Evidence: So where are we now(II) ?
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Thursday, August 31, 2023 05:36
VIEWED: 86324
PAGE 17 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The FBI needs to be investigated for its deliberately shoddy "investigation" of the Hillary server, where they violated literally every investigative procedure.
The FBI also needs to be investigated for its biased FISA warrant affidavit.
There should be at least one Special Prosecutor if not two, handling these investigations.
According to our very own Russian troll everybody but Trump should be investigated. Up yours troll
Tick tock
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:I was thinking Malicious Persecution was a crime. Throw Mueller in prison. Along with Hilliary, McCabe, Comey.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What I heard on NPR was the concept that maybe Mueller's investigation won't uncover anything "illegal" on Trump's part, but that Trump's behavior might represent a "political" problem.
Well. Mueller was handed a bag of shit to investigate. He's doing the best he can to make the rumors/ allegations into something significant, but in reality there's no "there" there, so he's poking his nose into anything he can find. If the worst he can find is Trump being "politically incorrect" ... well, that's not an indictable offense. Demonstrating "collusion" or anything like it is an impossibility. Probably same with "obstruction of justice".
What the NPR reporting sounds like to me is back-peddling/ goalpost moving/ reduction in expectations.
Yep, without a trial right JSf. Here is all the proof needed to show you don't give two shits about the rule of law. You're just a troll.
Same with Jack. He's trying to figure out what to charge them with before the investigation has even finished. He too is just another troll.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You fotgot to say RUUSIAN troll, you stupid, deluded, Alzheimer's deep State troll.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
https://theintercept.com/2018/02/09/donald-trump-russia-election-nsa/
The CIA’s wariness shows that the reality within the U.S. intelligence community is a far cry from the right-wing conspiracy theory that a “deep state” is working against Trump. Instead, the agency’s behavior seems to indicate that U.S. intelligence officials are torn about whether to conduct any operations at all that might aid Mueller’s ongoing investigation into whether Trump or his aides colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election.
Many intelligence officials are reluctant to get involved with anything related to the Trump-Russia case for fear of blowback from Trump himself, who might seek revenge by firing senior officials and wreaking havoc on their agencies. For example, Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence and thus the man supposedly in charge of the entire U.S. intelligence community, has said he does not see it as his role to push for an aggressive Trump-Russia investigation, according to a source familiar with the matter.
Because of the CIA’s reluctance to take an aggressive role, officials at the NSA have taken the lead on the communications channel, with a primary focus on recovering their own stolen documents. They have viewed the Trump-related material as an annoying sidelight, even as they understand that it is potentially the most explosive material to have come through the channel.
The channel has been operating in the shadows even as Mueller’s investigation has been basking in the spotlight. Last year, three former Trump campaign officials faced charges as part of Mueller’s investigation, and the special counsel continues to investigate both possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and evidence of efforts by Trump or others close to him to obstruct justice in the Mueller probe.
Over the past year, those involved with the secret communications channel have experienced a series of dramatic highs and lows. Until recently, it wasn’t clear whether the conversations would produce any materials about Trump or lead to the recovery of any NSA documents.
It took months of meetings and negotiations between American and Russian intermediaries to try to determine what documents might be available from the Russians – and at what price. Inconsistent interest in the channel by U.S. intelligence officials, particularly at the CIA, complicated the negotiations.
More at https://theintercept.com/2018/02/09/donald-trump-russia-election-nsa/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"There is already, in my view, ample evidence in the public domain on the issue of collusion if you're willing to see it," Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif, told reporters at a newsmaker breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. "If you want to blind yourself, then you can look the other way." Schiff said there is evidence — heard by the committee behind closed doors —that he can't talk about publicly because it remains classified.
While it is up to Mueller to conduct the criminal investigation and file any charges he feels are warranted, it is up to the House panel "to tell the country as much as we can about what we have been able to learn," Schiff said.
Even if Mueller determines that he can't file criminal charges of conspiracy, the committee should inform people of any "unpatriotic" or "immoral" actions, even if they weren't illegal, Schiff said.
"It's not fine to work with a foreign power even if there is no violation of law involved," he said.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/14/adam-schiff-there-ampl
e-evidence-collusion-between-trump-campaign-russians/336786002/
Evidence of collusion that has been reported publicly, including:
— Former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about talking in April 2016 to a professor with close ties to the Kremlin who told Papadopoulos that Moscow had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. The professor told him about thousands of emails the Russians had from the Clinton campaign.
— Donald Trump Jr., Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort met with a Russian attorney at Trump Tower in June 2016 after being promised "dirt" on Clinton. The campaign later communicated to meeting organizers that they were disappointed they didn't get what they were promised.
— In July 2017, the president and White House advisers put together a misleading statement about the nature of the Trump Tower meeting, saying that it was for the purpose of discussing Russian adoptions.
— The Trump campaign knew through Papadopoulos that the Russians had obtained thousands of emails from the Clinton campaign. Then-candidate Trump publicly asked the Russians in July 2016 to hack Clinton and find her "30,000 emails that are missing" from the personal email server she used while secretary of State. WikiLeaks began posting emails from the Clinton campaign in October, just weeks before the November election.
— Former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn held secret conversations with Russian officials in December 2016 during the presidential transition period, promising to undermine sanctions imposed against Russia by the Obama administration for meddling in the U.S. election. Flynn pleaded guilty late last year to lying to the FBI about those conversations.
"All of this is evidence of collusion," said Schiff, a former federal prosecutor. "Now, I've never said that there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That's for Bob Mueller to decide. But to say there's no evidence of collusion, you'd have to ignore all this."
"If this were a trial on the issue of did the Trump campaign conspire with the Russians to interfere or violate U.S. election laws by providing help to the Trump campaign, if this were a trial on that conspiracy charge...all of that evidence would come in as evidence of collusion," Schiff said.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
When is it "collusion" versus a "change in policy towards Russia" that people have voted for?
Trump made no secret of his desire to reach better relations with Russia; in fact, it was part of his campaign platform.
So, was it a secret?
Not so much.
Also, there has to be a "quid pro quo". I can't find any direct benefit that Trump would have gotten out of this.
So once again, a whole lotta nothing from "ole crazy eyes" Schiff.
Quote:
Is John Brennan the Mastermind Behind Russiagate?
The report (“The Dossier”) that claims that Donald Trump colluded with Russia, was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign.
The company that claims that Russia hacked DNC computer servers, was paid by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign.
The FBI’s counterintelligence probe into Trump’s alleged connections to Russia was launched on the basis of information gathered from a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign.
The surveillance of a Trump campaign member (Carter Page) was approved by a FISA court on the basis of information from a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign.
The Intelligence Community Analysis or ICA was (largely or partially) based on information from a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign. (more on this below)
The information that was leaked to the media alleging Russia hacking or collusion can be traced back to claims that were made in a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign.
The entire Russia-gate investigation rests on the “unverified and salacious” information from a dossier that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton Campaign. Here’s how Stephen Cohen sums it up in a recent article at The Nation:
“Steele’s dossier… was the foundational document of the Russiagate narrative…from the time its installments began to be leaked to the American media in the summer of 2016, to the US “Intelligence Community Assessment” of January 2017….the dossier and subsequent ICA report remain the underlying sources for proponents of the Russiagate narrative of “Trump-Putin collision.” (“Russia gate or Intel-gate?”, The Nation)
There’s just one problem with Cohen’s statement, we don’t really know the extent to which the dossier was used in the creation of the Intelligence Community Assessment. (The ICA was the IC’s flagship analysis that was supposed to provide ironclad proof of Russian meddling in the 2016 elections.) According to some reports, the contribution was significant. Check out this excerpt from an article at Business Insider:
“Intelligence officials purposefully omitted the dossier from the public intelligence report they released in January about Russia’s election interference because they didn’t want to reveal which details they had corroborated, according to CNN.” (“Mueller reportedly interviewed the author of the Trump-Russia dossier — here’s what it alleges, and how it aligned with reality”, Business Insider)
Bottom line: Despite the denials of former-CIA Director John Brennan, the dossier may have been used in the ICA.
In the last two weeks, documents have been released that have exposed the weak underpinnings of the Russia investigation while at the same time revealing serious abuses by senior-level officials at the DOJ and FBI. The so called Nunes memo was the first to point out these abuses, but it was the 8-page “criminal referral” authored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senator Lindsey Graham that gave credence to the claims. Here’s a blurb from the document:
“It appears the FBI relied on admittedly uncorroborated information, funded by and obtained for Secretary Clinton’s presidential campaign, in order to conduct surveillance of an associate of the opposing presidential candidate. It did so based on Mr. Steele’s personal credibility and presumably having faith in his process of obtaining the information. But there is substantial evidence suggesting that Mr. Steele mNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
When is it "collusion" versus a "change in policy towards Russia" that people have voted for?
Trump made no secret of his desire to reach better relations with Russia; in fact, it was part of his campaign platform.
So, was it a secret?
Not so much.
Also, there has to be a "quid pro quo". I can't find any direct benefit that Trump would have gotten out of this.
So once again, a whole lotta nothing from "ole crazy eyes" Schiff.Quote:
Is John Brennan the Mastermind Behind Russiagate?
The report (“The Dossier”) that claims that Donald Trump colluded with Russia, was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign.
The company that claims that Russia hacked DNC computer servers, was paid by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign.
The FBI’s counterintelligence probe into Trump’s alleged connections to Russia was launched on the basis of information gathered from a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign.
The surveillance of a Trump campaign member (Carter Page) was approved by a FISA court on the basis of information from a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign.
The Intelligence Community Analysis or ICA was (largely or partially) based on information from a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign. (more on this below)
The information that was leaked to the media alleging Russia hacking or collusion can be traced back to claims that were made in a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign.
The entire Russia-gate investigation rests on the “unverified and salacious” information from a dossier that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton Campaign. Here’s how Stephen Cohen sums it up in a recent article at The Nation:
“Steele’s dossier… was the foundational document of the Russiagate narrative…from the time its installments began to be leaked to the American media in the summer of 2016, to the US “Intelligence Community Assessment” of January 2017….the dossier and subsequent ICA report remain the underlying sources for proponents of the Russiagate narrative of “Trump-Putin collision.” (“Russia gate or Intel-gate?”, The Nation)
There’s just one problem with Cohen’s statement, we don’t really know the extent to which the dossier was used in the creation of the Intelligence Community Assessment. (The ICA was the IC’s flagship analysis that was supposed to provide ironclad proof of Russian meddling in the 2016 elections.) According to some reports, the contribution was significant. Check out this excerpt from an article at Business Insider:
“Intelligence officials purposefully omitted the dossier from the public intelligence report they released in January about Russia’s election interference because they didn’t want to reveal which details they had corroborated, according to CNN.” (“Mueller reportedly interviewed the author of the Trump-Russia dossier — here’s what it alleges, and how it aligned with reality”, Business Insider)
Bottom line: Despite the denials of former-CIA Director John Brennan, the dossier may have been used in the ICA.
In the last two weeks, documents have been released that have exposed the weak underpinnings of the Russia investigation while at the same time revealing serious abuses by senior-level officials at the DOJ and FBI. The so called Nunes memo was the first to point out these abuses, but it was the 8-page “criminal referral” authored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senator Lindsey Graham that gave credence to the claims. Here’s a blurb from the document:
“It appears the FBI relied on admittedly uncorroborated information, funded by and obtained for Secretary Clinton’s presidential campaign, in order to conduct surveillance of an associate of the opposing presidential candidate. It did so based on Mr. Steele’s personal credibility and presumably having faith in his process of obtaining the information. But there is substantiNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:AG Jackson would be so proud of Mueller, diligently working to prove Silverglate correct regarding how corrupt Mueller has become.
Originally posted by second:Quote:I got the book at https://thepiratebay.org/search/Harvey%20Silverglate/0/99/0
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:Try reading the book "Three Felonies a Day" by Harvey Silverglate, from 2009.
Originally posted by second:Quote:Show me that study you found because I'm curious if you've got a real study or if this is only Rush Limbaugh plus Alex Jones giving you a blowjob and you are in ecstasy. www.infowars.com
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
What did that one study find? That the average American citizen commits 3 felony violations every single day, largely unaware.
Read it and get back to us with the answer. As I recall, Harvey gives entertaining interviews.
I believe that "decriminalize the common man" is the call.
I don't know from Alex Jones, and am not sure if Rush covered it. But since Rush is the purveyor of facts and truth, I wouldn't be surprised if he did cover it, like 8 or 9 years ago. At that time I was in a radio market devoid of such illumination, so would not have heard him.
JewelStaiteFan
Page 255-256 The statutes enacted by the Congress were not sufficiently all-encompassing and onerous for the taste of federal prosecutors. So they have proceeded to do precisely what former Attorney General Robert Jackson, in 1940, warned his U.S. attorneys against: “pick people that he thinks he should get” and “then search the law books…to pin some offense on him.
The book is simply pointing to prosecutors that needed their dumb asses fired, exactly the same as cops who stop cars based on a hunch, kill the driver, then drop a throw-down gun to make the innocent look guilty.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's a bit odd considering who you use to be, and yet now it feels so right that you have joined the Fox & Friends team.
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Also, there has to be a "quid pro quo". I can't find any direct benefit that Trump would have gotten out of this.
You're so right! It's not like he became president - golly!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
When is it "collusion" versus a "change in policy towards Russia" that people have voted for?
This is why you're to stupid and dishonest to engage in conversation on the Trump, Russia investagation. It's conspiracy dummy not collusion that is a crime. Something you've been told countless times now.
Conspiracy is what is being investigated. Only trolls are insisting on posting about this as though collusion is what Trump is being investigated for.
Conspiracy or collusion. Conspiracy describes two or more people secretly plotting an action, usually but not limited to a harmful or illegal action. Conspiring with the Russians for personal gain, in Trumps case to win an election and in return effect our Russia policy, would be illegal.
So, you've been told again. If you are to dense to comprehend the distinction between collusion and conspiracy, then you certainly can't opine on the topic of a Trump, Russia investigation. You don't have the cognitive ability to do so and make any sense. Which explains the bullshit you post. Comrade troll...
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME