|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 09 2019 01:03 Gorsameth wrote:
Its a hoax, except for the part where Trump admitted that Jr met with the Russian government to discuss obtaining information on Hillary.
You know, except for the parts that happened, its totally a hoax...
Have you ever thought to question what you think you know about the Trump Jr meeting? In particular, if something illicit happened at that meeting -- which we have all known about for years at this point -- why hasn't anyone been charged? Mueller certainly hasn't been shy with charging people or otherwise going after the president.
|
On March 09 2019 01:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2019 23:56 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 13:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 13:07 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 12:31 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 12:00 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 11:49 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 11:24 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 10:46 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 09:04 Ayaz2810 wrote:
4 years for Manafort?! My fucking brother in law got 5 for holding up a gas station to buy heroin after he got hooked on Oxy in the Army. And Manafort gets fucking 4 years for treason?
What the hell is going on? Judge Berman-Jackson better drop the hammer on this piece of shit. He wasn’t convicted of treason. THAT'S what you focus on in my diatribe? Fine, he was convicted of a bunch of white collar crimes and many of them were related to the treason he committed but has not yet been charged with. Does that help? And we all know he's a traitor. We don't have to hold him to the same standard as a court of law. I know for a fact he helped Trump get elected with the help of Russia. I don't need 4,000 pages of documents and a bullet point timeline made by prosecutors to tell me what I see in front of my face already. There's enough public reporting on the issue for all of us to be certain it happened. If there was any doubt left, the sharing of secret polling data with Russian intel put a nail in that fuckin' coffin. EDIT: Fun speculation time. The data transmitted from the Trump server to Alfa Bank was likely the polling data and the info Manafort shared was the information to make sense of it. Calling it now. There is no basis for any of this. None of what Manafort was even charged with, much less convicted of, had anything to do with Trump. Hell, we still don’t have any evidence of Trump/Russia collusion according to the House and Senate committees, and it is obvious that Mueller’s report won’t have it either, which is why Democrats are twisting themselves in pretzels to move onto to an obstruction narrative. But that charge is just as baseless due to testimony that McCabe, Comey, and Baker have given. No basis? What universe do you live in? Existing ties to Russia through Ukraine Republican platform change Ties to Russian oligarchs (even in debt to them) Sharing of polling data Trump tower meeting Konstantin Kilimnik Ties to Roger Stone > Wikileaks > Russia Many more things that you can get just from reading for an hour. "On February 14, 2017, The New York Times reported that Paul Manafort had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials during 2016. Manafort said he did not knowingly meet any Russian intelligence officials.[32] Intercepted communications during the campaign show that Russian officials believed they could use Manafort to influence Trump.[79] On June 2, 2017, special counsel Robert Mueller assumed the criminal probe into Manafort,[80] which predates the 2016 election and the counterintelligence probe that in July 2016 began investigating possible collusion between Moscow and associates of Trump. Manafort was forced to resign as Trump campaign chairman in August 2016 amid questions over his business dealings in Ukraine years earlier.[80] On September 18, 2017, CNN reported that the FBI wiretapped Manafort from 2014 until an unspecified date in 2016 and again from the fall of 2016 until early 2017, pursuant to two separate Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court orders. It has not been confirmed that Trump's conversations with Manafort were intercepted as part of this surveillance. CNN also confirmed that "Mueller's team ... has been provided details of these communications."[81] In October 2017, Manafort was indicted by a federal grand jury and arrested on twelve criminal charges including conspiracy, money laundering, failure to register as an agent of a foreign power, and false statements.[82] The charges arose from his consulting work for a pro-Russian government in Ukraine and are unrelated to the Trump campaign.[83] Manafort pleaded not guilty and was placed under house arrest.[84] On February 22, 2018, Manafort was indicted on 32 federal charges including tax evasion, money laundering and fraud relating to their foreign lobbying before, during and after the 2016 campaign.[85] The following day, after Rick Gates plead guilty to some charges, he was indicted on two additional charges relating to pro-Russian lobbying in the United States.[86]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials First of all, you are citing a Wikileaks article that is inaccurate and clearly out of date. Second, the article still doesn’t support what you are arguing. You are badly overciting it. EDIT: Just to put an exclamation point on this, here's the Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman talking to CBS last month: Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr said Thursday that his committee's Russia investigation has yet to find evidence of collusion between President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and the Kremlin but will soon release a report on the Obama administration's response to Russian interference in the last presidential election.
In an interview with CBS published Thursday, Burr (R-N.C.) gave glimpses into the dynamics and scope of his committee's probe, which was launched shortly before Trump's 2017 inauguration and has now stretched into its third year. Burr told CBS that the committee staff has interviewed more than 200 witnesses from multiple countries and reviewed over 300,000 pages.
"Based on the evidence to date," Burr said, the committee could not definitively say there was collusion between Trump and the Russians.
"If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don't have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia," Burr told CBS.
Still, the senator said some questions raised over the investigation could occupy the committee "for the next decade," and that portions of the final report could be so classified that they are never revealed to the public. Burr said his committee is "close to pushing out the door" a report on the Obama administration's response to Russian election interference, a release that the chairman said could come within a "matter of weeks." Source. Let's just be clear that this guy knows exactly what's out there. In fact, he has more than Mueller does because he gets access to intelligence assets. He's a Republican and thus a party hack. Did you not see the circlejerk that was Cohen's testimony? Also: "What we do know, and it's part of the public record, there's never been a campaign in American history that during the campaign and its aftermath that the campaign folks affiliated with the campaign had as many ties with Russia as the Trump campaign did," Warner said." And: "In an interview on CNN, Schiff rejected Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr’s statements from earlier this month, in which Burr said evidence shows no collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia. “Chairman Burr must have a different word for it,” Schiff told host Dana Bash on “State of the Union,” pointing to communications between Russia and Donald Trump Jr. and former Trump aides George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn. “You can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion, pretty compelling evidence,” Schiff said, adding, “ There is a difference between seeing evidence of collusion and being able to prove a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/02/17/trump-russia-collusion-adam-schiff-1173434Considering the Dems are the only ones attempting any kind of oversight and transparency, I'm gonna go ahead and say conspiracy to defraud the United States is on the table for everyone involved. Bonus points for Schiff taking the words out of my mouth. You realize that all of the testimony from every member of the FBI and DOJ who was involved in the investigation rebuts Schiff, right? Other than McCabe, Schiff may be the most dishonest player in this whole mess. On March 08 2019 13:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 13:07 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 12:31 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 12:00 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 11:49 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 11:24 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 10:46 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 09:04 Ayaz2810 wrote:
4 years for Manafort?! My fucking brother in law got 5 for holding up a gas station to buy heroin after he got hooked on Oxy in the Army. And Manafort gets fucking 4 years for treason?
What the hell is going on? Judge Berman-Jackson better drop the hammer on this piece of shit. He wasn’t convicted of treason. THAT'S what you focus on in my diatribe? Fine, he was convicted of a bunch of white collar crimes and many of them were related to the treason he committed but has not yet been charged with. Does that help? And we all know he's a traitor. We don't have to hold him to the same standard as a court of law. I know for a fact he helped Trump get elected with the help of Russia. I don't need 4,000 pages of documents and a bullet point timeline made by prosecutors to tell me what I see in front of my face already. There's enough public reporting on the issue for all of us to be certain it happened. If there was any doubt left, the sharing of secret polling data with Russian intel put a nail in that fuckin' coffin. EDIT: Fun speculation time. The data transmitted from the Trump server to Alfa Bank was likely the polling data and the info Manafort shared was the information to make sense of it. Calling it now. There is no basis for any of this. None of what Manafort was even charged with, much less convicted of, had anything to do with Trump. Hell, we still don’t have any evidence of Trump/Russia collusion according to the House and Senate committees, and it is obvious that Mueller’s report won’t have it either, which is why Democrats are twisting themselves in pretzels to move onto to an obstruction narrative. But that charge is just as baseless due to testimony that McCabe, Comey, and Baker have given. No basis? What universe do you live in? Existing ties to Russia through Ukraine Republican platform change Ties to Russian oligarchs (even in debt to them) Sharing of polling data Trump tower meeting Konstantin Kilimnik Ties to Roger Stone > Wikileaks > Russia Many more things that you can get just from reading for an hour. "On February 14, 2017, The New York Times reported that Paul Manafort had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials during 2016. Manafort said he did not knowingly meet any Russian intelligence officials.[32] Intercepted communications during the campaign show that Russian officials believed they could use Manafort to influence Trump.[79] On June 2, 2017, special counsel Robert Mueller assumed the criminal probe into Manafort,[80] which predates the 2016 election and the counterintelligence probe that in July 2016 began investigating possible collusion between Moscow and associates of Trump. Manafort was forced to resign as Trump campaign chairman in August 2016 amid questions over his business dealings in Ukraine years earlier.[80] On September 18, 2017, CNN reported that the FBI wiretapped Manafort from 2014 until an unspecified date in 2016 and again from the fall of 2016 until early 2017, pursuant to two separate Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court orders. It has not been confirmed that Trump's conversations with Manafort were intercepted as part of this surveillance. CNN also confirmed that "Mueller's team ... has been provided details of these communications."[81] In October 2017, Manafort was indicted by a federal grand jury and arrested on twelve criminal charges including conspiracy, money laundering, failure to register as an agent of a foreign power, and false statements.[82] The charges arose from his consulting work for a pro-Russian government in Ukraine and are unrelated to the Trump campaign.[83] Manafort pleaded not guilty and was placed under house arrest.[84] On February 22, 2018, Manafort was indicted on 32 federal charges including tax evasion, money laundering and fraud relating to their foreign lobbying before, during and after the 2016 campaign.[85] The following day, after Rick Gates plead guilty to some charges, he was indicted on two additional charges relating to pro-Russian lobbying in the United States.[86]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials First of all, you are citing a Wikileaks article that is inaccurate and clearly out of date. Second, the article still doesn’t support what you are arguing. You are badly overciting it. EDIT: Just to put an exclamation point on this, here's the Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman talking to CBS last month: Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr said Thursday that his committee's Russia investigation has yet to find evidence of collusion between President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and the Kremlin but will soon release a report on the Obama administration's response to Russian interference in the last presidential election.
In an interview with CBS published Thursday, Burr (R-N.C.) gave glimpses into the dynamics and scope of his committee's probe, which was launched shortly before Trump's 2017 inauguration and has now stretched into its third year. Burr told CBS that the committee staff has interviewed more than 200 witnesses from multiple countries and reviewed over 300,000 pages.
"Based on the evidence to date," Burr said, the committee could not definitively say there was collusion between Trump and the Russians.
"If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don't have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia," Burr told CBS.
Still, the senator said some questions raised over the investigation could occupy the committee "for the next decade," and that portions of the final report could be so classified that they are never revealed to the public. Burr said his committee is "close to pushing out the door" a report on the Obama administration's response to Russian election interference, a release that the chairman said could come within a "matter of weeks." Source. Let's just be clear that this guy knows exactly what's out there. In fact, he has more than Mueller does because he gets access to intelligence assets. He's a Republican and thus a party hack. Did you not see the circlejerk that was Cohen's testimony? Also: "What we do know, and it's part of the public record, there's never been a campaign in American history that during the campaign and its aftermath that the campaign folks affiliated with the campaign had as many ties with Russia as the Trump campaign did," Warner said." And: "In an interview on CNN, Schiff rejected Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr’s statements from earlier this month, in which Burr said evidence shows no collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia. “Chairman Burr must have a different word for it,” Schiff told host Dana Bash on “State of the Union,” pointing to communications between Russia and Donald Trump Jr. and former Trump aides George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn. “You can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion, pretty compelling evidence,” Schiff said, adding, “ There is a difference between seeing evidence of collusion and being able to prove a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/02/17/trump-russia-collusion-adam-schiff-1173434Considering the Dems are the only ones attempting any kind of oversight and transparency, I'm gonna go ahead and say conspiracy to defraud the United States is on the table for everyone involved. Bonus points for Schiff taking the words out of my mouth. You realize that all of the testimony from every member of the FBI and DOJ who was involved in the investigation rebuts Schiff, right? Other than McCabe, Schiff may be the most dishonest player in this whole mess. You realize that what you said is factually untrue right? Parroting Trump talking points does not prove a point. In fact, it's part of the problem. I'm mildly irritated that people are allowed to lie with impunity and claim it as an "argument" or "rebuttal". The intelligence agencies and their employees (both former and current) are mortified at Trump's conduct and several suspect him of being an agent of Russia. But the fact that you said testimony and a lot of what I linked is not testimony means you're going to come at me on semantics as usual. I see it coming. There are more people/statements from agencies involved with handling of classified intelligence who agree with Schiff than those who don't. So you're full of it. And this is just a fraction of what is out there. These people are trying to tell us without telling us. It's not rocket science. But people like you claim because it isn't specific enough, it's all made up. EDIT: It's also worth noting that these are Republicans. Just in case you start with the "angry Democrat" lies. I'm starting to worry that you've consumed the Kool-Aid. "BURR: So if you've got a 36-page document of specific claims that are out there, the FBI would have to for counter intelligence reasons, try to verify anything that might be claimed in there, one, and probably first and foremost, is the counterintelligence concerns that we have about blackmail. Would that be an accurate statement? COMEY: Yes. If the FBI receives a credible allegation that there is some effort to co-opt, coerce, direct, employee covertly an American on behalf of the foreign power, that's the basis on which a counterintelligence investigation is opened." https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239295Thus: "F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/us/politics/fbi-trump-russia-inquiry.html" Do you still believe the President could be a Russian asset?" asked CNN's Anderson Cooper during an interview with McCabe on "Anderson Cooper 360." " I think it's possible. I think that's why we started our investigation, and I'm really anxious to see where (special counsel Robert) Mueller concludes that," McCabe said. “There is some kind of special rapport relationship between the two of them. And I think Mr. Putin, who is an exceptionally well-trained KGB officer, intelligence officer, I think has exploited and cultivated this relationship and is taking full advantage of it. He [Trump] acts like he has an ulterior motive that is not apparent and whether or not he is trying cover up something, whether he is fearful of what Mr. Putin might do.” https://www.newsweek.com/putin-knows-lot-more-american-public-knows-about-trumps-dealings-russia-says-1301253"...Mr Putin was directing a state-sponsored effort to interfere with the US election. The FBI was already looking at ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, but the CIA memo seemed to confirm Russian efforts to throw the election Mr Trump's way." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42493918"Trump’s handling of the matter has been a much greater source of dismay inside the intelligence community than widely understood. One official said CIA employees were staggered by Trump’s performance during a news conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki this summer at which he treated denials by Putin as so “strong and powerful” that they offset the conclusions of the CIA.“There was this gasp” among those watching at the CIA, the official said. “You literally had people in panic mode watching it at Langley. On all floors. Just shock.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/gap-continues-to-widen-between-trump-and-intelligence-community-on-key-issues/2018/12/11/23a02cb0-f8db-11e8-863c-9e2f864d47e7_story.html?utm_term=.d55020196b51 I hate to break it to you, but statements in the media (especially anonymous statements) aren't even remotely compelling in light of all of the testimony (UNDER OATH) that is now out there. Doug Collins was kind enough to release Bruce Ohr's testimony transcript today, and is planning on releasing more. It's a good place to start. Many of the other key transcripts were reported on over at The Epoch Times. The point is that there is ample information out there showing not only that the Trump/Russia collusion narrative is a hoax, but that it was likely generated through illegal activity, including abuse of the NSA database and FISA court.
So you trust a source that uses headlines like this: Why Media Organizations Can’t Let Go of the Fake Russia-Collusion Narrative.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/why-media-organizations-cant-let-go-of-the-fake-russia-collusion-narrative_2428201.html
That's very telling. I also KNEW you were gonna go into semantics. As if those folks would say/did say anything different under oath. Puhlease.
Also, you're lying again. I literally just posted "COMEY: Yes. If the FBI receives a credible allegation that there is some effort to co-opt, coerce, direct, employee covertly an American on behalf of the foreign power, that's the basis on which a counterintelligence investigation is opened."
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239295
Thus: "F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia"
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/us/politics/fbi-trump-russia-inquiry.html"
"Despite what Trump and like-minded politicians have said, sources told ABC News the “dossier” was plainly not the initial basis for the federal investigation.
The following account, relayed to ABC News by several sources familiar with the federal probe, reflects how the FBI’s investigation into contacts between Russian operatives and Trump’s campaign team, including Page, was well underway in the summer of 2016 by the time a former British spy handed the FBI a packet of startling and salacious allegations tied to Trump.
In fact, the FBI already had an open counterintelligence case on Page when he became a volunteer on Trump’s foreign policy team in January 2016, according to sources familiar with the matter.
By then, Trump had publicly claimed to have “a good instinct” about Russian’s ruthless president, Vladimir Putin, had praised how Putin was “running his country,” and had compared the Kremlin’s assassinations of dissidents to the “plenty of killing” that happens inside the United States."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-dossier-stuck-york-trigger-russia-investigation-sources/story?id=57919471
"President Donald Trump and his allies are claiming that the partial contents of a secret national security "FISA" warrant, released Saturday, vindicate their claim that special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation was improperly launched on the basis of a speculative opposition research document paid for by Democrats.
The Trump camp says the probe has its roots in the "Trump dossier" compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, which alleges collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
"So we now find out that it was indeed the unverified and Fake Dirty Dossier, that was paid for by Crooked Hillary Clinton and the DNC, that was knowingly & falsely submitted to FISA and which was responsible for starting the totally conflicted and discredited Mueller Witch Hunt!" the president wrote in a tweet Monday morning.
Trump also continues to suggest that the electronic surveillance of his one-time campaign aide, Carter Page, which was authorized by the FISA warrant, launched the Russia probe.
Both of these assertions are false.
Here is why."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/why-team-trump-wrong-about-carter-page-dossier-secret-warrant-n893666
Feel free to read that whole article. It's pretty concise and enlightening. I know you're not stupid. You put together coherent sentences and are capable of putting together (poor) arguments. So why are you doing this? You are demonstrably lying or misleading when you post. I don't understand why.
EDIT: Quoting myself because I see where this is going next: 3. Fake news (brainwashed by Fox or just woefully uninformed about how factchecking and sourcing work)
|
|
|
On March 09 2019 01:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2019 01:03 Gorsameth wrote:
Its a hoax, except for the part where Trump admitted that Jr met with the Russian government to discuss obtaining information on Hillary.
You know, except for the parts that happened, its totally a hoax...
Have you ever thought to question what you think you know about the Trump Jr meeting? In particular, if something illicit happened at that meeting -- which we have all known about for years at this point -- why hasn't anyone been charged? Mueller certainly hasn't been shy with charging people or otherwise going after the president.
I've heard this circlejerk argument a hundred times. Mueller cannot go after Kushner or the children without igniting a political and legal firestorm. He will not do so until he has rock-solid evidence and is ready to move forward on everyone in rapid succession. There is a very real possibility that when Mueller goes after the kids (when, not if) that we will be facing a national crisis. You don't fuck around with that. You sound like the people on TV who claim that there is no "collusion" because he hasn't said there was. That's not how these investigations work.
|
On March 09 2019 01:19 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2019 01:01 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 23:56 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 13:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 13:07 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 12:31 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 12:00 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 11:49 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 11:24 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 10:46 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
He wasn’t convicted of treason. THAT'S what you focus on in my diatribe? Fine, he was convicted of a bunch of white collar crimes and many of them were related to the treason he committed but has not yet been charged with. Does that help? And we all know he's a traitor. We don't have to hold him to the same standard as a court of law. I know for a fact he helped Trump get elected with the help of Russia. I don't need 4,000 pages of documents and a bullet point timeline made by prosecutors to tell me what I see in front of my face already. There's enough public reporting on the issue for all of us to be certain it happened. If there was any doubt left, the sharing of secret polling data with Russian intel put a nail in that fuckin' coffin. EDIT: Fun speculation time. The data transmitted from the Trump server to Alfa Bank was likely the polling data and the info Manafort shared was the information to make sense of it. Calling it now. There is no basis for any of this. None of what Manafort was even charged with, much less convicted of, had anything to do with Trump. Hell, we still don’t have any evidence of Trump/Russia collusion according to the House and Senate committees, and it is obvious that Mueller’s report won’t have it either, which is why Democrats are twisting themselves in pretzels to move onto to an obstruction narrative. But that charge is just as baseless due to testimony that McCabe, Comey, and Baker have given. No basis? What universe do you live in? Existing ties to Russia through Ukraine Republican platform change Ties to Russian oligarchs (even in debt to them) Sharing of polling data Trump tower meeting Konstantin Kilimnik Ties to Roger Stone > Wikileaks > Russia Many more things that you can get just from reading for an hour. "On February 14, 2017, The New York Times reported that Paul Manafort had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials during 2016. Manafort said he did not knowingly meet any Russian intelligence officials.[32] Intercepted communications during the campaign show that Russian officials believed they could use Manafort to influence Trump.[79] On June 2, 2017, special counsel Robert Mueller assumed the criminal probe into Manafort,[80] which predates the 2016 election and the counterintelligence probe that in July 2016 began investigating possible collusion between Moscow and associates of Trump. Manafort was forced to resign as Trump campaign chairman in August 2016 amid questions over his business dealings in Ukraine years earlier.[80] On September 18, 2017, CNN reported that the FBI wiretapped Manafort from 2014 until an unspecified date in 2016 and again from the fall of 2016 until early 2017, pursuant to two separate Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court orders. It has not been confirmed that Trump's conversations with Manafort were intercepted as part of this surveillance. CNN also confirmed that "Mueller's team ... has been provided details of these communications."[81] In October 2017, Manafort was indicted by a federal grand jury and arrested on twelve criminal charges including conspiracy, money laundering, failure to register as an agent of a foreign power, and false statements.[82] The charges arose from his consulting work for a pro-Russian government in Ukraine and are unrelated to the Trump campaign.[83] Manafort pleaded not guilty and was placed under house arrest.[84] On February 22, 2018, Manafort was indicted on 32 federal charges including tax evasion, money laundering and fraud relating to their foreign lobbying before, during and after the 2016 campaign.[85] The following day, after Rick Gates plead guilty to some charges, he was indicted on two additional charges relating to pro-Russian lobbying in the United States.[86]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials First of all, you are citing a Wikileaks article that is inaccurate and clearly out of date. Second, the article still doesn’t support what you are arguing. You are badly overciting it. EDIT: Just to put an exclamation point on this, here's the Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman talking to CBS last month: Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr said Thursday that his committee's Russia investigation has yet to find evidence of collusion between President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and the Kremlin but will soon release a report on the Obama administration's response to Russian interference in the last presidential election.
In an interview with CBS published Thursday, Burr (R-N.C.) gave glimpses into the dynamics and scope of his committee's probe, which was launched shortly before Trump's 2017 inauguration and has now stretched into its third year. Burr told CBS that the committee staff has interviewed more than 200 witnesses from multiple countries and reviewed over 300,000 pages.
"Based on the evidence to date," Burr said, the committee could not definitively say there was collusion between Trump and the Russians.
"If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don't have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia," Burr told CBS.
Still, the senator said some questions raised over the investigation could occupy the committee "for the next decade," and that portions of the final report could be so classified that they are never revealed to the public. Burr said his committee is "close to pushing out the door" a report on the Obama administration's response to Russian election interference, a release that the chairman said could come within a "matter of weeks." Source. Let's just be clear that this guy knows exactly what's out there. In fact, he has more than Mueller does because he gets access to intelligence assets. He's a Republican and thus a party hack. Did you not see the circlejerk that was Cohen's testimony? Also: "What we do know, and it's part of the public record, there's never been a campaign in American history that during the campaign and its aftermath that the campaign folks affiliated with the campaign had as many ties with Russia as the Trump campaign did," Warner said." And: "In an interview on CNN, Schiff rejected Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr’s statements from earlier this month, in which Burr said evidence shows no collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia. “Chairman Burr must have a different word for it,” Schiff told host Dana Bash on “State of the Union,” pointing to communications between Russia and Donald Trump Jr. and former Trump aides George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn. “You can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion, pretty compelling evidence,” Schiff said, adding, “ There is a difference between seeing evidence of collusion and being able to prove a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/02/17/trump-russia-collusion-adam-schiff-1173434Considering the Dems are the only ones attempting any kind of oversight and transparency, I'm gonna go ahead and say conspiracy to defraud the United States is on the table for everyone involved. Bonus points for Schiff taking the words out of my mouth. You realize that all of the testimony from every member of the FBI and DOJ who was involved in the investigation rebuts Schiff, right? Other than McCabe, Schiff may be the most dishonest player in this whole mess. On March 08 2019 13:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 13:07 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 12:31 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 12:00 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 11:49 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 11:24 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 10:46 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
He wasn’t convicted of treason. THAT'S what you focus on in my diatribe? Fine, he was convicted of a bunch of white collar crimes and many of them were related to the treason he committed but has not yet been charged with. Does that help? And we all know he's a traitor. We don't have to hold him to the same standard as a court of law. I know for a fact he helped Trump get elected with the help of Russia. I don't need 4,000 pages of documents and a bullet point timeline made by prosecutors to tell me what I see in front of my face already. There's enough public reporting on the issue for all of us to be certain it happened. If there was any doubt left, the sharing of secret polling data with Russian intel put a nail in that fuckin' coffin. EDIT: Fun speculation time. The data transmitted from the Trump server to Alfa Bank was likely the polling data and the info Manafort shared was the information to make sense of it. Calling it now. There is no basis for any of this. None of what Manafort was even charged with, much less convicted of, had anything to do with Trump. Hell, we still don’t have any evidence of Trump/Russia collusion according to the House and Senate committees, and it is obvious that Mueller’s report won’t have it either, which is why Democrats are twisting themselves in pretzels to move onto to an obstruction narrative. But that charge is just as baseless due to testimony that McCabe, Comey, and Baker have given. No basis? What universe do you live in? Existing ties to Russia through Ukraine Republican platform change Ties to Russian oligarchs (even in debt to them) Sharing of polling data Trump tower meeting Konstantin Kilimnik Ties to Roger Stone > Wikileaks > Russia Many more things that you can get just from reading for an hour. "On February 14, 2017, The New York Times reported that Paul Manafort had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials during 2016. Manafort said he did not knowingly meet any Russian intelligence officials.[32] Intercepted communications during the campaign show that Russian officials believed they could use Manafort to influence Trump.[79] On June 2, 2017, special counsel Robert Mueller assumed the criminal probe into Manafort,[80] which predates the 2016 election and the counterintelligence probe that in July 2016 began investigating possible collusion between Moscow and associates of Trump. Manafort was forced to resign as Trump campaign chairman in August 2016 amid questions over his business dealings in Ukraine years earlier.[80] On September 18, 2017, CNN reported that the FBI wiretapped Manafort from 2014 until an unspecified date in 2016 and again from the fall of 2016 until early 2017, pursuant to two separate Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court orders. It has not been confirmed that Trump's conversations with Manafort were intercepted as part of this surveillance. CNN also confirmed that "Mueller's team ... has been provided details of these communications."[81] In October 2017, Manafort was indicted by a federal grand jury and arrested on twelve criminal charges including conspiracy, money laundering, failure to register as an agent of a foreign power, and false statements.[82] The charges arose from his consulting work for a pro-Russian government in Ukraine and are unrelated to the Trump campaign.[83] Manafort pleaded not guilty and was placed under house arrest.[84] On February 22, 2018, Manafort was indicted on 32 federal charges including tax evasion, money laundering and fraud relating to their foreign lobbying before, during and after the 2016 campaign.[85] The following day, after Rick Gates plead guilty to some charges, he was indicted on two additional charges relating to pro-Russian lobbying in the United States.[86]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials First of all, you are citing a Wikileaks article that is inaccurate and clearly out of date. Second, the article still doesn’t support what you are arguing. You are badly overciting it. EDIT: Just to put an exclamation point on this, here's the Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman talking to CBS last month: Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr said Thursday that his committee's Russia investigation has yet to find evidence of collusion between President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and the Kremlin but will soon release a report on the Obama administration's response to Russian interference in the last presidential election.
In an interview with CBS published Thursday, Burr (R-N.C.) gave glimpses into the dynamics and scope of his committee's probe, which was launched shortly before Trump's 2017 inauguration and has now stretched into its third year. Burr told CBS that the committee staff has interviewed more than 200 witnesses from multiple countries and reviewed over 300,000 pages.
"Based on the evidence to date," Burr said, the committee could not definitively say there was collusion between Trump and the Russians.
"If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don't have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia," Burr told CBS.
Still, the senator said some questions raised over the investigation could occupy the committee "for the next decade," and that portions of the final report could be so classified that they are never revealed to the public. Burr said his committee is "close to pushing out the door" a report on the Obama administration's response to Russian election interference, a release that the chairman said could come within a "matter of weeks." Source. Let's just be clear that this guy knows exactly what's out there. In fact, he has more than Mueller does because he gets access to intelligence assets. He's a Republican and thus a party hack. Did you not see the circlejerk that was Cohen's testimony? Also: "What we do know, and it's part of the public record, there's never been a campaign in American history that during the campaign and its aftermath that the campaign folks affiliated with the campaign had as many ties with Russia as the Trump campaign did," Warner said." And: "In an interview on CNN, Schiff rejected Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr’s statements from earlier this month, in which Burr said evidence shows no collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia. “Chairman Burr must have a different word for it,” Schiff told host Dana Bash on “State of the Union,” pointing to communications between Russia and Donald Trump Jr. and former Trump aides George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn. “You can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion, pretty compelling evidence,” Schiff said, adding, “ There is a difference between seeing evidence of collusion and being able to prove a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/02/17/trump-russia-collusion-adam-schiff-1173434Considering the Dems are the only ones attempting any kind of oversight and transparency, I'm gonna go ahead and say conspiracy to defraud the United States is on the table for everyone involved. Bonus points for Schiff taking the words out of my mouth. You realize that all of the testimony from every member of the FBI and DOJ who was involved in the investigation rebuts Schiff, right? Other than McCabe, Schiff may be the most dishonest player in this whole mess. You realize that what you said is factually untrue right? Parroting Trump talking points does not prove a point. In fact, it's part of the problem. I'm mildly irritated that people are allowed to lie with impunity and claim it as an "argument" or "rebuttal". The intelligence agencies and their employees (both former and current) are mortified at Trump's conduct and several suspect him of being an agent of Russia. But the fact that you said testimony and a lot of what I linked is not testimony means you're going to come at me on semantics as usual. I see it coming. There are more people/statements from agencies involved with handling of classified intelligence who agree with Schiff than those who don't. So you're full of it. And this is just a fraction of what is out there. These people are trying to tell us without telling us. It's not rocket science. But people like you claim because it isn't specific enough, it's all made up. EDIT: It's also worth noting that these are Republicans. Just in case you start with the "angry Democrat" lies. I'm starting to worry that you've consumed the Kool-Aid. "BURR: So if you've got a 36-page document of specific claims that are out there, the FBI would have to for counter intelligence reasons, try to verify anything that might be claimed in there, one, and probably first and foremost, is the counterintelligence concerns that we have about blackmail. Would that be an accurate statement? COMEY: Yes. If the FBI receives a credible allegation that there is some effort to co-opt, coerce, direct, employee covertly an American on behalf of the foreign power, that's the basis on which a counterintelligence investigation is opened." https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239295Thus: "F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/us/politics/fbi-trump-russia-inquiry.html" Do you still believe the President could be a Russian asset?" asked CNN's Anderson Cooper during an interview with McCabe on "Anderson Cooper 360." " I think it's possible. I think that's why we started our investigation, and I'm really anxious to see where (special counsel Robert) Mueller concludes that," McCabe said. “There is some kind of special rapport relationship between the two of them. And I think Mr. Putin, who is an exceptionally well-trained KGB officer, intelligence officer, I think has exploited and cultivated this relationship and is taking full advantage of it. He [Trump] acts like he has an ulterior motive that is not apparent and whether or not he is trying cover up something, whether he is fearful of what Mr. Putin might do.” https://www.newsweek.com/putin-knows-lot-more-american-public-knows-about-trumps-dealings-russia-says-1301253"...Mr Putin was directing a state-sponsored effort to interfere with the US election. The FBI was already looking at ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, but the CIA memo seemed to confirm Russian efforts to throw the election Mr Trump's way." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42493918"Trump’s handling of the matter has been a much greater source of dismay inside the intelligence community than widely understood. One official said CIA employees were staggered by Trump’s performance during a news conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki this summer at which he treated denials by Putin as so “strong and powerful” that they offset the conclusions of the CIA.“There was this gasp” among those watching at the CIA, the official said. “You literally had people in panic mode watching it at Langley. On all floors. Just shock.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/gap-continues-to-widen-between-trump-and-intelligence-community-on-key-issues/2018/12/11/23a02cb0-f8db-11e8-863c-9e2f864d47e7_story.html?utm_term=.d55020196b51 I hate to break it to you, but statements in the media (especially anonymous statements) aren't even remotely compelling in light of all of the testimony (UNDER OATH) that is now out there. Doug Collins was kind enough to release Bruce Ohr's testimony transcript today, and is planning on releasing more. It's a good place to start. Many of the other key transcripts were reported on over at The Epoch Times. The point is that there is ample information out there showing not only that the Trump/Russia collusion narrative is a hoax, but that it was likely generated through illegal activity, including abuse of the NSA database and FISA court. So you trust a source that uses headlines like this: Why Media Organizations Can’t Let Go of the Fake Russia-Collusion Narrative. https://www.theepochtimes.com/why-media-organizations-cant-let-go-of-the-fake-russia-collusion-narrative_2428201.htmlThat's very telling. I also KNEW you were gonna go into semantics. As if those folks would say/did say anything different under oath. Puhlease. Also, you're lying again. I literally just posted "COMEY: Yes. If the FBI receives a credible allegation that there is some effort to co-opt, coerce, direct, employee covertly an American on behalf of the foreign power, that's the basis on which a counterintelligence investigation is opened." https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239295Thus: "F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/us/politics/fbi-trump-russia-inquiry.html"" Despite what Trump and like-minded politicians have said, sources told ABC News the “dossier” was plainly not the initial basis for the federal investigation.
The following account, relayed to ABC News by several sources familiar with the federal probe, reflects how the FBI’s investigation into contacts between Russian operatives and Trump’s campaign team, including Page, was well underway in the summer of 2016 by the time a former British spy handed the FBI a packet of startling and salacious allegations tied to Trump. In fact, the FBI already had an open counterintelligence case on Page when he became a volunteer on Trump’s foreign policy team in January 2016, according to sources familiar with the matter. By then, Trump had publicly claimed to have “a good instinct” about Russian’s ruthless president, Vladimir Putin, had praised how Putin was “running his country,” and had compared the Kremlin’s assassinations of dissidents to the “plenty of killing” that happens inside the United States." https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-dossier-stuck-york-trigger-russia-investigation-sources/story?id=57919471"President Donald Trump and his allies are claiming that the partial contents of a secret national security "FISA" warrant, released Saturday, vindicate their claim that special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation was improperly launched on the basis of a speculative opposition research document paid for by Democrats. The Trump camp says the probe has its roots in the "Trump dossier" compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, which alleges collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. "So we now find out that it was indeed the unverified and Fake Dirty Dossier, that was paid for by Crooked Hillary Clinton and the DNC, that was knowingly & falsely submitted to FISA and which was responsible for starting the totally conflicted and discredited Mueller Witch Hunt!" the president wrote in a tweet Monday morning. Trump also continues to suggest that the electronic surveillance of his one-time campaign aide, Carter Page, which was authorized by the FISA warrant, launched the Russia probe. Both of these assertions are false. Here is why." https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/why-team-trump-wrong-about-carter-page-dossier-secret-warrant-n893666Feel free to read that whole article. It's pretty concise and enlightening. I know you're not stupid. You put together coherent sentences and are capable of putting together (poor) arguments. So why are you doing this? You are demonstrably lying or misleading when you post. I don't understand why.
First off, there's nothing about my posts that deal with semantics. It's all substantive.
Did you bother looking at the articles at The Epoch times that actually quote the testimony transcripts? I'll compile some later when I have more time.
But as an aside, it's interesting that you bring up the issue of what the genesis of the FBI investigation was if it was not the Steele dossier. No one at the FBI/DOJ seems to want to talk about that despite that the fact that the dossier has been fairly thoroughly discredited (note that Bruce Ohr testified that, when delivering the dossier materials to the FBI, he told the investigators that the materials could not be deemed reliable and that they needed to be independently verified -- which never happened). And in particular, while everyone loves to talk about all of this "other information" that was used to support the FISA warrants, absolutely no one seems to want to describe what this "other information" is. My educated guess is that what we're eventually going to learn is that this "other information" is even more dubious than the Steele dossier.
|
On March 08 2019 23:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2019 17:56 Amui wrote:On March 08 2019 13:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 13:07 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 12:31 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 12:00 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 11:49 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 11:24 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 10:46 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 09:04 Ayaz2810 wrote:
4 years for Manafort?! My fucking brother in law got 5 for holding up a gas station to buy heroin after he got hooked on Oxy in the Army. And Manafort gets fucking 4 years for treason?
What the hell is going on? Judge Berman-Jackson better drop the hammer on this piece of shit. He wasn’t convicted of treason. THAT'S what you focus on in my diatribe? Fine, he was convicted of a bunch of white collar crimes and many of them were related to the treason he committed but has not yet been charged with. Does that help? And we all know he's a traitor. We don't have to hold him to the same standard as a court of law. I know for a fact he helped Trump get elected with the help of Russia. I don't need 4,000 pages of documents and a bullet point timeline made by prosecutors to tell me what I see in front of my face already. There's enough public reporting on the issue for all of us to be certain it happened. If there was any doubt left, the sharing of secret polling data with Russian intel put a nail in that fuckin' coffin. EDIT: Fun speculation time. The data transmitted from the Trump server to Alfa Bank was likely the polling data and the info Manafort shared was the information to make sense of it. Calling it now. There is no basis for any of this. None of what Manafort was even charged with, much less convicted of, had anything to do with Trump. Hell, we still don’t have any evidence of Trump/Russia collusion according to the House and Senate committees, and it is obvious that Mueller’s report won’t have it either, which is why Democrats are twisting themselves in pretzels to move onto to an obstruction narrative. But that charge is just as baseless due to testimony that McCabe, Comey, and Baker have given. No basis? What universe do you live in? Existing ties to Russia through Ukraine Republican platform change Ties to Russian oligarchs (even in debt to them) Sharing of polling data Trump tower meeting Konstantin Kilimnik Ties to Roger Stone > Wikileaks > Russia Many more things that you can get just from reading for an hour. "On February 14, 2017, The New York Times reported that Paul Manafort had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials during 2016. Manafort said he did not knowingly meet any Russian intelligence officials.[32] Intercepted communications during the campaign show that Russian officials believed they could use Manafort to influence Trump.[79] On June 2, 2017, special counsel Robert Mueller assumed the criminal probe into Manafort,[80] which predates the 2016 election and the counterintelligence probe that in July 2016 began investigating possible collusion between Moscow and associates of Trump. Manafort was forced to resign as Trump campaign chairman in August 2016 amid questions over his business dealings in Ukraine years earlier.[80] On September 18, 2017, CNN reported that the FBI wiretapped Manafort from 2014 until an unspecified date in 2016 and again from the fall of 2016 until early 2017, pursuant to two separate Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court orders. It has not been confirmed that Trump's conversations with Manafort were intercepted as part of this surveillance. CNN also confirmed that "Mueller's team ... has been provided details of these communications."[81] In October 2017, Manafort was indicted by a federal grand jury and arrested on twelve criminal charges including conspiracy, money laundering, failure to register as an agent of a foreign power, and false statements.[82] The charges arose from his consulting work for a pro-Russian government in Ukraine and are unrelated to the Trump campaign.[83] Manafort pleaded not guilty and was placed under house arrest.[84] On February 22, 2018, Manafort was indicted on 32 federal charges including tax evasion, money laundering and fraud relating to their foreign lobbying before, during and after the 2016 campaign.[85] The following day, after Rick Gates plead guilty to some charges, he was indicted on two additional charges relating to pro-Russian lobbying in the United States.[86]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials First of all, you are citing a Wikileaks article that is inaccurate and clearly out of date. Second, the article still doesn’t support what you are arguing. You are badly overciting it. EDIT: Just to put an exclamation point on this, here's the Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman talking to CBS last month: Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr said Thursday that his committee's Russia investigation has yet to find evidence of collusion between President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and the Kremlin but will soon release a report on the Obama administration's response to Russian interference in the last presidential election.
In an interview with CBS published Thursday, Burr (R-N.C.) gave glimpses into the dynamics and scope of his committee's probe, which was launched shortly before Trump's 2017 inauguration and has now stretched into its third year. Burr told CBS that the committee staff has interviewed more than 200 witnesses from multiple countries and reviewed over 300,000 pages.
"Based on the evidence to date," Burr said, the committee could not definitively say there was collusion between Trump and the Russians.
"If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don't have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia," Burr told CBS.
Still, the senator said some questions raised over the investigation could occupy the committee "for the next decade," and that portions of the final report could be so classified that they are never revealed to the public. Burr said his committee is "close to pushing out the door" a report on the Obama administration's response to Russian election interference, a release that the chairman said could come within a "matter of weeks." Source. Let's just be clear that this guy knows exactly what's out there. In fact, he has more than Mueller does because he gets access to intelligence assets. He's a Republican and thus a party hack. Did you not see the circlejerk that was Cohen's testimony? Also: "What we do know, and it's part of the public record, there's never been a campaign in American history that during the campaign and its aftermath that the campaign folks affiliated with the campaign had as many ties with Russia as the Trump campaign did," Warner said." And: "In an interview on CNN, Schiff rejected Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr’s statements from earlier this month, in which Burr said evidence shows no collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia. “Chairman Burr must have a different word for it,” Schiff told host Dana Bash on “State of the Union,” pointing to communications between Russia and Donald Trump Jr. and former Trump aides George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn. “You can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion, pretty compelling evidence,” Schiff said, adding, “ There is a difference between seeing evidence of collusion and being able to prove a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/02/17/trump-russia-collusion-adam-schiff-1173434Considering the Dems are the only ones attempting any kind of oversight and transparency, I'm gonna go ahead and say conspiracy to defraud the United States is on the table for everyone involved. Bonus points for Schiff taking the words out of my mouth. You realize that all of the testimony from every member of the FBI and DOJ who was involved in the investigation rebuts Schiff, right? Other than McCabe, Schiff may be the most dishonest player in this whole mess. Your bar for dishonesty must be awfully low with Trump and Sarah Sanders on your team. But that hasn't ever stopped you from blindly accusing people of falsehoods, or willful disregard of facts when it suits you. Trump lied 60(!) times in a couple hours the other night for his CPAC speech. Calling anybody else dishonest without calling Trump out for being the raving deluded grandpa he is really just shows how ignorant you are. But I think everybody already knew that. I’m just going to hazard a guess that the vast majority of those “lies” weren’t really lies, and probably weren’t even material omissions. It certainly couldn’t have been any more dishonest than any of Bernie’s speeches on his universal healthcare plans or AOC talking about the Green New Deal. Trump isn’t particularly more dishonest than any other politician.
Let's go with one I'm sure you're familiar with.
Mexico will pay for the wall
Mexico will pay for the wall through taxes
Congress will pay for the wall
Various departments/programs who haven't spent the money allocated this year get raided to pay for the wall via executive order.
And somehow in your mind he didn't lie about this hundreds of times at rallies or press conferences and so on, but it was all just bluster?
|
On March 09 2019 01:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2019 01:03 Gorsameth wrote:
Its a hoax, except for the part where Trump admitted that Jr met with the Russian government to discuss obtaining information on Hillary.
You know, except for the parts that happened, its totally a hoax...
Have you ever thought to question what you think you know about the Trump Jr meeting? In particular, if something illicit happened at that meeting -- which we have all known about for years at this point -- why hasn't anyone been charged? Mueller certainly hasn't been shy with charging people or otherwise going after the president. Because he is not done with his investigation?
People have gotten charged as the investigation around that person finished or dried up. You don't charge a drugdealer with possession when your close to cracking his entire network.
Don jr hasn't been charged with anything because Mueller isn't done with him yet.
You also say Mueller hasn't been shy with going after the President. He has requested documents and an interview, that's not 'going after the president', that's doing an investigation.
In what way do you think he hasn't been shy with going after the President to the point where you can say "He hasn't gone after Jr., so it must be fake"?
Your going after the Presidents son ffs. You make sure you have everything before doing that.
|
United States42689 Posts
On March 08 2019 09:16 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2019 09:13 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 09:08 Gorsameth wrote:On March 08 2019 09:04 Ayaz2810 wrote:
4 years for Manafort?! My fucking brother in law got 5 for holding up a gas station to buy heroin after he got hooked on Oxy in the Army. And Manafort gets fucking 4 years for treason?
What the hell is going on? Judge Berman-Jackson better drop the hammer on this piece of shit. If your white and rich, crime pays. I work at an American prison and no lie, there's a dude here for 12.5 years for writing a stolen check for $5,000. JUst for some god damn perspective. I am so disgusted right now I'm shaking with rage. Pair this miscarriage of justice with the new polling that shows ~62% of Republicans wouldn't want to impeach even if crimes were proven (collusion and obstruction), and you have a recipe for blood in the streets in the next year. Sane people will not stand for this shit. It will either be the trump-haters that snap, or Trump will incite his followers to rise up in his defense. I'm thinking 50/50 chance we have a civil war. And the craziest thing about that idea? Multiple people have spoken it out loud on television in all seriousness. People who have known Trump/Cohen/Etc for years. Sentencing guidelines suggested 19 to 24 years, but the judge felt that would be too harsh.
I liked when the judge said that he had lived an otherwise blameless life. An interesting claim given he’s in court for a different thing next week. Also an interesting claim given the testimony from his own daughters alleging that he organized the gang rape of his wife and had arranged the deaths of multiple people in Ukraine.
|
On March 09 2019 01:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2019 01:19 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 09 2019 01:01 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 23:56 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 13:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 13:07 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 12:31 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 12:00 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 11:49 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 11:24 Ayaz2810 wrote:
[quote]
THAT'S what you focus on in my diatribe? Fine, he was convicted of a bunch of white collar crimes and many of them were related to the treason he committed but has not yet been charged with. Does that help?
And we all know he's a traitor. We don't have to hold him to the same standard as a court of law. I know for a fact he helped Trump get elected with the help of Russia. I don't need 4,000 pages of documents and a bullet point timeline made by prosecutors to tell me what I see in front of my face already. There's enough public reporting on the issue for all of us to be certain it happened. If there was any doubt left, the sharing of secret polling data with Russian intel put a nail in that fuckin' coffin.
EDIT: Fun speculation time. The data transmitted from the Trump server to Alfa Bank was likely the polling data and the info Manafort shared was the information to make sense of it. Calling it now. There is no basis for any of this. None of what Manafort was even charged with, much less convicted of, had anything to do with Trump. Hell, we still don’t have any evidence of Trump/Russia collusion according to the House and Senate committees, and it is obvious that Mueller’s report won’t have it either, which is why Democrats are twisting themselves in pretzels to move onto to an obstruction narrative. But that charge is just as baseless due to testimony that McCabe, Comey, and Baker have given. No basis? What universe do you live in? Existing ties to Russia through Ukraine Republican platform change Ties to Russian oligarchs (even in debt to them) Sharing of polling data Trump tower meeting Konstantin Kilimnik Ties to Roger Stone > Wikileaks > Russia Many more things that you can get just from reading for an hour. "On February 14, 2017, The New York Times reported that Paul Manafort had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials during 2016. Manafort said he did not knowingly meet any Russian intelligence officials.[32] Intercepted communications during the campaign show that Russian officials believed they could use Manafort to influence Trump.[79] On June 2, 2017, special counsel Robert Mueller assumed the criminal probe into Manafort,[80] which predates the 2016 election and the counterintelligence probe that in July 2016 began investigating possible collusion between Moscow and associates of Trump. Manafort was forced to resign as Trump campaign chairman in August 2016 amid questions over his business dealings in Ukraine years earlier.[80] On September 18, 2017, CNN reported that the FBI wiretapped Manafort from 2014 until an unspecified date in 2016 and again from the fall of 2016 until early 2017, pursuant to two separate Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court orders. It has not been confirmed that Trump's conversations with Manafort were intercepted as part of this surveillance. CNN also confirmed that "Mueller's team ... has been provided details of these communications."[81] In October 2017, Manafort was indicted by a federal grand jury and arrested on twelve criminal charges including conspiracy, money laundering, failure to register as an agent of a foreign power, and false statements.[82] The charges arose from his consulting work for a pro-Russian government in Ukraine and are unrelated to the Trump campaign.[83] Manafort pleaded not guilty and was placed under house arrest.[84] On February 22, 2018, Manafort was indicted on 32 federal charges including tax evasion, money laundering and fraud relating to their foreign lobbying before, during and after the 2016 campaign.[85] The following day, after Rick Gates plead guilty to some charges, he was indicted on two additional charges relating to pro-Russian lobbying in the United States.[86]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials First of all, you are citing a Wikileaks article that is inaccurate and clearly out of date. Second, the article still doesn’t support what you are arguing. You are badly overciting it. EDIT: Just to put an exclamation point on this, here's the Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman talking to CBS last month: Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr said Thursday that his committee's Russia investigation has yet to find evidence of collusion between President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and the Kremlin but will soon release a report on the Obama administration's response to Russian interference in the last presidential election.
In an interview with CBS published Thursday, Burr (R-N.C.) gave glimpses into the dynamics and scope of his committee's probe, which was launched shortly before Trump's 2017 inauguration and has now stretched into its third year. Burr told CBS that the committee staff has interviewed more than 200 witnesses from multiple countries and reviewed over 300,000 pages.
"Based on the evidence to date," Burr said, the committee could not definitively say there was collusion between Trump and the Russians.
"If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don't have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia," Burr told CBS.
Still, the senator said some questions raised over the investigation could occupy the committee "for the next decade," and that portions of the final report could be so classified that they are never revealed to the public. Burr said his committee is "close to pushing out the door" a report on the Obama administration's response to Russian election interference, a release that the chairman said could come within a "matter of weeks." Source. Let's just be clear that this guy knows exactly what's out there. In fact, he has more than Mueller does because he gets access to intelligence assets. He's a Republican and thus a party hack. Did you not see the circlejerk that was Cohen's testimony? Also: "What we do know, and it's part of the public record, there's never been a campaign in American history that during the campaign and its aftermath that the campaign folks affiliated with the campaign had as many ties with Russia as the Trump campaign did," Warner said." And: "In an interview on CNN, Schiff rejected Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr’s statements from earlier this month, in which Burr said evidence shows no collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia. “Chairman Burr must have a different word for it,” Schiff told host Dana Bash on “State of the Union,” pointing to communications between Russia and Donald Trump Jr. and former Trump aides George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn. “You can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion, pretty compelling evidence,” Schiff said, adding, “ There is a difference between seeing evidence of collusion and being able to prove a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/02/17/trump-russia-collusion-adam-schiff-1173434Considering the Dems are the only ones attempting any kind of oversight and transparency, I'm gonna go ahead and say conspiracy to defraud the United States is on the table for everyone involved. Bonus points for Schiff taking the words out of my mouth. You realize that all of the testimony from every member of the FBI and DOJ who was involved in the investigation rebuts Schiff, right? Other than McCabe, Schiff may be the most dishonest player in this whole mess. On March 08 2019 13:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 13:07 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 12:31 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 12:00 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 11:49 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 11:24 Ayaz2810 wrote:
[quote]
THAT'S what you focus on in my diatribe? Fine, he was convicted of a bunch of white collar crimes and many of them were related to the treason he committed but has not yet been charged with. Does that help?
And we all know he's a traitor. We don't have to hold him to the same standard as a court of law. I know for a fact he helped Trump get elected with the help of Russia. I don't need 4,000 pages of documents and a bullet point timeline made by prosecutors to tell me what I see in front of my face already. There's enough public reporting on the issue for all of us to be certain it happened. If there was any doubt left, the sharing of secret polling data with Russian intel put a nail in that fuckin' coffin.
EDIT: Fun speculation time. The data transmitted from the Trump server to Alfa Bank was likely the polling data and the info Manafort shared was the information to make sense of it. Calling it now. There is no basis for any of this. None of what Manafort was even charged with, much less convicted of, had anything to do with Trump. Hell, we still don’t have any evidence of Trump/Russia collusion according to the House and Senate committees, and it is obvious that Mueller’s report won’t have it either, which is why Democrats are twisting themselves in pretzels to move onto to an obstruction narrative. But that charge is just as baseless due to testimony that McCabe, Comey, and Baker have given. No basis? What universe do you live in? Existing ties to Russia through Ukraine Republican platform change Ties to Russian oligarchs (even in debt to them) Sharing of polling data Trump tower meeting Konstantin Kilimnik Ties to Roger Stone > Wikileaks > Russia Many more things that you can get just from reading for an hour. "On February 14, 2017, The New York Times reported that Paul Manafort had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials during 2016. Manafort said he did not knowingly meet any Russian intelligence officials.[32] Intercepted communications during the campaign show that Russian officials believed they could use Manafort to influence Trump.[79] On June 2, 2017, special counsel Robert Mueller assumed the criminal probe into Manafort,[80] which predates the 2016 election and the counterintelligence probe that in July 2016 began investigating possible collusion between Moscow and associates of Trump. Manafort was forced to resign as Trump campaign chairman in August 2016 amid questions over his business dealings in Ukraine years earlier.[80] On September 18, 2017, CNN reported that the FBI wiretapped Manafort from 2014 until an unspecified date in 2016 and again from the fall of 2016 until early 2017, pursuant to two separate Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court orders. It has not been confirmed that Trump's conversations with Manafort were intercepted as part of this surveillance. CNN also confirmed that "Mueller's team ... has been provided details of these communications."[81] In October 2017, Manafort was indicted by a federal grand jury and arrested on twelve criminal charges including conspiracy, money laundering, failure to register as an agent of a foreign power, and false statements.[82] The charges arose from his consulting work for a pro-Russian government in Ukraine and are unrelated to the Trump campaign.[83] Manafort pleaded not guilty and was placed under house arrest.[84] On February 22, 2018, Manafort was indicted on 32 federal charges including tax evasion, money laundering and fraud relating to their foreign lobbying before, during and after the 2016 campaign.[85] The following day, after Rick Gates plead guilty to some charges, he was indicted on two additional charges relating to pro-Russian lobbying in the United States.[86]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials First of all, you are citing a Wikileaks article that is inaccurate and clearly out of date. Second, the article still doesn’t support what you are arguing. You are badly overciting it. EDIT: Just to put an exclamation point on this, here's the Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman talking to CBS last month: Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr said Thursday that his committee's Russia investigation has yet to find evidence of collusion between President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and the Kremlin but will soon release a report on the Obama administration's response to Russian interference in the last presidential election.
In an interview with CBS published Thursday, Burr (R-N.C.) gave glimpses into the dynamics and scope of his committee's probe, which was launched shortly before Trump's 2017 inauguration and has now stretched into its third year. Burr told CBS that the committee staff has interviewed more than 200 witnesses from multiple countries and reviewed over 300,000 pages.
"Based on the evidence to date," Burr said, the committee could not definitively say there was collusion between Trump and the Russians.
"If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don't have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia," Burr told CBS.
Still, the senator said some questions raised over the investigation could occupy the committee "for the next decade," and that portions of the final report could be so classified that they are never revealed to the public. Burr said his committee is "close to pushing out the door" a report on the Obama administration's response to Russian election interference, a release that the chairman said could come within a "matter of weeks." Source. Let's just be clear that this guy knows exactly what's out there. In fact, he has more than Mueller does because he gets access to intelligence assets. He's a Republican and thus a party hack. Did you not see the circlejerk that was Cohen's testimony? Also: "What we do know, and it's part of the public record, there's never been a campaign in American history that during the campaign and its aftermath that the campaign folks affiliated with the campaign had as many ties with Russia as the Trump campaign did," Warner said." And: "In an interview on CNN, Schiff rejected Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr’s statements from earlier this month, in which Burr said evidence shows no collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia. “Chairman Burr must have a different word for it,” Schiff told host Dana Bash on “State of the Union,” pointing to communications between Russia and Donald Trump Jr. and former Trump aides George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn. “You can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion, pretty compelling evidence,” Schiff said, adding, “ There is a difference between seeing evidence of collusion and being able to prove a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/02/17/trump-russia-collusion-adam-schiff-1173434Considering the Dems are the only ones attempting any kind of oversight and transparency, I'm gonna go ahead and say conspiracy to defraud the United States is on the table for everyone involved. Bonus points for Schiff taking the words out of my mouth. You realize that all of the testimony from every member of the FBI and DOJ who was involved in the investigation rebuts Schiff, right? Other than McCabe, Schiff may be the most dishonest player in this whole mess. You realize that what you said is factually untrue right? Parroting Trump talking points does not prove a point. In fact, it's part of the problem. I'm mildly irritated that people are allowed to lie with impunity and claim it as an "argument" or "rebuttal". The intelligence agencies and their employees (both former and current) are mortified at Trump's conduct and several suspect him of being an agent of Russia. But the fact that you said testimony and a lot of what I linked is not testimony means you're going to come at me on semantics as usual. I see it coming. There are more people/statements from agencies involved with handling of classified intelligence who agree with Schiff than those who don't. So you're full of it. And this is just a fraction of what is out there. These people are trying to tell us without telling us. It's not rocket science. But people like you claim because it isn't specific enough, it's all made up. EDIT: It's also worth noting that these are Republicans. Just in case you start with the "angry Democrat" lies. I'm starting to worry that you've consumed the Kool-Aid. "BURR: So if you've got a 36-page document of specific claims that are out there, the FBI would have to for counter intelligence reasons, try to verify anything that might be claimed in there, one, and probably first and foremost, is the counterintelligence concerns that we have about blackmail. Would that be an accurate statement? COMEY: Yes. If the FBI receives a credible allegation that there is some effort to co-opt, coerce, direct, employee covertly an American on behalf of the foreign power, that's the basis on which a counterintelligence investigation is opened." https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239295Thus: "F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/us/politics/fbi-trump-russia-inquiry.html" Do you still believe the President could be a Russian asset?" asked CNN's Anderson Cooper during an interview with McCabe on "Anderson Cooper 360." " I think it's possible. I think that's why we started our investigation, and I'm really anxious to see where (special counsel Robert) Mueller concludes that," McCabe said. “There is some kind of special rapport relationship between the two of them. And I think Mr. Putin, who is an exceptionally well-trained KGB officer, intelligence officer, I think has exploited and cultivated this relationship and is taking full advantage of it. He [Trump] acts like he has an ulterior motive that is not apparent and whether or not he is trying cover up something, whether he is fearful of what Mr. Putin might do.” https://www.newsweek.com/putin-knows-lot-more-american-public-knows-about-trumps-dealings-russia-says-1301253"...Mr Putin was directing a state-sponsored effort to interfere with the US election. The FBI was already looking at ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, but the CIA memo seemed to confirm Russian efforts to throw the election Mr Trump's way." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42493918"Trump’s handling of the matter has been a much greater source of dismay inside the intelligence community than widely understood. One official said CIA employees were staggered by Trump’s performance during a news conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki this summer at which he treated denials by Putin as so “strong and powerful” that they offset the conclusions of the CIA.“There was this gasp” among those watching at the CIA, the official said. “You literally had people in panic mode watching it at Langley. On all floors. Just shock.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/gap-continues-to-widen-between-trump-and-intelligence-community-on-key-issues/2018/12/11/23a02cb0-f8db-11e8-863c-9e2f864d47e7_story.html?utm_term=.d55020196b51 I hate to break it to you, but statements in the media (especially anonymous statements) aren't even remotely compelling in light of all of the testimony (UNDER OATH) that is now out there. Doug Collins was kind enough to release Bruce Ohr's testimony transcript today, and is planning on releasing more. It's a good place to start. Many of the other key transcripts were reported on over at The Epoch Times. The point is that there is ample information out there showing not only that the Trump/Russia collusion narrative is a hoax, but that it was likely generated through illegal activity, including abuse of the NSA database and FISA court. So you trust a source that uses headlines like this: Why Media Organizations Can’t Let Go of the Fake Russia-Collusion Narrative. https://www.theepochtimes.com/why-media-organizations-cant-let-go-of-the-fake-russia-collusion-narrative_2428201.htmlThat's very telling. I also KNEW you were gonna go into semantics. As if those folks would say/did say anything different under oath. Puhlease. Also, you're lying again. I literally just posted "COMEY: Yes. If the FBI receives a credible allegation that there is some effort to co-opt, coerce, direct, employee covertly an American on behalf of the foreign power, that's the basis on which a counterintelligence investigation is opened." https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239295Thus: "F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/us/politics/fbi-trump-russia-inquiry.html"" Despite what Trump and like-minded politicians have said, sources told ABC News the “dossier” was plainly not the initial basis for the federal investigation.
The following account, relayed to ABC News by several sources familiar with the federal probe, reflects how the FBI’s investigation into contacts between Russian operatives and Trump’s campaign team, including Page, was well underway in the summer of 2016 by the time a former British spy handed the FBI a packet of startling and salacious allegations tied to Trump. In fact, the FBI already had an open counterintelligence case on Page when he became a volunteer on Trump’s foreign policy team in January 2016, according to sources familiar with the matter. By then, Trump had publicly claimed to have “a good instinct” about Russian’s ruthless president, Vladimir Putin, had praised how Putin was “running his country,” and had compared the Kremlin’s assassinations of dissidents to the “plenty of killing” that happens inside the United States." https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-dossier-stuck-york-trigger-russia-investigation-sources/story?id=57919471"President Donald Trump and his allies are claiming that the partial contents of a secret national security "FISA" warrant, released Saturday, vindicate their claim that special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation was improperly launched on the basis of a speculative opposition research document paid for by Democrats. The Trump camp says the probe has its roots in the "Trump dossier" compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, which alleges collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. "So we now find out that it was indeed the unverified and Fake Dirty Dossier, that was paid for by Crooked Hillary Clinton and the DNC, that was knowingly & falsely submitted to FISA and which was responsible for starting the totally conflicted and discredited Mueller Witch Hunt!" the president wrote in a tweet Monday morning. Trump also continues to suggest that the electronic surveillance of his one-time campaign aide, Carter Page, which was authorized by the FISA warrant, launched the Russia probe. Both of these assertions are false. Here is why." https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/why-team-trump-wrong-about-carter-page-dossier-secret-warrant-n893666Feel free to read that whole article. It's pretty concise and enlightening. I know you're not stupid. You put together coherent sentences and are capable of putting together (poor) arguments. So why are you doing this? You are demonstrably lying or misleading when you post. I don't understand why. First off, there's nothing about my posts that deal with semantics. It's all substantive. Did you bother looking at the articles at The Epoch times that actually quote the testimony transcripts? I'll compile some later when I have more time. But as an aside, it's interesting that you bring up the issue of what the genesis of the FBI investigation was if it was not the Steele dossier. No one at the FBI/DOJ seems to want to talk about that despite that the fact that the dossier has been fairly thoroughly discredited (note that Bruce Ohr testified that, when delivering the dossier materials to the FBI, he told the investigators that the materials could not be deemed reliable and that they needed to be independently verified -- which never happened). And in particular, while everyone loves to talk about all of this "other information" that was used to support the FISA warrants, absolutely no one seems to want to describe what this "other information" is. My educated guess is that what we're eventually going to learn is that this "other information" is even more dubious than the Steele dossier. The Steele report, so thoroughly discredited that large parts of it have been confirmed true...
Unlawful FISA warrants that somehow seem to go back to before Trump considered running but somehow only exist to spy and discredit Trump. Page was already under surveillance in 2013/2014.
Or other intelligence agencies from US allies who are somehow in on this deep state plot to stop Trump that contacted the US agencies when their own Russian surveillance kept catching wind of involvement with Trump and the people surrounding him.
But your right, its all a hoax...
|
On March 09 2019 01:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2019 01:19 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 09 2019 01:01 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 23:56 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 13:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 13:07 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 12:31 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 12:00 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 11:49 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 11:24 Ayaz2810 wrote:
[quote]
THAT'S what you focus on in my diatribe? Fine, he was convicted of a bunch of white collar crimes and many of them were related to the treason he committed but has not yet been charged with. Does that help?
And we all know he's a traitor. We don't have to hold him to the same standard as a court of law. I know for a fact he helped Trump get elected with the help of Russia. I don't need 4,000 pages of documents and a bullet point timeline made by prosecutors to tell me what I see in front of my face already. There's enough public reporting on the issue for all of us to be certain it happened. If there was any doubt left, the sharing of secret polling data with Russian intel put a nail in that fuckin' coffin.
EDIT: Fun speculation time. The data transmitted from the Trump server to Alfa Bank was likely the polling data and the info Manafort shared was the information to make sense of it. Calling it now. There is no basis for any of this. None of what Manafort was even charged with, much less convicted of, had anything to do with Trump. Hell, we still don’t have any evidence of Trump/Russia collusion according to the House and Senate committees, and it is obvious that Mueller’s report won’t have it either, which is why Democrats are twisting themselves in pretzels to move onto to an obstruction narrative. But that charge is just as baseless due to testimony that McCabe, Comey, and Baker have given. No basis? What universe do you live in? Existing ties to Russia through Ukraine Republican platform change Ties to Russian oligarchs (even in debt to them) Sharing of polling data Trump tower meeting Konstantin Kilimnik Ties to Roger Stone > Wikileaks > Russia Many more things that you can get just from reading for an hour. "On February 14, 2017, The New York Times reported that Paul Manafort had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials during 2016. Manafort said he did not knowingly meet any Russian intelligence officials.[32] Intercepted communications during the campaign show that Russian officials believed they could use Manafort to influence Trump.[79] On June 2, 2017, special counsel Robert Mueller assumed the criminal probe into Manafort,[80] which predates the 2016 election and the counterintelligence probe that in July 2016 began investigating possible collusion between Moscow and associates of Trump. Manafort was forced to resign as Trump campaign chairman in August 2016 amid questions over his business dealings in Ukraine years earlier.[80] On September 18, 2017, CNN reported that the FBI wiretapped Manafort from 2014 until an unspecified date in 2016 and again from the fall of 2016 until early 2017, pursuant to two separate Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court orders. It has not been confirmed that Trump's conversations with Manafort were intercepted as part of this surveillance. CNN also confirmed that "Mueller's team ... has been provided details of these communications."[81] In October 2017, Manafort was indicted by a federal grand jury and arrested on twelve criminal charges including conspiracy, money laundering, failure to register as an agent of a foreign power, and false statements.[82] The charges arose from his consulting work for a pro-Russian government in Ukraine and are unrelated to the Trump campaign.[83] Manafort pleaded not guilty and was placed under house arrest.[84] On February 22, 2018, Manafort was indicted on 32 federal charges including tax evasion, money laundering and fraud relating to their foreign lobbying before, during and after the 2016 campaign.[85] The following day, after Rick Gates plead guilty to some charges, he was indicted on two additional charges relating to pro-Russian lobbying in the United States.[86]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials First of all, you are citing a Wikileaks article that is inaccurate and clearly out of date. Second, the article still doesn’t support what you are arguing. You are badly overciting it. EDIT: Just to put an exclamation point on this, here's the Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman talking to CBS last month: Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr said Thursday that his committee's Russia investigation has yet to find evidence of collusion between President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and the Kremlin but will soon release a report on the Obama administration's response to Russian interference in the last presidential election.
In an interview with CBS published Thursday, Burr (R-N.C.) gave glimpses into the dynamics and scope of his committee's probe, which was launched shortly before Trump's 2017 inauguration and has now stretched into its third year. Burr told CBS that the committee staff has interviewed more than 200 witnesses from multiple countries and reviewed over 300,000 pages.
"Based on the evidence to date," Burr said, the committee could not definitively say there was collusion between Trump and the Russians.
"If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don't have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia," Burr told CBS.
Still, the senator said some questions raised over the investigation could occupy the committee "for the next decade," and that portions of the final report could be so classified that they are never revealed to the public. Burr said his committee is "close to pushing out the door" a report on the Obama administration's response to Russian election interference, a release that the chairman said could come within a "matter of weeks." Source. Let's just be clear that this guy knows exactly what's out there. In fact, he has more than Mueller does because he gets access to intelligence assets. He's a Republican and thus a party hack. Did you not see the circlejerk that was Cohen's testimony? Also: "What we do know, and it's part of the public record, there's never been a campaign in American history that during the campaign and its aftermath that the campaign folks affiliated with the campaign had as many ties with Russia as the Trump campaign did," Warner said." And: "In an interview on CNN, Schiff rejected Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr’s statements from earlier this month, in which Burr said evidence shows no collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia. “Chairman Burr must have a different word for it,” Schiff told host Dana Bash on “State of the Union,” pointing to communications between Russia and Donald Trump Jr. and former Trump aides George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn. “You can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion, pretty compelling evidence,” Schiff said, adding, “ There is a difference between seeing evidence of collusion and being able to prove a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/02/17/trump-russia-collusion-adam-schiff-1173434Considering the Dems are the only ones attempting any kind of oversight and transparency, I'm gonna go ahead and say conspiracy to defraud the United States is on the table for everyone involved. Bonus points for Schiff taking the words out of my mouth. You realize that all of the testimony from every member of the FBI and DOJ who was involved in the investigation rebuts Schiff, right? Other than McCabe, Schiff may be the most dishonest player in this whole mess. On March 08 2019 13:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 13:07 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 12:31 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 12:00 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 11:49 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 11:24 Ayaz2810 wrote:
[quote]
THAT'S what you focus on in my diatribe? Fine, he was convicted of a bunch of white collar crimes and many of them were related to the treason he committed but has not yet been charged with. Does that help?
And we all know he's a traitor. We don't have to hold him to the same standard as a court of law. I know for a fact he helped Trump get elected with the help of Russia. I don't need 4,000 pages of documents and a bullet point timeline made by prosecutors to tell me what I see in front of my face already. There's enough public reporting on the issue for all of us to be certain it happened. If there was any doubt left, the sharing of secret polling data with Russian intel put a nail in that fuckin' coffin.
EDIT: Fun speculation time. The data transmitted from the Trump server to Alfa Bank was likely the polling data and the info Manafort shared was the information to make sense of it. Calling it now. There is no basis for any of this. None of what Manafort was even charged with, much less convicted of, had anything to do with Trump. Hell, we still don’t have any evidence of Trump/Russia collusion according to the House and Senate committees, and it is obvious that Mueller’s report won’t have it either, which is why Democrats are twisting themselves in pretzels to move onto to an obstruction narrative. But that charge is just as baseless due to testimony that McCabe, Comey, and Baker have given. No basis? What universe do you live in? Existing ties to Russia through Ukraine Republican platform change Ties to Russian oligarchs (even in debt to them) Sharing of polling data Trump tower meeting Konstantin Kilimnik Ties to Roger Stone > Wikileaks > Russia Many more things that you can get just from reading for an hour. "On February 14, 2017, The New York Times reported that Paul Manafort had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials during 2016. Manafort said he did not knowingly meet any Russian intelligence officials.[32] Intercepted communications during the campaign show that Russian officials believed they could use Manafort to influence Trump.[79] On June 2, 2017, special counsel Robert Mueller assumed the criminal probe into Manafort,[80] which predates the 2016 election and the counterintelligence probe that in July 2016 began investigating possible collusion between Moscow and associates of Trump. Manafort was forced to resign as Trump campaign chairman in August 2016 amid questions over his business dealings in Ukraine years earlier.[80] On September 18, 2017, CNN reported that the FBI wiretapped Manafort from 2014 until an unspecified date in 2016 and again from the fall of 2016 until early 2017, pursuant to two separate Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court orders. It has not been confirmed that Trump's conversations with Manafort were intercepted as part of this surveillance. CNN also confirmed that "Mueller's team ... has been provided details of these communications."[81] In October 2017, Manafort was indicted by a federal grand jury and arrested on twelve criminal charges including conspiracy, money laundering, failure to register as an agent of a foreign power, and false statements.[82] The charges arose from his consulting work for a pro-Russian government in Ukraine and are unrelated to the Trump campaign.[83] Manafort pleaded not guilty and was placed under house arrest.[84] On February 22, 2018, Manafort was indicted on 32 federal charges including tax evasion, money laundering and fraud relating to their foreign lobbying before, during and after the 2016 campaign.[85] The following day, after Rick Gates plead guilty to some charges, he was indicted on two additional charges relating to pro-Russian lobbying in the United States.[86]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials First of all, you are citing a Wikileaks article that is inaccurate and clearly out of date. Second, the article still doesn’t support what you are arguing. You are badly overciting it. EDIT: Just to put an exclamation point on this, here's the Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman talking to CBS last month: Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr said Thursday that his committee's Russia investigation has yet to find evidence of collusion between President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and the Kremlin but will soon release a report on the Obama administration's response to Russian interference in the last presidential election.
In an interview with CBS published Thursday, Burr (R-N.C.) gave glimpses into the dynamics and scope of his committee's probe, which was launched shortly before Trump's 2017 inauguration and has now stretched into its third year. Burr told CBS that the committee staff has interviewed more than 200 witnesses from multiple countries and reviewed over 300,000 pages.
"Based on the evidence to date," Burr said, the committee could not definitively say there was collusion between Trump and the Russians.
"If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don't have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia," Burr told CBS.
Still, the senator said some questions raised over the investigation could occupy the committee "for the next decade," and that portions of the final report could be so classified that they are never revealed to the public. Burr said his committee is "close to pushing out the door" a report on the Obama administration's response to Russian election interference, a release that the chairman said could come within a "matter of weeks." Source. Let's just be clear that this guy knows exactly what's out there. In fact, he has more than Mueller does because he gets access to intelligence assets. He's a Republican and thus a party hack. Did you not see the circlejerk that was Cohen's testimony? Also: "What we do know, and it's part of the public record, there's never been a campaign in American history that during the campaign and its aftermath that the campaign folks affiliated with the campaign had as many ties with Russia as the Trump campaign did," Warner said." And: "In an interview on CNN, Schiff rejected Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr’s statements from earlier this month, in which Burr said evidence shows no collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia. “Chairman Burr must have a different word for it,” Schiff told host Dana Bash on “State of the Union,” pointing to communications between Russia and Donald Trump Jr. and former Trump aides George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn. “You can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion, pretty compelling evidence,” Schiff said, adding, “ There is a difference between seeing evidence of collusion and being able to prove a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/02/17/trump-russia-collusion-adam-schiff-1173434Considering the Dems are the only ones attempting any kind of oversight and transparency, I'm gonna go ahead and say conspiracy to defraud the United States is on the table for everyone involved. Bonus points for Schiff taking the words out of my mouth. You realize that all of the testimony from every member of the FBI and DOJ who was involved in the investigation rebuts Schiff, right? Other than McCabe, Schiff may be the most dishonest player in this whole mess. You realize that what you said is factually untrue right? Parroting Trump talking points does not prove a point. In fact, it's part of the problem. I'm mildly irritated that people are allowed to lie with impunity and claim it as an "argument" or "rebuttal". The intelligence agencies and their employees (both former and current) are mortified at Trump's conduct and several suspect him of being an agent of Russia. But the fact that you said testimony and a lot of what I linked is not testimony means you're going to come at me on semantics as usual. I see it coming. There are more people/statements from agencies involved with handling of classified intelligence who agree with Schiff than those who don't. So you're full of it. And this is just a fraction of what is out there. These people are trying to tell us without telling us. It's not rocket science. But people like you claim because it isn't specific enough, it's all made up. EDIT: It's also worth noting that these are Republicans. Just in case you start with the "angry Democrat" lies. I'm starting to worry that you've consumed the Kool-Aid. "BURR: So if you've got a 36-page document of specific claims that are out there, the FBI would have to for counter intelligence reasons, try to verify anything that might be claimed in there, one, and probably first and foremost, is the counterintelligence concerns that we have about blackmail. Would that be an accurate statement? COMEY: Yes. If the FBI receives a credible allegation that there is some effort to co-opt, coerce, direct, employee covertly an American on behalf of the foreign power, that's the basis on which a counterintelligence investigation is opened." https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239295Thus: "F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/us/politics/fbi-trump-russia-inquiry.html" Do you still believe the President could be a Russian asset?" asked CNN's Anderson Cooper during an interview with McCabe on "Anderson Cooper 360." " I think it's possible. I think that's why we started our investigation, and I'm really anxious to see where (special counsel Robert) Mueller concludes that," McCabe said. “There is some kind of special rapport relationship between the two of them. And I think Mr. Putin, who is an exceptionally well-trained KGB officer, intelligence officer, I think has exploited and cultivated this relationship and is taking full advantage of it. He [Trump] acts like he has an ulterior motive that is not apparent and whether or not he is trying cover up something, whether he is fearful of what Mr. Putin might do.” https://www.newsweek.com/putin-knows-lot-more-american-public-knows-about-trumps-dealings-russia-says-1301253"...Mr Putin was directing a state-sponsored effort to interfere with the US election. The FBI was already looking at ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, but the CIA memo seemed to confirm Russian efforts to throw the election Mr Trump's way." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42493918"Trump’s handling of the matter has been a much greater source of dismay inside the intelligence community than widely understood. One official said CIA employees were staggered by Trump’s performance during a news conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki this summer at which he treated denials by Putin as so “strong and powerful” that they offset the conclusions of the CIA.“There was this gasp” among those watching at the CIA, the official said. “You literally had people in panic mode watching it at Langley. On all floors. Just shock.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/gap-continues-to-widen-between-trump-and-intelligence-community-on-key-issues/2018/12/11/23a02cb0-f8db-11e8-863c-9e2f864d47e7_story.html?utm_term=.d55020196b51 I hate to break it to you, but statements in the media (especially anonymous statements) aren't even remotely compelling in light of all of the testimony (UNDER OATH) that is now out there. Doug Collins was kind enough to release Bruce Ohr's testimony transcript today, and is planning on releasing more. It's a good place to start. Many of the other key transcripts were reported on over at The Epoch Times. The point is that there is ample information out there showing not only that the Trump/Russia collusion narrative is a hoax, but that it was likely generated through illegal activity, including abuse of the NSA database and FISA court. So you trust a source that uses headlines like this: Why Media Organizations Can’t Let Go of the Fake Russia-Collusion Narrative. https://www.theepochtimes.com/why-media-organizations-cant-let-go-of-the-fake-russia-collusion-narrative_2428201.htmlThat's very telling. I also KNEW you were gonna go into semantics. As if those folks would say/did say anything different under oath. Puhlease. Also, you're lying again. I literally just posted "COMEY: Yes. If the FBI receives a credible allegation that there is some effort to co-opt, coerce, direct, employee covertly an American on behalf of the foreign power, that's the basis on which a counterintelligence investigation is opened." https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239295Thus: "F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/us/politics/fbi-trump-russia-inquiry.html"" Despite what Trump and like-minded politicians have said, sources told ABC News the “dossier” was plainly not the initial basis for the federal investigation.
The following account, relayed to ABC News by several sources familiar with the federal probe, reflects how the FBI’s investigation into contacts between Russian operatives and Trump’s campaign team, including Page, was well underway in the summer of 2016 by the time a former British spy handed the FBI a packet of startling and salacious allegations tied to Trump. In fact, the FBI already had an open counterintelligence case on Page when he became a volunteer on Trump’s foreign policy team in January 2016, according to sources familiar with the matter. By then, Trump had publicly claimed to have “a good instinct” about Russian’s ruthless president, Vladimir Putin, had praised how Putin was “running his country,” and had compared the Kremlin’s assassinations of dissidents to the “plenty of killing” that happens inside the United States." https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-dossier-stuck-york-trigger-russia-investigation-sources/story?id=57919471"President Donald Trump and his allies are claiming that the partial contents of a secret national security "FISA" warrant, released Saturday, vindicate their claim that special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation was improperly launched on the basis of a speculative opposition research document paid for by Democrats. The Trump camp says the probe has its roots in the "Trump dossier" compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, which alleges collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. "So we now find out that it was indeed the unverified and Fake Dirty Dossier, that was paid for by Crooked Hillary Clinton and the DNC, that was knowingly & falsely submitted to FISA and which was responsible for starting the totally conflicted and discredited Mueller Witch Hunt!" the president wrote in a tweet Monday morning. Trump also continues to suggest that the electronic surveillance of his one-time campaign aide, Carter Page, which was authorized by the FISA warrant, launched the Russia probe. Both of these assertions are false. Here is why." https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/why-team-trump-wrong-about-carter-page-dossier-secret-warrant-n893666Feel free to read that whole article. It's pretty concise and enlightening. I know you're not stupid. You put together coherent sentences and are capable of putting together (poor) arguments. So why are you doing this? You are demonstrably lying or misleading when you post. I don't understand why. First off, there's nothing about my posts that deal with semantics. It's all substantive. Did you bother looking at the articles at The Epoch times that actually quote the testimony transcripts? I'll compile some later when I have more time. But as an aside, it's interesting that you bring up the issue of what the genesis of the FBI investigation was if it was not the Steele dossier. No one at the FBI/DOJ seems to want to talk about that despite that the fact that the dossier has been fairly thoroughly discredited (note that Bruce Ohr testified that, when delivering the dossier materials to the FBI, he told the investigators that the materials could not be deemed reliable and that they needed to be independently verified -- which never happened). And in particular, while everyone loves to talk about all of this "other information" that was used to support the FISA warrants, absolutely no one seems to want to describe what this "other information" is. My educated guess is that what we're eventually going to learn is that this "other information" is even more dubious than the Steele dossier.
For the third time: "COMEY: Yes. If the FBI receives a credible allegation that there is some effort to co-opt, coerce, direct, employee covertly an American on behalf of the foreign power, that's the basis on which a counterintelligence investigation is opened."
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239295
Thus: "F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia"
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/us/politics/fbi-trump-russia-inquiry.html"
"How the Russia Inquiry Began: A Campaign Aide, Drinks and Talk of Political Dirt"
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/us/politics/how-fbi-russia-investigation-began-george-papadopoulos.html
Also, Little/none of the dossier has been definitely proven false, while much has been borne out. So far the closest is Michael "I have never been to Prague" Cohen.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/politics/dossier-two-years-later/index.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/steele-dossier-allegations-trump-russia-mueller-investigation-2019-1
You keep on lying. You still haven't said why. Just honing your skills? Are you a crazy person? Are you just that die-hard? What is the motivation here? You're very clearly and provably wrong in everything you are saying, so there has to be a reason you keep digging.
|
|
|
On March 09 2019 01:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2019 09:16 Kyadytim wrote:On March 08 2019 09:13 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 09:08 Gorsameth wrote:On March 08 2019 09:04 Ayaz2810 wrote:
4 years for Manafort?! My fucking brother in law got 5 for holding up a gas station to buy heroin after he got hooked on Oxy in the Army. And Manafort gets fucking 4 years for treason?
What the hell is going on? Judge Berman-Jackson better drop the hammer on this piece of shit. If your white and rich, crime pays. I work at an American prison and no lie, there's a dude here for 12.5 years for writing a stolen check for $5,000. JUst for some god damn perspective. I am so disgusted right now I'm shaking with rage. Pair this miscarriage of justice with the new polling that shows ~62% of Republicans wouldn't want to impeach even if crimes were proven (collusion and obstruction), and you have a recipe for blood in the streets in the next year. Sane people will not stand for this shit. It will either be the trump-haters that snap, or Trump will incite his followers to rise up in his defense. I'm thinking 50/50 chance we have a civil war. And the craziest thing about that idea? Multiple people have spoken it out loud on television in all seriousness. People who have known Trump/Cohen/Etc for years. Sentencing guidelines suggested 19 to 24 years, but the judge felt that would be too harsh. I liked when the judge said that he had lived an otherwise blameless life. An interesting claim given he’s in court for a different thing next week. Also an interesting claim given the testimony from his own daughters alleging that he organized the gang rape of his wife and had arranged the deaths of multiple people in Ukraine.
My guess is Judge Berman Jackson comes down hard and gives close to the max (10 years) because that is the case where he has lied and broken his cooperation agreement as well as the one where he tried to witness tamper. I also think consecutive instead of concurrent sentences is on the table.
On top of that, apparently the State of NY plans on going after him on money stuff as we.
|
|
|
On March 09 2019 01:56 JimmiC wrote:
Would the sentences be concurrent?
Berman-Jackson makes that decision next week.
|
United States42689 Posts
On March 09 2019 01:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2019 01:03 Gorsameth wrote:
Its a hoax, except for the part where Trump admitted that Jr met with the Russian government to discuss obtaining information on Hillary.
You know, except for the parts that happened, its totally a hoax...
Have you ever thought to question what you think you know about the Trump Jr meeting? In particular, if something illicit happened at that meeting -- which we have all known about for years at this point -- why hasn't anyone been charged? Mueller certainly hasn't been shy with charging people or otherwise going after the president.
I think this post is going to age well.
|
On March 09 2019 01:49 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2019 01:30 xDaunt wrote:On March 09 2019 01:19 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 09 2019 01:01 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 23:56 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 13:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 13:07 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 12:31 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 12:00 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 11:49 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
There is no basis for any of this. None of what Manafort was even charged with, much less convicted of, had anything to do with Trump. Hell, we still don’t have any evidence of Trump/Russia collusion according to the House and Senate committees, and it is obvious that Mueller’s report won’t have it either, which is why Democrats are twisting themselves in pretzels to move onto to an obstruction narrative. But that charge is just as baseless due to testimony that McCabe, Comey, and Baker have given. No basis? What universe do you live in? Existing ties to Russia through Ukraine Republican platform change Ties to Russian oligarchs (even in debt to them) Sharing of polling data Trump tower meeting Konstantin Kilimnik Ties to Roger Stone > Wikileaks > Russia Many more things that you can get just from reading for an hour. "On February 14, 2017, The New York Times reported that Paul Manafort had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials during 2016. Manafort said he did not knowingly meet any Russian intelligence officials.[32] Intercepted communications during the campaign show that Russian officials believed they could use Manafort to influence Trump.[79] On June 2, 2017, special counsel Robert Mueller assumed the criminal probe into Manafort,[80] which predates the 2016 election and the counterintelligence probe that in July 2016 began investigating possible collusion between Moscow and associates of Trump. Manafort was forced to resign as Trump campaign chairman in August 2016 amid questions over his business dealings in Ukraine years earlier.[80] On September 18, 2017, CNN reported that the FBI wiretapped Manafort from 2014 until an unspecified date in 2016 and again from the fall of 2016 until early 2017, pursuant to two separate Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court orders. It has not been confirmed that Trump's conversations with Manafort were intercepted as part of this surveillance. CNN also confirmed that "Mueller's team ... has been provided details of these communications."[81] In October 2017, Manafort was indicted by a federal grand jury and arrested on twelve criminal charges including conspiracy, money laundering, failure to register as an agent of a foreign power, and false statements.[82] The charges arose from his consulting work for a pro-Russian government in Ukraine and are unrelated to the Trump campaign.[83] Manafort pleaded not guilty and was placed under house arrest.[84] On February 22, 2018, Manafort was indicted on 32 federal charges including tax evasion, money laundering and fraud relating to their foreign lobbying before, during and after the 2016 campaign.[85] The following day, after Rick Gates plead guilty to some charges, he was indicted on two additional charges relating to pro-Russian lobbying in the United States.[86]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials First of all, you are citing a Wikileaks article that is inaccurate and clearly out of date. Second, the article still doesn’t support what you are arguing. You are badly overciting it. EDIT: Just to put an exclamation point on this, here's the Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman talking to CBS last month: Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr said Thursday that his committee's Russia investigation has yet to find evidence of collusion between President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and the Kremlin but will soon release a report on the Obama administration's response to Russian interference in the last presidential election.
In an interview with CBS published Thursday, Burr (R-N.C.) gave glimpses into the dynamics and scope of his committee's probe, which was launched shortly before Trump's 2017 inauguration and has now stretched into its third year. Burr told CBS that the committee staff has interviewed more than 200 witnesses from multiple countries and reviewed over 300,000 pages.
"Based on the evidence to date," Burr said, the committee could not definitively say there was collusion between Trump and the Russians.
"If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don't have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia," Burr told CBS.
Still, the senator said some questions raised over the investigation could occupy the committee "for the next decade," and that portions of the final report could be so classified that they are never revealed to the public. Burr said his committee is "close to pushing out the door" a report on the Obama administration's response to Russian election interference, a release that the chairman said could come within a "matter of weeks." Source. Let's just be clear that this guy knows exactly what's out there. In fact, he has more than Mueller does because he gets access to intelligence assets. He's a Republican and thus a party hack. Did you not see the circlejerk that was Cohen's testimony? Also: "What we do know, and it's part of the public record, there's never been a campaign in American history that during the campaign and its aftermath that the campaign folks affiliated with the campaign had as many ties with Russia as the Trump campaign did," Warner said." And: "In an interview on CNN, Schiff rejected Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr’s statements from earlier this month, in which Burr said evidence shows no collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia. “Chairman Burr must have a different word for it,” Schiff told host Dana Bash on “State of the Union,” pointing to communications between Russia and Donald Trump Jr. and former Trump aides George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn. “You can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion, pretty compelling evidence,” Schiff said, adding, “ There is a difference between seeing evidence of collusion and being able to prove a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/02/17/trump-russia-collusion-adam-schiff-1173434Considering the Dems are the only ones attempting any kind of oversight and transparency, I'm gonna go ahead and say conspiracy to defraud the United States is on the table for everyone involved. Bonus points for Schiff taking the words out of my mouth. You realize that all of the testimony from every member of the FBI and DOJ who was involved in the investigation rebuts Schiff, right? Other than McCabe, Schiff may be the most dishonest player in this whole mess. On March 08 2019 13:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 13:07 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 12:31 xDaunt wrote:On March 08 2019 12:00 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 08 2019 11:49 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
There is no basis for any of this. None of what Manafort was even charged with, much less convicted of, had anything to do with Trump. Hell, we still don’t have any evidence of Trump/Russia collusion according to the House and Senate committees, and it is obvious that Mueller’s report won’t have it either, which is why Democrats are twisting themselves in pretzels to move onto to an obstruction narrative. But that charge is just as baseless due to testimony that McCabe, Comey, and Baker have given. No basis? What universe do you live in? Existing ties to Russia through Ukraine Republican platform change Ties to Russian oligarchs (even in debt to them) Sharing of polling data Trump tower meeting Konstantin Kilimnik Ties to Roger Stone > Wikileaks > Russia Many more things that you can get just from reading for an hour. "On February 14, 2017, The New York Times reported that Paul Manafort had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials during 2016. Manafort said he did not knowingly meet any Russian intelligence officials.[32] Intercepted communications during the campaign show that Russian officials believed they could use Manafort to influence Trump.[79] On June 2, 2017, special counsel Robert Mueller assumed the criminal probe into Manafort,[80] which predates the 2016 election and the counterintelligence probe that in July 2016 began investigating possible collusion between Moscow and associates of Trump. Manafort was forced to resign as Trump campaign chairman in August 2016 amid questions over his business dealings in Ukraine years earlier.[80] On September 18, 2017, CNN reported that the FBI wiretapped Manafort from 2014 until an unspecified date in 2016 and again from the fall of 2016 until early 2017, pursuant to two separate Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court orders. It has not been confirmed that Trump's conversations with Manafort were intercepted as part of this surveillance. CNN also confirmed that "Mueller's team ... has been provided details of these communications."[81] In October 2017, Manafort was indicted by a federal grand jury and arrested on twelve criminal charges including conspiracy, money laundering, failure to register as an agent of a foreign power, and false statements.[82] The charges arose from his consulting work for a pro-Russian government in Ukraine and are unrelated to the Trump campaign.[83] Manafort pleaded not guilty and was placed under house arrest.[84] On February 22, 2018, Manafort was indicted on 32 federal charges including tax evasion, money laundering and fraud relating to their foreign lobbying before, during and after the 2016 campaign.[85] The following day, after Rick Gates plead guilty to some charges, he was indicted on two additional charges relating to pro-Russian lobbying in the United States.[86]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials First of all, you are citing a Wikileaks article that is inaccurate and clearly out of date. Second, the article still doesn’t support what you are arguing. You are badly overciting it. EDIT: Just to put an exclamation point on this, here's the Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman talking to CBS last month: Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr said Thursday that his committee's Russia investigation has yet to find evidence of collusion between President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and the Kremlin but will soon release a report on the Obama administration's response to Russian interference in the last presidential election.
In an interview with CBS published Thursday, Burr (R-N.C.) gave glimpses into the dynamics and scope of his committee's probe, which was launched shortly before Trump's 2017 inauguration and has now stretched into its third year. Burr told CBS that the committee staff has interviewed more than 200 witnesses from multiple countries and reviewed over 300,000 pages.
"Based on the evidence to date," Burr said, the committee could not definitively say there was collusion between Trump and the Russians.
"If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don't have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia," Burr told CBS.
Still, the senator said some questions raised over the investigation could occupy the committee "for the next decade," and that portions of the final report could be so classified that they are never revealed to the public. Burr said his committee is "close to pushing out the door" a report on the Obama administration's response to Russian election interference, a release that the chairman said could come within a "matter of weeks." Source. Let's just be clear that this guy knows exactly what's out there. In fact, he has more than Mueller does because he gets access to intelligence assets. He's a Republican and thus a party hack. Did you not see the circlejerk that was Cohen's testimony? Also: "What we do know, and it's part of the public record, there's never been a campaign in American history that during the campaign and its aftermath that the campaign folks affiliated with the campaign had as many ties with Russia as the Trump campaign did," Warner said." And: "In an interview on CNN, Schiff rejected Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr’s statements from earlier this month, in which Burr said evidence shows no collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia. “Chairman Burr must have a different word for it,” Schiff told host Dana Bash on “State of the Union,” pointing to communications between Russia and Donald Trump Jr. and former Trump aides George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn. “You can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion, pretty compelling evidence,” Schiff said, adding, “ There is a difference between seeing evidence of collusion and being able to prove a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/02/17/trump-russia-collusion-adam-schiff-1173434Considering the Dems are the only ones attempting any kind of oversight and transparency, I'm gonna go ahead and say conspiracy to defraud the United States is on the table for everyone involved. Bonus points for Schiff taking the words out of my mouth. You realize that all of the testimony from every member of the FBI and DOJ who was involved in the investigation rebuts Schiff, right? Other than McCabe, Schiff may be the most dishonest player in this whole mess. You realize that what you said is factually untrue right? Parroting Trump talking points does not prove a point. In fact, it's part of the problem. I'm mildly irritated that people are allowed to lie with impunity and claim it as an "argument" or "rebuttal". The intelligence agencies and their employees (both former and current) are mortified at Trump's conduct and several suspect him of being an agent of Russia. But the fact that you said testimony and a lot of what I linked is not testimony means you're going to come at me on semantics as usual. I see it coming. There are more people/statements from agencies involved with handling of classified intelligence who agree with Schiff than those who don't. So you're full of it. And this is just a fraction of what is out there. These people are trying to tell us without telling us. It's not rocket science. But people like you claim because it isn't specific enough, it's all made up. EDIT: It's also worth noting that these are Republicans. Just in case you start with the "angry Democrat" lies. I'm starting to worry that you've consumed the Kool-Aid. "BURR: So if you've got a 36-page document of specific claims that are out there, the FBI would have to for counter intelligence reasons, try to verify anything that might be claimed in there, one, and probably first and foremost, is the counterintelligence concerns that we have about blackmail. Would that be an accurate statement? COMEY: Yes. If the FBI receives a credible allegation that there is some effort to co-opt, coerce, direct, employee covertly an American on behalf of the foreign power, that's the basis on which a counterintelligence investigation is opened." https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239295Thus: "F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/us/politics/fbi-trump-russia-inquiry.html" Do you still believe the President could be a Russian asset?" asked CNN's Anderson Cooper during an interview with McCabe on "Anderson Cooper 360." " I think it's possible. I think that's why we started our investigation, and I'm really anxious to see where (special counsel Robert) Mueller concludes that," McCabe said. “There is some kind of special rapport relationship between the two of them. And I think Mr. Putin, who is an exceptionally well-trained KGB officer, intelligence officer, I think has exploited and cultivated this relationship and is taking full advantage of it. He [Trump] acts like he has an ulterior motive that is not apparent and whether or not he is trying cover up something, whether he is fearful of what Mr. Putin might do.” https://www.newsweek.com/putin-knows-lot-more-american-public-knows-about-trumps-dealings-russia-says-1301253"...Mr Putin was directing a state-sponsored effort to interfere with the US election. The FBI was already looking at ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, but the CIA memo seemed to confirm Russian efforts to throw the election Mr Trump's way." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42493918"Trump’s handling of the matter has been a much greater source of dismay inside the intelligence community than widely understood. One official said CIA employees were staggered by Trump’s performance during a news conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki this summer at which he treated denials by Putin as so “strong and powerful” that they offset the conclusions of the CIA.“There was this gasp” among those watching at the CIA, the official said. “You literally had people in panic mode watching it at Langley. On all floors. Just shock.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/gap-continues-to-widen-between-trump-and-intelligence-community-on-key-issues/2018/12/11/23a02cb0-f8db-11e8-863c-9e2f864d47e7_story.html?utm_term=.d55020196b51 I hate to break it to you, but statements in the media (especially anonymous statements) aren't even remotely compelling in light of all of the testimony (UNDER OATH) that is now out there. Doug Collins was kind enough to release Bruce Ohr's testimony transcript today, and is planning on releasing more. It's a good place to start. Many of the other key transcripts were reported on over at The Epoch Times. The point is that there is ample information out there showing not only that the Trump/Russia collusion narrative is a hoax, but that it was likely generated through illegal activity, including abuse of the NSA database and FISA court. So you trust a source that uses headlines like this: Why Media Organizations Can’t Let Go of the Fake Russia-Collusion Narrative. https://www.theepochtimes.com/why-media-organizations-cant-let-go-of-the-fake-russia-collusion-narrative_2428201.htmlThat's very telling. I also KNEW you were gonna go into semantics. As if those folks would say/did say anything different under oath. Puhlease. Also, you're lying again. I literally just posted "COMEY: Yes. If the FBI receives a credible allegation that there is some effort to co-opt, coerce, direct, employee covertly an American on behalf of the foreign power, that's the basis on which a counterintelligence investigation is opened." https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239295Thus: "F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/us/politics/fbi-trump-russia-inquiry.html"" Despite what Trump and like-minded politicians have said, sources told ABC News the “dossier” was plainly not the initial basis for the federal investigation.
The following account, relayed to ABC News by several sources familiar with the federal probe, reflects how the FBI’s investigation into contacts between Russian operatives and Trump’s campaign team, including Page, was well underway in the summer of 2016 by the time a former British spy handed the FBI a packet of startling and salacious allegations tied to Trump. In fact, the FBI already had an open counterintelligence case on Page when he became a volunteer on Trump’s foreign policy team in January 2016, according to sources familiar with the matter. By then, Trump had publicly claimed to have “a good instinct” about Russian’s ruthless president, Vladimir Putin, had praised how Putin was “running his country,” and had compared the Kremlin’s assassinations of dissidents to the “plenty of killing” that happens inside the United States." https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-dossier-stuck-york-trigger-russia-investigation-sources/story?id=57919471"President Donald Trump and his allies are claiming that the partial contents of a secret national security "FISA" warrant, released Saturday, vindicate their claim that special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation was improperly launched on the basis of a speculative opposition research document paid for by Democrats. The Trump camp says the probe has its roots in the "Trump dossier" compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, which alleges collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. "So we now find out that it was indeed the unverified and Fake Dirty Dossier, that was paid for by Crooked Hillary Clinton and the DNC, that was knowingly & falsely submitted to FISA and which was responsible for starting the totally conflicted and discredited Mueller Witch Hunt!" the president wrote in a tweet Monday morning. Trump also continues to suggest that the electronic surveillance of his one-time campaign aide, Carter Page, which was authorized by the FISA warrant, launched the Russia probe. Both of these assertions are false. Here is why." https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/why-team-trump-wrong-about-carter-page-dossier-secret-warrant-n893666Feel free to read that whole article. It's pretty concise and enlightening. I know you're not stupid. You put together coherent sentences and are capable of putting together (poor) arguments. So why are you doing this? You are demonstrably lying or misleading when you post. I don't understand why. First off, there's nothing about my posts that deal with semantics. It's all substantive. Did you bother looking at the articles at The Epoch times that actually quote the testimony transcripts? I'll compile some later when I have more time. But as an aside, it's interesting that you bring up the issue of what the genesis of the FBI investigation was if it was not the Steele dossier. No one at the FBI/DOJ seems to want to talk about that despite that the fact that the dossier has been fairly thoroughly discredited (note that Bruce Ohr testified that, when delivering the dossier materials to the FBI, he told the investigators that the materials could not be deemed reliable and that they needed to be independently verified -- which never happened). And in particular, while everyone loves to talk about all of this "other information" that was used to support the FISA warrants, absolutely no one seems to want to describe what this "other information" is. My educated guess is that what we're eventually going to learn is that this "other information" is even more dubious than the Steele dossier. For the third time: "COMEY: Yes. If the FBI receives a credible allegation that there is some effort to co-opt, coerce, direct, employee covertly an American on behalf of the foreign power, that's the basis on which a counterintelligence investigation is opened." https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239295Thus: "F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/us/politics/fbi-trump-russia-inquiry.html""How the Russia Inquiry Began: A Campaign Aide, Drinks and Talk of Political Dirt" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/us/politics/how-fbi-russia-investigation-began-george-papadopoulos.htmlAlso, Little/none of the dossier has been definitely proven false, while much has been borne out. So far the closest is Michael "I have never been to Prague" Cohen. https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/politics/dossier-two-years-later/index.htmlhttps://www.businessinsider.com/steele-dossier-allegations-trump-russia-mueller-investigation-2019-1You keep on lying. You still haven't said why. Just honing your skills? Are you a crazy person? Are you just that die-hard? What is the motivation here? You're very clearly and provably wrong in everything you are saying, so there has to be a reason you keep digging.
I haven't lied about anything. You don't even understand what you're posting. Comey saying that the FBI received a "credible allegation that there is some effort to co-opt, coerce, direct, employee covertly an American on behalf of the foreign power" says nothing about what the allegation itself. Who brought the allegation? When was it brought? What was alleged? These are all details that the FBI/DOJ have gone out of their way to hide for years.
And citing to CNN for the proposition that the dossier has not been proven false is a farce in and of itself. CNN's reporting has been utter trash on the Russia collusion narrative from day one. Nothing that they say about it should be taken with more than a grain of salt. For example, here's what CNN has to say about the Prague trip:
Michael Cohen's alleged trip to Prague
There still isn't any public evidence to confirm the explosive claim from the dossier that Cohen secretly met Russian officials in Prague to coordinate Kremlin interference in the election and do damage control if the alleged collusion was exposed or if Clinton won.
Last year, Cohen's lawyer at the time told the House Intelligence Committee that his client "has never traveled to Prague, Czech Republic, as evidenced by his US passport" and that Cohen "did not participate in meetings of any kind with Kremlin officials in Prague in August 2016."
Cohen repeated his blanket denials in recent weeks.
He has cooperated with Mueller, and prosecutors said in a court filing he provided "useful information concerning certain discrete Russia-related matters core to its investigation." Cohen says he has shared "everything" with Mueller and that the Prague claims are false.
This is simply a dishonest assessment of the actual evidence. The known testimony from every witness on this point -- including Cohen himself -- rejects this narrative. Cohen's passport rejects this narrative. Yet CNN still has the gall to say that "there isn't any public evidence to confirm the explosive claim" rather than simply say "this claim is pure bullshit" like they should.
More damning yet, CNN fails to mention in the article Comey's December 2018 testimony that the Steele dossier was never verified before it was used, and it still has not been verified. Yet despite all of this, we're still supposed to presume that there's something remotely credible about the dossier or the key narrative it presents of Trump/Russia collusion? The whole country should have gotten off of that bus months ago.
|
On March 09 2019 01:56 JimmiC wrote:
Would the sentences be concurrent?
Up to the judge, but probably not. I read that Mueller's team recommended they be concurrent (but they likely also expected a bigger sentence in the first case).
Because its likely to be concurrent, coupled with how lenient the other judge went and the aggravating factors of the second case, is why I am leaning towards him getting a longer sentence in the second case. She might see herself as balancing out the first sentence.
But then again, being a rich white man really is a bonus in situations like this so he might get it easy again.
|
On March 09 2019 02:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2019 01:12 xDaunt wrote:On March 09 2019 01:03 Gorsameth wrote:
Its a hoax, except for the part where Trump admitted that Jr met with the Russian government to discuss obtaining information on Hillary.
You know, except for the parts that happened, its totally a hoax...
Have you ever thought to question what you think you know about the Trump Jr meeting? In particular, if something illicit happened at that meeting -- which we have all known about for years at this point -- why hasn't anyone been charged? Mueller certainly hasn't been shy with charging people or otherwise going after the president. I think this post is going to age well.
I suggest we store it, along every other similar post about Trumps innocence, for a slideshow parade when Trump is indicted.
|
David Brooks, conservative, comes out for reparations.
Coates’s essay seems right now, especially this part: “And so we must imagine a new country. Reparations — by which I mean the full acceptance of our collective biography and its consequences — is the price we must pay to see ourselves squarely. … What I’m talking about is more than recompense for past injustices — more than a handout, a payoff, hush money, or a reluctant bribe. What I’m talking about is a national reckoning that would lead to spiritual renewal.”
He takes a theological approach to the question which is somewhat intriguing, even if it may sound somewhat like the very approach excoriated by haters of films like Green Book. There is perhaps a danger in one-sided reconciliation, or feel-good “reckoning,” but the very idea of reparations suggests a cost that might allay those fears.
|
I saw that and was pleasantly surprised. David Brooks has always been one of the more infuriating people to listen to or read because of how much I want to like him. He always seemed to have this ability to put his foot right in his mouth right when I would start to like him again.
The article is quite good, citing his past objections and discussing how the last year has altered his understand of what reparations would mean. That it isn't about a hand out, but a national movement to accept that we have to correct the wrongs of the past. Not some passives, willingness to be co-exist that will somehow correct centuries of damage, like in the above cited Green Book. But an active effort to correct the injustices of the past through a variety of means and to uplift communities and people who are trapped in these damaged sections of America.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
