All Things Trump

[Forty Two]

Well, if the FBI started an investigation because Papadapoulos bragged that the Russians had damaging information on Clinton, then they have a big problem.

OK, explain why receiving credible information from an ally's intelligence service and investigating it is 'a big problem.'

Because the Russians having damaging information about Hillary and Papadapoulos knowing about it doesn't indicate probable cause of a crime being committed. There's a big question as to why they opted to investigate the Trump administration over that, if that's the impetus.

If someone had bragged about the Russians having damaging information on Donald Trump, would that have been cause for an FBI investigation of those people? If so, there were a lot of people engaged in that braggadocio, and yet the FBI investigated Trump, and not the braggarts. We have a dossier of partly Russian sourced negative information about Trump, and other negative information about Trump from other foreign sources, and the FBI investigated Trump based on that information. Why wouldn't they investigate the people who got the information from foreign sources, if that's "credible information from which to launch an investigation and put a secret informant in their midst?"

The memo asserts that the FBI hid details about the origins of the dossier from the surveillance court [when the FBI applied for warrants]. The memo also states that there is “not evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between [Carter] Page and Papadopoulos.”

WTF do you think quoting those two sentences accomplishes? It's hilarious that you would reference the abject lickspittle Nunes's claim regarding 'hidden orgins.'

That's the same lickspittle you cited! You mean you can cite the lickspittle when it serves your purposes, but if it says what you don't like, it's not allowed to be cited? You can cite the parts you like, but the rest is political garbage?

Perhaps you've forgotten that it's been acknowledged even by Nunes himself to be false. Carter Page and Papadopoulos could very well have discussed Russia, by Page's own admission. Nunes's memo was a steaming pile of bullshit.

Then why did you cite it? Read your link from the Hill. THat's where I got the quotes from.

Who opened the investigation? Peter Strzok, of the famoust sext message fiasco between him and FBI Agent Lisa Page, who gave the Clinton administration the election year pass for the investigation as to her conduct.

Strzok and Page's interpersonal peccadillo has relevance to this issue in what way, exactly?

Their bias does have relevance. Read their texts to each other.

You imply that there was a political motive for beginning the investigation, but that certainly has not been shown.

Oh, now we have to prove the allegations before we investigate? The text messages themselves are evidence of bias on the part of Strzok and Page. Let's have a DOJ investigation of them and the way the investigation was begun.

Even if you buy the Trump sycophant narrative and believe that Strzok was motivated by politics (why wouldn't you, after all), I suggest you try repeating your tried and true mantra to yourself and see whether you find it satisfactory: 'Not illegal!™'

Maybe nothing illegal was done, although they were fired from their jobs for doing it. I'd say that suggests that something "against the rules" was done, don't you? Why were they booted from the Mueller investigation team?

Not sure why you wouldn't want investigation, though.

But if you think it's an open and shut case as to how it all happened, then good for you!

The previously given explanation for this appears reasonable. I'm fine with the DOJ investigating, but I don't for a minute believe Trump and his pet Congresscritters' blustering and yapping has any credibility.

Neither do I. But I don't give credibility to your sources, unless the evidence follows.

So far, zero. There is, literally, not a single Russia-2016 related crime, and nothing regarding collusion, much less collusion that would be improper or illegal. The indictments were all about other nonsense picked up along the way.

I mean - have you seen anything approaching evidence of the allegation that the Trump campaign illegally colluded with the Russians? What? It's not a meeting with the lady lawyer. That's not even improper. Even if the express purpose of the meeting was to see if they had damaging information on Clinton: There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, much less illegal.

[Brian Peacock]

Because the Russians having damaging information about Hillary and Papadapoulos knowing about it doesn't indicate probable cause of a crime being committed.

Seems a pretty good cause to start an investigation to find out though, right?

[Forty Two]

Because the Russians having damaging information about Hillary and Papadapoulos knowing about it doesn't indicate probable cause of a crime being committed.

Seems a pretty good cause to start an investigation to find out though, right?

Is it?

The thing is, if it is, then wouldn't someone from another country saying that they have damaging information about Trump seem like a pretty good cause to start an investigation about collusion, too?

Are you aware of any other sources of damaging information on candidates - foreign sources - that have not resulted in investigations for "collusion?"

[Brian Peacock]

That's a rather broad brush equivocation. Are you aware of any other sources suggesting that the Russians had damaging information about another presidential candidate and a member of a rival campaign team knowing about it?

[Tero]

Trump getting away with shit
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-democ ... e-midterms

[pErvinalia]

Because the Russians having damaging information about Hillary and Papadapoulos knowing about it doesn't indicate probable cause of a crime being committed.

Seems a pretty good cause to start an investigation to find out though, right?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/us/p ... oulos.html

About three weeks earlier, Mr. Papadopoulos had been told that Moscow had thousands of emails that would embarrass Mrs. Clinton, apparently stolen in an effort to try to damage her campaign.

Exactly how much Mr. Papadopoulos said that night at the Kensington Wine Rooms with the Australian, Alexander Downer, is unclear. But two months later, when leaked Democratic emails began appearing online, Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians’ role.

The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the F.B.I. to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump’s associates conspired.

[pErvinalia]

Because the Russians having damaging information about Hillary and Papadapoulos knowing about it doesn't indicate probable cause of a crime being committed.

Seems a pretty good cause to start an investigation to find out though, right?

Is it?

There was a context. Not just "having damaging information about Hillary".
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1770150

[L'Emmerdeur]

Well, if the FBI started an investigation because Papadapoulos bragged that the Russians had damaging information on Clinton, then they have a big problem.

OK, explain why receiving credible information from an ally's intelligence service and investigating it is 'a big problem.'

Because the Russians having damaging information about Hillary and Papadapoulos knowing about it doesn't indicate probable cause of a crime being committed. There's a big question as to why they opted to investigate the Trump administration over that, if that's the impetus.

If someone had bragged about the Russians having damaging information on Donald Trump, would that have been cause for an FBI investigation of those people? If so, there were a lot of people engaged in that braggadocio, and yet the FBI investigated Trump, and not the braggarts. We have a dossier of partly Russian sourced negative information about Trump, and other negative information about Trump from other foreign sources, and the FBI investigated Trump based on that information. Why wouldn't they investigate the people who got the information from foreign sources, if that's "credible information from which to launch an investigation and put a secret informant in their midst?"

It's interesting to observe how an adamantly held opinion colors your thinking. It appears that you've convinced yourself that there never was any Russian hacking; no criminal activity, therefore no legitimate basis for an investigation. With this as your starting point you leap to the FBI investigated Trump based on the dossier and other foreign sources, apparently discounting the plainly stated basis for initiating the investigation and the actual timeline, in which the FBI began the investigation before Steele came to them with what he'd found. You don't get to dictate reality though. The US intelligence agencies are convinced by the evidence available to them that agencies of the Russian government did engage in hacking, which is a criminal act.

FBI was aware of Russian hacking of the Democratic servers before March 2016. That hacking is a criminal matter, within the remit of the FBI. When they subsequently received notification from the Australians regarding Papadopolous's bragging about the Russians having 'political dirt' on Hillary Clinton, they would have been neglecting their duty if they had ignored it.

The informant was not 'in their midst,' by the way. At the request of the FBI he spoke with various campaign officials but was not 'implanted' in the Trump campaign. You're all too willing to parrot Trump's misrepresentations.

The memo asserts that the FBI hid details about the origins of the dossier from the surveillance court [when the FBI applied for warrants]. The memo also states that there is “not evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between [Carter] Page and Papadopoulos.”

WTF do you think quoting those two sentences accomplishes? It's hilarious that you would reference the abject lickspittle Nunes's claim regarding 'hidden orgins.'

That's the same lickspittle you cited! You mean you can cite the lickspittle when it serves your purposes, but if it says what you don't like, it's not allowed to be cited? You can cite the parts you like, but the rest is political garbage?

Forty Two, I cited a story from The Hill which happened to mention Nunes. I didn't cite Nunes as my source. I believe you can tell the difference between the two, and I don't understand why you think your puerile 'but you cited Nunes!!!' would carry any weight. It appears to be nothing but a specious attempt to distract from your failure to demonstrate how Nunes's nonsense memo sheds any light on this discussion.

Perhaps you've forgotten that it's been acknowledged even by Nunes himself to be false. Carter Page and Papadopoulos could very well have discussed Russia, by Page's own admission. Nunes's memo was a steaming pile of bullshit.

Then why did you cite it? Read your link from the Hill. THat's where I got the quotes from.

I'll explain it once more: citing the article from The Hill is not the same thing as citing Nunes. Again, I note your failure to address the actual substance of the post to which you are supposedly responding. The Nunes memo has been discredited, as I demonstrated with linked sources. Dodging this, you engage in a childish ruse.

Who opened the investigation? Peter Strzok, of the famoust sext message fiasco between him and FBI Agent Lisa Page, who gave the Clinton administration the election year pass for the investigation as to her conduct.

Strzok and Page's interpersonal peccadillo has relevance to this issue in what way, exactly?

Their bias does have relevance. Read their texts to each other.

I believe we've gone over this already or at least I have, though you didn't respond to that post. The supposedly damning things like 'insurance policy' were purposely misconstrued for maximum impact in riling gullible Trump supporters. FBI agents are permitted to have political opinions, and it has not been demonstrated that the political opinions Strzok and Page expressed had any affect on the professionalism with which they pursued their duties.

You imply that there was a political motive for beginning the investigation, but that certainly has not been shown.

Oh, now we have to prove the allegations before we investigate? The text messages themselves are evidence of bias on the part of Strzok and Page. Let's have a DOJ investigation of them and the way the investigation was begun.

As you know, I don't object to such an investigation.

Even if you buy the Trump sycophant narrative and believe that Strzok was motivated by politics (why wouldn't you, after all), I suggest you try repeating your tried and true mantra to yourself and see whether you find it satisfactory: 'Not illegal!™'

Maybe nothing illegal was done, although they were fired from their jobs for doing it. I'd say that suggests that something "against the rules" was done, don't you? Why were they booted from the Mueller investigation team?

Remember your mantra. 'Against the rules [of the FBI]' is not the same as 'illegal.' Page was never on Mueller's team, and Strzok was removed because even the possibility that he might allow his opinion of Trump to affect his work would detract from the credibility of the investigation. A manifestation of the 'Caesar's wife' phenomenon, if you will.

Not sure why you wouldn't want investigation, though.

As you know, I don't object to such an investigation.

But if you think it's an open and shut case as to how it all happened, then good for you!

The previously given explanation for this appears reasonable. I'm fine with the DOJ investigating, but I don't for a minute believe Trump and his pet Congresscritters' blustering and yapping has any credibility.

Neither do I. But I don't give credibility to your sources, unless the evidence follows.

You cited Nunes and claimed that I'd cited him as well. If you actually believed that claim then why would you cite him, given that you don't give credibility to my sources?

So far, zero. There is, literally, not a single Russia-2016 related crime, and nothing regarding collusion, much less collusion that would be improper or illegal. The indictments were all about other nonsense picked up along the way.

I mean - have you seen anything approaching evidence of the allegation that the Trump campaign illegally colluded with the Russians? What? It's not a meeting with the lady lawyer. That's not even improper. Even if the express purpose of the meeting was to see if they had damaging information on Clinton: There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, much less illegal.

As I've pointed out before, it's early days yet as these investigations go, and by the way: Fox News.

[pErvinalia]

Neither do I. But I don't give credibility to your sources, unless the evidence follows.

You cited Nunes and claimed that I'd cited him as well. If you actually believed that claim then why would you cite him, given that you don't give credibility to my sources?

[Animavore]

Neo-Nazi who shoved black woman and Trump rally going to jail.

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/pav ... ng-to-jail

Good people on both sides.

In his defense at the time, Heimbach said he was simply respecting then-candidate Donald Trump’s authority, which was to “Get ’em out of here.” 

The Nuremberg defence.

[pErvinalia]

Leftist judiciary persecuting people they disagree with!

[L'Emmerdeur]

'Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.'

'DHS secretary says she’s unaware Russia wanted Trump to win'

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said Tuesday she was unaware of intelligence assessments concluding that Russia favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

The U.S. intelligence community said in a January 2017 assessment that Russia had tried to influence the election to benefit Trump.

“I do not believe I’ve seen that conclusion that the specific intent was to help President Trump win. I’m not aware of that,” Nielsen told reporters after briefing members of the House on election security efforts.

Homeland Security is the agency that oversees election security.

For reference, from the official US Intelligence Community document released January 6, 2017: 'Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections'

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.

We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.

[Brian Peacock]

If the conclusions of 'top intelligence officials' is good enough for Preibus it should be good enough for Nielsen. Perhaps she just hasn't got round to reading the memo...

[Animavore]

[Animavore]

I see Trump's administration has gone full war-mongering mode. Where are all the Trump supporters who called Hilary a war hawk and complained she'd start WW3 now?

Nothing but tumble-weed.