Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
3 hours ago, B-Man said:

Lisa Page bombshell: FBI couldn’t prove Trump-Russia collusion before Mueller appointment

 

To date, Lisa Page’s infamy has been driven mostly by the anti-Donald Trump text messagesshe exchanged with fellow FBI agent Peter Strzok as the two engaged in an affair while investigating the president for alleged election collusion with Russia.

 

Yet, when history judges the former FBI lawyer years from now, her most consequential pronouncement may not have been typed on her bureau-issued Samsung smartphone to her colleague and lover.

 

Rather, it might be eight simple words she uttered behind closed doors during a congressional interview a few weeks ago.

 

“It’s a reflection of us still not knowing,” Page told Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) when questioned about texts she and Strzok exchanged in May 2017 as Robert Mueller was being named a special prosecutor to take over the Russia investigation.

 

With that statement, Page acknowledged a momentous fact: After nine months of using some of the most awesome surveillance powers afforded to U.S. intelligence, the FBI still had not made a case connecting Trump or his campaign to Russia’s election meddling.

 

http://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/406881-lisa-page-bombshell-fbi-couldnt-prove-trump-russia-collusion-before-mueller

 

Then there's no reason to not let Mueller finish his investigation.

Posted
13 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

Then there's no reason to not let Mueller finish his investigation.

Money is a major issue.  Nepotism, of sorts, as the fat cats continue to get fatter.

 

It also undermines the process of our republic.

 

It's also a waste. 

  • Like (+1) 3
Posted
13 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

Then there's no reason to not let Mueller finish his investigation.

Yes, he's had so much success zeroing in on "Russian collusion". A bunch of Russian Facebook posters and some process crimes years or miles away from any collusion with Ivan.

Posted
29 minutes ago, Kemp said:

Then there's no reason to not let Mueller finish his investigation.

 

Sure there is. It was based on fraud, lies, and dishonesty. He has come up with nothing even close to his mandate, because there is nothing.

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Sure there is. It was based on fraud, lies, and dishonesty. He has come up with nothing even close to his mandate, because there is nothing.


Sure there is something... this Mueller witch hunt has proved that the only guy in Washington not doing some kind of back-room dealing with Russia, is Donald Trump. 

 

Edited by Buffalo_Gal
  • Like (+1) 3
Posted

It's been a year and a half.

 

Starr's investigation of Clinton took 8 years.

 

No one outside of the investigation, including you, knows where this will end up.

 

So far, the following have already fallen: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/14/whos-been-charged-by-mueller-in-russia-probe-so-far.html

 

If you think they are all irrelevant to the Russian angle, you're kidding yourself, especially as to Manafort's role.

In any case, if it turns out that Trump has no criminal liability, you'll be proven right.

 

What the hell is the "process of our republic"?

 

 

7 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Sure there is. It was based on fraud, lies, and dishonesty. He has come up with nothing even close to his mandate, because there is nothing.

 

You've seen Mueller's report?

Posted
2 minutes ago, Kemp said:

It's been a year and a half.

 

Starr's investigation of Clinton took 8 years.

 

No one outside of the investigation, including you, knows where this will end up.

 

So far, the following have already fallen: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/14/whos-been-charged-by-mueller-in-russia-probe-so-far.html

 

If you think they are all irrelevant to the Russian angle, you're kidding yourself, especially as to Manafort's role.

In any case, if it turns out that Trump has no criminal liability, you'll be proven right.

 

What the hell is the "process of our republic"?

 

 

 

You've seen Mueller's report?

None of that relates to Trump.

 

Do you not understand how it works?  There have been more anti trump to go down than pro Trump, if you look at it another way

Posted
Just now, Boyst62 said:

None of that relates to Trump.

 

Do you not understand how it works?  There have been more anti trump to go down than pro Trump, if you look at it another way

 

Since none of us have seen Mueller's findings, on what do you base your opinion that none of it relates to Trump?

 

When the investigation of Clinton took place and all of the original accusations turned out to be false and it morphed into a perjury case about sex, did you complain about it being unjust?

 

When a prosecutor goes after one thing, it often leads to another thing. 

 

 

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Kemp said:

You've seen Mueller's report?

 

Tell me this: have you seen just ONE criminal charge related to Trump colluding with Russia? Just one. How about one credible connection between Trump and Russia interfering in the election? Of course not. 

 

In fact, all of the evidence points to Clinton being the one in the back pocket of foreign governments. All of the evidence points to Clinton being behind the dossier, and all of the evidence points to the collusion narrative being yet another invention of the Clinton smear machine.

 

If you refuse to understand that, feel free to !@#$ off.

 

Hey guys, let's keep investigating even though it's painfully obvious that there's nothing there!

 

Keep hoping and praying that Mueller can manufacture a crime like Starr did. Let's bring down literal super mecha-Hitler!

Edited by Koko78
Posted
13 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

Since none of us have seen Mueller's findings, on what do you base your opinion that none of it relates to Trump?

 

 

All the filings and indictments related to Manfort's case?

Posted
1 minute ago, Koko78 said:

 

Tell me this: have you seen just ONE criminal charge related to Trump colluding with Russia? Just one. How about one credible connection between Trump and Russia interfering in the election? Of course not. 

 

In fact, all of the evidence points to Clinton being the one in the back pocket of foreign governments. All of the evidence points to Clinton being behind the dossier, and all of the evidence points to the collusion narrative being yet another invention of the Clinton smear machine.

 

If you refuse to understand that, feel free to !@#$ off.

 

Getting testy, eh? Lot of pressure on you folks.

 

I've already said that no charges have even been hinted at towards Trump. The report hasn't come out, yet. 

As to what constitutes a connection between Trump and Russia, we know that Trump publicly asked Russia for help getting Hillary's emails. We also know that Trump removed help for the Ukraine from the Republican platform and brought in Manafort, who EVERYONE knows was working for various Russian interests. By itself, these things are proof of nothing, but it dose raise concerns that it could mean something. Your opinion that we should look the other way shows a lack of curiosity, or self-deception, or a fear of the truth.

If you choose to investigate your political opponents you shouldn't be surprised when the tables get turned. 

  

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

All the filings and indictments related to Manfort's case?

 

Again, you haven't seen Manafort's findings, yet. That he hasn't yet named Trump is proof that charges won't come in the future?  

If Trump is indeed innocent, he will come up clean in the final report. Since you are convinced there is nothing to find, why worry about it, at all?

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Kemp said:

As to what constitutes a connection between Trump and Russia, we know that Trump publicly asked Russia for help getting Hillary's emails. We also know that Trump removed help for the Ukraine from the Republican platform and brought in Manafort, who EVERYONE knows was working for various Russian interests. By itself, these things are proof of nothing, but it dose raise concerns that it could mean something. Your opinion that we should look the other way shows a lack of curiosity, or self-deception, or a fear of the truth.

 

Interesting, considering that almost none of that is actually the truth.

 

1.) Trump never asked for Russian help. He made an obvious joke. The spin you're trying to put on it has always been a line of crap, and i suspect you know it. Stop being disingenuous.

 

2.) Trump removed help for Ukraine? What the actual !@#$? He authorized the sale of lethal arms to the, you numbskull. Interesting you bring up Manafort. When he was working for "Russian interests" (actually Ukrainian interests), it was for the PODESTA group. Care to remind the class the last name of Hillary's campaign manager? Oh right, It was Podesta! Wow, what a wonderful and wacky coincidence.

 

3.) None of those lies are new or interesting. However, I'm quite disappointed that there is no mention of the Trump Tower meeting. You could have gone for the dumbass trifecta!

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Kemp said:

Again, you haven't seen Manafort's findings, yet. That he hasn't yet named Trump is proof that charges won't come in the future?  

If Trump is indeed innocent, he will come up clean in the final report. Since you are convinced there is nothing to find, why worry about it, at all?

 

For clarity, I'm not advocating to shut Mueller down. ( :beer: ) But what I am saying is that all of the evidence in the public sphere thus far, including everything of legal consequence from Mueller's team, has had nothing to do with Trump's campaign or himself colluding with/conspiring with the Russians. None of it. 

 

Yet, pointing that out is decried as the "conspiracy" in most establishment/MSM outlets. Isn't that objectively odd? 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

Getting testy, eh? Lot of pressure on you folks.

 

I've already said that no charges have even been hinted at towards Trump. The report hasn't come out, yet. 

As to what constitutes a connection between Trump and Russia, we know that Trump publicly asked Russia for help getting Hillary's emails. We also know that Trump removed help for the Ukraine from the Republican platform and brought in Manafort, who EVERYONE knows was working for various Russian interests. By itself, these things are proof of nothing, but it dose raise concerns that it could mean something. Your opinion that we should look the other way shows a lack of curiosity, or self-deception, or a fear of the truth.

If you choose to investigate your political opponents you shouldn't be surprised when the tables get turned. 

  

 

Again, you haven't seen Manafort's findings, yet. That he hasn't yet named Trump is proof that charges won't come in the future?  

If Trump is indeed innocent, he will come up clean in the final report. Since you are convinced there is nothing to find, why worry about it, at all?

You are just another deranged leftie desiring to keep a false narrative alive for political reasons. Your "points" have been debunked here time and time again and you are boring.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Interesting, considering that almost none of that is actually the truth.

 

1.) Trump never asked for Russian help. He made an obvious joke. The spin you're trying to put on it has always been a line of crap, and i suspect you know it. Stop being disingenuous.

 

2.) Trump removed help for Ukraine? What the actual !@#$? He authorized the sale of lethal arms to the, you numbskull. Interesting you bring up Manafort. When he was working for "Russian interests" (actually Ukrainian interests), it was for the PODESTA group. Care to remind the class the last name of Hillary's campaign manager? Oh right, It was Podesta! Wow, what a wonderful and wacky coincidence.

 

3.) None of those lies are new or interesting. However, I'm quite disappointed that there is no mention of the Trump Tower meeting. You could have gone for the dumbass trifecta!

 

You're unaware that the official platform of the Republican Party changed under Trump and Manafort in regards to Ukraine? There are numerous links out there that talk about it.

Why do you believe Manafort asked to be Trump's campaign manager at no salary?

Since you brought it up, was the Trump Tower meeting about adopting Russian children? 

Posted
7 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

You are just another deranged leftie desiring to keep a false narrative alive for political reasons. Your "points" have been debunked here time and time again and you are boring.

 

I love how these dipschiffs come out of the woodwork, spread debunked nonsense, then run away crying that we're a 'cesspool' because we didn't agree with their stupidity.

1 minute ago, Kemp said:

 

You're unaware that the official platform of the Republican Party changed under Trump and Manafort in regards to Ukraine? There are numerous links out there that talk about it.

 

So link them.

Posted
20 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

For clarity, I'm not advocating to shut Mueller down. ( :beer: ) But what I am saying is that all of the evidence in the public sphere thus far, including everything of legal consequence from Mueller's team, has had nothing to do with Trump's campaign or himself colluding with/conspiring with the Russians. None of it. 

 

Yet, pointing that out is decried as the "conspiracy" in most establishment/MSM outlets. Isn't that objectively odd? 

 

Others in this thread have advocated for shutting it down. Good to hear that you're keeping an open mind.

I agree, as I have already stated, that there is no indictable proof against Trump in the public sphere.

 

The MSM is definitely against Trump, but Trump is even worse to the MSM than they are to him. Advocating for trying to change laws that would make it easier to jail journalists is the opinion of a dictator/autocrat.

 

When Gary Hart went after the press and dared them to go after him, it ruined his career. 

6 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

I love how these dipschiffs come out of the woodwork, spread debunked nonsense, then run away crying that we're a 'cesspool' because we didn't agree with their stupidity.

 

So link them.

 

Here's one: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/aug/04/did-trump-campaign-soften-platform-language-benefi/

Note that in the above link, Trump states that the platform was changed.

There are plenty of other links out there. Look them up, if you're really interested.

Posted
10 minutes ago, Kemp said:

Here's one: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/aug/04/did-trump-campaign-soften-platform-language-benefi/


Note that in the above link, Trump states that the platform was changed.

There are plenty of other links out there. Look them up, if you're really interested.

 

So a platform that may or may not have been meaningfully changed may or may not have been changed at the behest of Trump people who may or may not have been involved?

 

1a6c93c71aefe2b524e8a40ec27a0800e7f0f49f

Posted
26 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

You're unaware that the official platform of the Republican Party changed under Trump and Manafort in regards to Ukraine? There are numerous links out there that talk about it.

Why do you believe Manafort asked to be Trump's campaign manager at no salary?

Since you brought it up, was the Trump Tower meeting about adopting Russian children? 

Manafort was brought into the campaign in case there was a brokered convention.

 

The Trump Tower meeting was about adoption in so much as there was a lobbying effort to get rid of the Magnitsky Act and how that would affect the American adoption of Russian children. The Russians sucked Don Jr. and company into the meeting with a promise of dirt on Hillary. Don Jr. either walked out of the meeting or ended it after about 15 minutes.

×
×
  • Create New...