clinton’s email from Russian hackers.
• August 28, 2017: According to NBC News, three sources said Mueller’s investigators were focused on Trump’s role in writing a response to media reports about a meeting between campaign officials and Russians at Trump Tower in June 2016.
• September 1, 2017: The Washington Post reported Mueller’s investigators had a copy of a draft letter prepared by Trump aide Stephen Miller to justify the firing of Comey in May 2017.
• September 20, 2017: Emails reportedly turned over to [B]Mueller’s team and Senate investigators[/B] leaked to the Washington Post revealed that Manafort offered to provide private briefings to a Russian billionaire with ties to the Kremlin during the 2016 campaign.
• October 4, 2017: Reuters cited three "sources familiar with the investigation" saying that Mueller’s team had taken over the FBI’s inquiries into a dossier of allegations regarding Trump’s Russia ties compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele. Two officials also reportedly told Reuters Mueller was looking into whether Manafort or others helped the Kremlin target hacking efforts and social media posts to influence the election.
• October 27, 2017: "Sources briefed on the matter" told CNN that the first charges in Mueller’s investigation had been filed under seal. The following Monday, charges were unsealed Manafort and campaign aide Robert Gates, as well as a guilty plea by former adviser George Papadopoulos.
•November 5, 2017: NBC News reported multiple sources said Mueller had enough evidence to bring charges against Flynn and his son. According to NBC, the FBI was also investigating a possible effort by Flynn to extradite a Muslim cleric in the U.S. whom Turkish President Recep Erdogan blamed for a coup attempt.
•November 16, 2017: The Wall Street Journal cited a "person familiar with the matter" reporting that Mueller's team had subpoenaed Russia-related documents from Trump's campaign, including documents and emails written by several campaign officials.
• December 2, 2017: Multiple "people familiar with the matter" told the Washington Post that former top counterintelligence official Peter Strzok was removed from Mueller’s team because of anti-Trump texts between him and an FBI attorney with whom he was having an affair. Details of many of those texts, which were under investigation by the Department of Justice Inspector General’s Office, have since been leaked to various media outlets.
• January 2, 2018: A source detailed the physical characteristics, clothing, race, and gender of grand jury members to the New York Post and alleged that the grand jury room “looks like a Bernie Sanders rally.”
• February 17, 2018: CNN cited anonymous sources stating that Gates was close to negotiating a plea deal with Mueller and that new charges against Manafort were being prepared. Less than a week later, Gates entered a guilty plea to conspiracy and lying to the FBI, and a superseding indictment was filed against Manafort.
• February 27, 2018: CNN reported that three "people familiar with the matter" said Mueller had recently questioned witnesses about Trump’s business activities in Russia and negotiations surrounding a potential Trump Tower in Moscow.
• March 2, 2018: Witnesses and others familiar with the investigation reportedly told NBC News Mueller’s team was asking questions about Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner’s business ties. The following week, NBC cited sources familiar with the matter saying Qatari officials withheld damaging information about the United Arab Emirates’ influence on Kushner from Mueller.
• March 3, 2018: According to the New York Times, Mueller was looking into attempts by the United Arab Emirates to buy political influence on Trump and the role of Lebanese-American businessman George Nader.
• March 4, 2018: Axios obtained a copy of a subpoena sent to a former Trump campaign official by Mueller’s team. Sam Nunberg later confirmed he was the source and spoke extensively to the media about the investigation.
• March 7, 2018: "People familiar with the matter" told the Washington Post Mueller had evidence from a cooperating witness that a secret meeting in Seychelles between a Trump ally and a Russian official prior to inauguration was an attempt to establish a back channel between the administration and the Kremlin.
• March 15, 2018: The New York Times reported that Mueller had subpoenaed documents from the Trump Organization.
• April 9, 2018: The New York Times learned federal investigators had raided Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s office and hotel room. Hours later, sources told the Washington Post Cohen was under investigation for possible bank fraud and campaign finance violations.
• April 30, 2018: The New York Times obtained a list of questions Mueller wanted to ask Trump. According to the Times, the list was prepared by Trump’s attorneys after speaking to investigators but it was not given to reporters by Trump's legal team.

http://wjla.com/news/nation-world/2...investigation-and-the-problems-they-may-cause

Seriously, you think leaks about subpoenas and the closed grand jury and the charges to be brought etc. came from somewhere other than the Mueller team? Wake up, Tibs.




If you believe that the FBI and DOJ treated Hillary the same way they are now treating Trump, you are high. Not on life, just ******* high.

So why the differing treatment? Politics. Strzok believed (and wanted) a Hillary presidency and specifically wrote that he needed to "wrap up" the e-mail investigation before the election - his words.

And you believe that none of this was politicized? Holy cow.



You suspected Trump of some Russian misdealings, knew he was a danger based on the Russia thing, have posted numerous speculative articles and "sources" about Trump being a Russian plant, but hey, you are keeping your options open and not reaching conclusions based on your suspicions.

Just like good 'ol Peter "we have to stop him" Strzok. Okay, sure.



Manafort took over the campaign in May of 2016, after Trump had secured the delegates necessary to get the nomination. He ran the convention. He had no role in policy. Papadoupolis was a very, very minor player in the campaign. He was basically using his position to try and advance his career - akin to a ticket taker at Dodger Stadium claiming to know Dodger players to gain some notoriety.

Trump did not "build his campaign" around people with "clear ties to Russia." He built his campaign around Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway, Mike Pence, David Bossie, Michael Glassner, Jim Murphy, John Mashburn, Alan Cobb, Barry Bennett, Brian Jack, Daniel Scavino, Hope Hicks, Justin McConney, Roger Stone, Sam Clovis, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and on and on.

https://ballotpedia.org/Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign_key_staff_and_advisors,_2016

Dozens upon dozens of names ... no Russia. NONE. So why don't you go ahead and fill us in on their "connections to Russia."



Actually, the FBI did not have adequate evidence for a counter-intelligence investigation, and you are simply being duped by left-wing web sites on this point. The entire affair was primed by an FBI informant named Mifsud, who told Papadoupolis that the Russians had e-mails embarrassing to Clinton. Papadoupolis later told the Australian ambassador (Downer) that he knew of information that might be "damaging" to Clinton.

The FBI questioned Papadoupolis, and later accused him of lying about the timing of his contact with Mifsud (who by the way denies saying anything about Clinton or e-mails). That's it. This article spells out in detail the entire matter:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/george-papadopoulos-case-needs-closer-look/

So did Papadoupolis engage in illegal activity by speaking with Mifsud and/or Downer? No. Is he charged with conspiring or colluding with Russians? No. Is he alleged to have taken any steps to conspire with Russia about the election? Once again, NO.

His sole transgression was reportedly lying to the FBI about when he met with Mifsud. Nothing more. Not one ******* thing - NOT ONE - to do with Russian collusion or the election.

You need to stop reading these leftist sites, Tibs. Those guys just feed on the irrelevant and the idiotic conspiracy theories about Trump and Russia. Do your own research. Read NYT and WaPo articles on these issues, and then fact-check those articles with publications from the National Review and the Free Beacon. Don't be a slave to a lie, my man.

 

[hamster]

Here is what real Russian collusion looks like.

https://www.economist.com/comment/3388189


1. Hillary Clinton approved the transfer of 20% of U.S. uranium to Russia and nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. While Hillary Clinton’s State Department was one of eight agencies to review and sign off on the transfer of 20 percent of U.S. uranium to Russia — then-Secretary of State Clinton herself was the only agency head whose family foundation received $145 million in donations from multiple people connected to the uranium deal, as reported by the New York Times.
--
2. Bill Clinton bagged $500,000 for a Moscow speech paid for by a Kremlin-backed bank while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Former President Bill Clinton delivered a speech in Moscow and received a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian government-connected bank, while his wife’s State Department was getting ready to sign off on the transfer of 20 percent of U.S. uranium to Russia. “And, in one case, a Russian investment bank connected to the deals paid money to Bill Clinton personally, through a half-million-dollar speaker’s fee,” reported the New Yorker.
--
3. Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman’s Joule energy company bagged $35 million from Putin’s Rusnano. Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta sat on the executive board of an energy company, Joule Unlimited, which received millions from a Putin-connected Russian government fund. Podesta also owned “75,000 common shares” in Joule Unlimited, which he had transferred to a holding company called Leonidio LLC. Podesta also failed to fully disclose his position on Joule Unlimited’s board of directors and include it in his federal financial disclosures, as required by law, before he became President Obama’s senior adviser in January 2014.
--
4. Clinton Foundation chatter with State Dept. on Uranium Deal with Russia. Senior staffers inside Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign were warned by Clinton Foundation senior vice president Maura Pally that the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), was asking the Department of Justice to investigate the State Department approval of the sale of American uranium assets to a Russian company. The chain of emails proved the regular interaction between members of the Clinton campaign and senior staff at the Clinton Foundation.
--
5. Hillary Clinton hid $2.35 million in secret donations from Ian Telfer, the head of Russia’s uranium company. Ian Telfer, the head of the Russian government’s uranium company, Uranium One, made four foreign donations totaling $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation, as the New York Times reported.


It's time to prosecute the real criminals.

 

[Steeltime]

Not a single one of those leaks can be attributed to Mueller, the Special Counsel investigators, the FBI or the DOJ. But thanks for putting the time in, A for effort.

Leaks about the grand jury, unserved subpoenas, who is under investigation, and charges to be brought can come only from the prosecutor's office, Tibs. You are simply pretending the truth does not matter.

For **** sake, if a "leak" revealed what Melania was wearing the next day, we could narrow the source of the leak to Melania or one of her close staff. They would literally be the only ones to know that information.

The same is true for a ton of the leaks I posted, Tibs. Re-read what was leaked - most of that came from Mueller's team ... which coincidentally enough is staffed with a ****-ton of Hillary supporters.

As far as the rest of your verbose post, it just shows the distance Trump supporters will go to sugarcoat facts and events to try to somehow wash Trump clean. Polish the turd all you want, it's a free country.

I posted detailed facts with supporting links. Your response shows you have no response. None. You are probably now rushing to the Huffington Post to try and come up with a response.

Sorry, Tibs, I don't cut-and-paste from some bullshit web site. I research issues, find the facts, and present fact-based arguments. The Huffington Post has nothing that helps liberals deal with facts.

 

[Tibs]

It's time to prosecute the real criminals.

Sure, go right ahead. These are not mutually exclusive. As opposed to you Trump supporters, I'd fully support further investigations into the Clintons if facts warrant it. What's keeping that from happening, besides the notion there isn't hard evidence there?

That's what so many of you get so wrong, so often. I couldn't give two ***** about the Clintons or the Democrats. So it's a one-way street, these theoretical arguments on the board. I've never supported her nor have I defended her. There's no denying the Democratic party is a **** show. But again, two wrongs don't make a right. I know that's frustrating for those that try to lazily pigeonhole my opposition to Trump, but such is life.

 

[Steeltime]

Hmmm, some more interesting tidbits on our boy Mifsud:

“The only foundation I am a member of,” he said, is “the Clinton Foundation.” Mifsud is a member of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) whose top donor is the Soros Open Society Foundation.

https://www.puppetstringnews.com/bl...s-soros-open-societyclinton-foundation-member

To sum up ... the two data points that led to the counterintelligence spying on Trump's team:

(1) A statement by a Clinton Foundation member whose work is funded primarily by George Soros.
(2) A phony dossier that was paid for by the DNC and the Clinton campaign.

You seem interested in how Trump paid a ***** to be quiet.

So why aren't you interested in where the Clinton campaign came up with the millions of dollars given to Perkins, Coie to pay Steele for the phony dossier??

 

[Tibs]

I research issues, find the facts, and present fact-based arguments. The Huffington Post has nothing that helps liberals deal with facts.

Kudos again for putting the time in. I hardly read the Huffington Post, but don't let that affect your illusions about me.

 

[Steeltime]

I couldn't give two ***** about the Clintons or the Democrats. So it's a one-way street, these theoretical arguments on the board. I've never supported her nor have I defended her. There's no denying the Democratic party is a **** show. But again, two wrongs don't make a right.

You COMPLETELY miss the importance of Hillary's FBI clearance (before they were remotely done with the investigation) and the Trump investigation.

The differing standard applied to the two is patent, direct evidence of bias and illegal prosecutorial discrimination.

discrimination (di skrim' a nay shun)

2. Unequal treatment provided to one or more parties on the basis of a mutual accord or some other reason.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/discrimination.html

Finally, Clinton lied to the FBI about numerous things - "I didn't know 'C' meant classified," "I didn't send classified materials to other unsecured servers," and on and on.

Papadopoulis is being prosecuted for perjury for misstating the timing of a meeting with Mifsud. And Hillary skates??

Well, to be fair, she and Huma cannot be prosecuted for perjury as Huma was given immunity and the FBI did not put Hillary under oath. Hey, that seems equal treatment to me.

How about you??

 

[hamster]

What's keeping that from happening, besides the notion there isn't hard evidence there?
.

A Washington establishment that has 2 sets of laws........one for the Washington establishment elites, and another for the rest of us..............or those who are threatening to take them down. And that includes the complicit, Pravda mainstream media.

 

[Steeltime]

Kudos again for putting the time in. I hardly read the Huffington Post, but don't let that affect your illusions about me.

You need to look to change the "hardly" to "never." You will be the better for it.

As for me - I regularly read the NYT online edition, WaPo when an article seems worth the sifting through their website, and National Review. (The rest is research for a point under discussion.) It is absolutely crucial to include opposing view points in the reading material. It is sometimes laugh out loud funny how differently the NYT and National Review treat the same story.

And illuminating that both have solid information backing up the differing reports.

You try to play devil's advocate on Trump. Okay, no problem. But be cognizant of the fact that by being a devil's advocate 100% of the time, eventually you cannot help but be swayed that your argument must be right - even where your originally proposed the idea simply to play devil's advocate and spur debate.

 

[Tibs]

Here is what real Russian collusion looks like. https://www.economist.com/comment/3388189.

I thought for a sec you posted a legit Economist article to make a point, then realized it's just the comments from some Joe Shmoe replying to an article. Odd that you posted that as seemingly factual information, maybe you look at it that way.

 

[Spike]

Where were Obama and Hillary when the Russians hacked into their systems?


hahahahahaha

Colluding for more donations, no doubt


Oct 2016

WikiLeaks Show How Clinton Campaign Chair John Podesta Became ‘Business Partners with Vladimir Putin’

“...WikiLeaks emails provide proof that the “Clintons have a long and lucrative history of financial deals with the Russians, particularly with the Russian government.”

https://web.archive.org/web/2017080...esta-became-business-partners-vladimir-putin/

 

[madinsomniac]

You need to look to change the "hardly" to "never." You will be the better for it.

As for me - I regularly read the NYT online edition, WaPo when an article seems worth the sifting through their website, and National Review. (The rest is research for a point under discussion.) It is absolutely crucial to include opposing view points in the reading material. It is sometimes laugh out loud funny how differently the NYT and National Review treat the same story.

And illuminating that both have solid information backing up the differing reports.

You try to play devil's advocate on Trump. Okay, no problem. But be cognizant of the fact that by being a devil's advocate 100% of the time, eventually you cannot help but be swayed that your argument must be right - even where your originally proposed the idea simply to play devil's advocate and spur debate.

I was always taught that you have to read evey side of a story you can and determine all the agendas if you really want to discern the truth.

I read Huff post and drudge and a dozen other extremists angles on any story.. back in the day id subscribe to the trib and the post gazette for just that reason ... reading alternate viewpoints is key to gaining perspective...

 

[Tibs]

It is absolutely crucial to include opposing view points in the reading material.

Agreed 100%. Among the bookmarked sites I read regularly are Chatham House, Business Insider, The Economist, Fox News, National Review and WSJ, hardly left-leaning sources of information.

 

[BAS]

I guarantee you 100% if Trump had lost the election and this same exact Mueller investigation showing Russian secret service involvement and the same set of supplemental facts and conditions, the whole lot of you would be up in arms and screaming bloody ******* murder.

But since Trump won, it's all fake news that needs to be swept under the rug. Well, it's not being swept under the rug, thank God. The FBI/DOJ are doing an excellent job serving and protecting the interests of the American people.

Not quite the case.

If the Mueller investigation was centered on Russian agencies interfering with the election - and then uncovered a Trump connection to the attacks - I'd have no problem with it.

But this investigation was founded on Trump collusion with the Russians - and they're finding that Russians did interfere. So yeah, they're serving indictments, but so far none have implicated Trump collusion.

It's clear it's a so-called witch Hunt because the stated goal is to find Trump guilty of collusion when the real goal should be going after Russia for their interference.


Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app

 

[hamster]

I thought for a sec you posted a legit Economist article to make a point, then realized it's just the comments from some Joe Shmoe replying to an article. Odd that you posted that as seemingly factual information, maybe you look at it that way.

Tibs, take your pick.

https://nypost.com/2017/07/05/uncovering-the-russia-ties-of-hillarys-campaign-chief/

https://www.investors.com/politics/...ust-exposed-the-hillary-clinton-russia-nexus/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/john-podesta-and-the-russians-1477262565

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017...l-hillary-sold-out-us-interests-putin-regime/

https://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/five-questions-about-the-clintons-and-a-uranium-company

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/russia-collusion-real-story-hillary-clinton-dnc-fbi-media/

 

[Steeltime]

Agreed 100%. Among the bookmarked sites I read regularly are Chatham House, Business Insider, The Economist, Fox News, National Review and WSJ, hardly left-leaning sources of information.

The Economist is a great news source. Also, I no longer watch any U.s. news network - I watch BBC news. Definitely a tilt to the left, but very solid reporting, focus on facts and not opinion and "how this will affect the poor."