Tommy Callahan Posted June 21, 2023 Posted June 21, 2023 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: Not ironic. Exactly my point. Thank you. people on here still reference it as fact. and that was thoroughly investigated. eff, led to a counterintelligence operation on an American.
ChiGoose Posted June 21, 2023 Posted June 21, 2023 2 minutes ago, Chris farley said: people on here still reference it as fact. and that was thoroughly investigated. eff, led to a counterintelligence operation on an American. People often believe dumb things. Some people believe that Trump won in 2020. Some people believe that the Russia investigation started because of the Steele Dossier, too. Doesn’t make them right. 2 1
Tommy Callahan Posted June 21, 2023 Posted June 21, 2023 10 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: People often believe dumb things. Some people believe that Trump won in 2020. Some people believe that the Russia investigation started because of the Steele Dossier, too. Doesn’t make them right. So, what started the Russia investigation? Crossfire hurricane? and that was used based on the Dossier. Silly
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted June 21, 2023 Posted June 21, 2023 8 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: People often believe dumb things. Some people believe that Trump won in 2020. Some people believe that the Russia investigation started because of the Steele Dossier, too. Doesn’t make them right. Some people believe that Mueller stating Trump and his campaign did not collude with the Russians means he did, and that an official declaration that Trump was politically persecuted means he clearly was not. The narrative is what matters, as does using a tactical approach to rolling out allegations to have maximum effect at the voting booth. 3 1
ChiGoose Posted June 21, 2023 Posted June 21, 2023 Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Some people believe that Mueller stating Trump and his campaign did not collude with the Russians means he did, and that an official declaration that Trump was politically persecuted means he clearly was not. The narrative is what matters, as does using a tactical approach to rolling out allegations to have maximum effect at the voting booth. Some people actually believe that Mueller stated that Trump and his campaign didn't collude. That's because they couldn't even get past the introduction to the report and instead relied on liars and bad faith actors to tell them what to believe. 1 1 1
Tommy Callahan Posted June 21, 2023 Posted June 21, 2023 Just now, ChiGoose said: Some people actually believe that Mueller stated that Trump and his campaign didn't collude. That's because they couldn't even get past the introduction to the report and instead relied on liars and bad faith actors to tell them what to believe. Still waiting to hear the pee pee tape (steel dossier) did not lead to the Russian investigation (crossfire hurricane) \
BillsFanNC Posted June 21, 2023 Author Posted June 21, 2023 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Chris farley said: So, what started the Russia investigation? Crossfire hurricane? and that was used based on the Dossier. Silly Crossfire hurricane was opened, on a Sunday, three days after a bar conversation between George P. and a Australian diplomat. A FULL, and not preliminary investgation, was opened without the FBI interviewing any of the people involved while ignoring multiple exculpatory statements made by George P. @ChiGoose will bloviate around all the above. Which makes him a dishonest hack at best, as usual. Edited June 21, 2023 by BillsFanNC 1 1
TH3 Posted June 21, 2023 Posted June 21, 2023 2 hours ago, Chris farley said: Ironic as the pee pee tape was ran by the left as fact and used to spy on the opposition party. All while knowing it was opposition research. To be fair....the pee tape is completely believable.... 1
ChiGoose Posted June 21, 2023 Posted June 21, 2023 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Chris farley said: Still waiting to hear the pee pee tape (steel dossier) did not lead to the Russian investigation (crossfire hurricane) \ Then you should read the Durham Report. "3. The opening of Crossfire Hurricane The FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane as a full counterintelligence investigation "to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign [were] witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia. " 203 The starting point for the Office's inquiry was to examine what information was known or available to the FBI about any such ties as ofJuly 31, 2016, prior to opening Crossfire Hurricane. That question then divided itself into two related questions: (i) what was the information that predicated the opening ofthe investigation and (ii) did that information support such an investigation being opened not as an "assessment" or "preliminary" investigation, but from the start as a "full" investigation. In exploring these questions, we determined the following: a. The information used to predicate Crossfire Hurricane In March 2016, the Trump campaign identified George Papadopoulos as a foreign policy advisor. 204 Papadopoulos had previously worked as an energy consultant, with a particular focus on projects in the Eastern Mediterranean. 205 At the time of his appointment, Papadopoulos was employed in the United Kingdom at the London Center of lntemational Law Practice. 206 Among Papadopoulos's acquaintances in London was a diplomat from another country ("Foreign Government-I Diplomat-I"). Foreign Government-I Diplomat-I was familiar with an Australian diplomat ("Australian Diplomat-l").207 On May 6, 2016, by prearrangement, Foreign Government-I Diplomat-I introduced Papadopoulos to Australian Diplomat-I. 208 On May I0, 2016, Papadopoulos and Australian Diplomat- I met again, and this time they were joined by Australian High Commissioner Alexander Downer. 209 Both meetings were over drinks in public settings. 210 The Australian diplomats were interested in meeting with Papadopoulos because of his role in the Trump campaign, and much of the conversation centered on the upcoming U.S. election. 211 Over two months later, on July 26, 2016, Australia provided the U.S. Embassy in London certain information its diplomats had memorialized at or around the time ofthe meetings with Papadopoulos. The next day, the State Department passed this information on to the FBI's Legal Attache assigned to the Embassy in London ("UK Legatl ")_212 "Paragraph Five" was the name given to the raw information provided by the Australian government and included in a May 16, 2016 cable that documented the diplomats' encounters with Papadopoulos. 213 Pages 51-52 As an initial matter, there is no question that the FBI had an affirmative obligation to closely examine the Paragraph Five information. The Paragraph Five information, however, was the sole basis cited by the FBI for opening a full investigation into individuals associated with the ongoing Trump campaign. 226 Page 54 Edited June 21, 2023 by ChiGoose
Tommy Callahan Posted June 21, 2023 Posted June 21, 2023 5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Then you should read the Durham Report. "3. The opening of Crossfire Hurricane The FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane as a full counterintelligence investigation "to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign [were] witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia. " 203 The starting point for the Office's inquiry was to examine what information was known or available to the FBI about any such ties as ofJuly 31, 2016, prior to opening Crossfire Hurricane. That question then divided itself into two related questions: (i) what was the information that predicated the opening ofthe investigation and (ii) did that information support such an investigation being opened not as an "assessment" or "preliminary" investigation, but from the start as a "full" investigation. In exploring these questions, we determined the following: a. The information used to predicate Crossfire Hurricane In March 2016, the Trump campaign identified George Papadopoulos as a foreign policy advisor. 204 Papadopoulos had previously worked as an energy consultant, with a particular focus on projects in the Eastern Mediterranean. 205 At the time of his appointment, Papadopoulos was employed in the United Kingdom at the London Center of lntemational Law Practice. 206 Among Papadopoulos's acquaintances in London was a diplomat from another country ("Foreign Government-I Diplomat-I"). Foreign Government-I Diplomat-I was familiar with an Australian diplomat ("Australian Diplomat-l").207 On May 6, 2016, by prearrangement, Foreign Government-I Diplomat-I introduced Papadopoulos to Australian Diplomat-I. 208 On May I0, 2016, Papadopoulos and Australian Diplomat- I met again, and this time they were joined by Australian High Commissioner Alexander Downer. 209 Both meetings were over drinks in public settings. 210 The Australian diplomats were interested in meeting with Papadopoulos because of his role in the Trump campaign, and much of the conversation centered on the upcoming U.S. election. 211 Over two months later, on July 26, 2016, Australia provided the U.S. Embassy in London certain information its diplomats had memorialized at or around the time ofthe meetings with Papadopoulos. The next day, the State Department passed this information on to the FBI's Legal Attache assigned to the Embassy in London ("UK Legatl ")_212 "Paragraph Five" was the name given to the raw information provided by the Australian government and included in a May 16, 2016 cable that documented the diplomats' encounters with Papadopoulos. 213 Pages 51-52 As an initial matter, there is no question that the FBI had an affirmative obligation to closely examine the Paragraph Five information. The Paragraph Five information, however, was the sole basis cited by the FBI for opening a full investigation into individuals associated with the ongoing Trump campaign. 226 Page 54
TH3 Posted June 21, 2023 Posted June 21, 2023 4 hours ago, BillsFanNC said: Will there be accountability? Of course not. More "strong language" and toothless demands incoming from an incompetent and nearly as corrupt GOP. You do realize that today's "Polls" have no bearing on fact....right?...They just show how brainwashed a good portion of America is.... See above...The GOP points to how effed up a good portion of the population is....and then uses that as basis to legislate/investigate... Tell me you understand this...
Tommy Callahan Posted June 21, 2023 Posted June 21, 2023 Nice summary of multiple state agencies assets setting up Pap. Who authorized that? To be fair....the pee tape is completely believable.... Still being repeated.
ChiGoose Posted June 21, 2023 Posted June 21, 2023 1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: It’s a pretty widely accepted “Best Practice” to read beyond first couple chapters of any report, thesis, article or novel. I will acknowledge you probably save a lot of time in scaling back the effort tho. I actually read the entire thing. But in the introduction, he specifically states that he's not even evaluating collusion. So any claim that he stated there was no collusion is a misrepresentation of the report at best, or a lie at worst. "In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law." Mueller Report, p.2 Not sure how you can read "We are not looking at collusion" and come up with "We found no collusion" but there ya go. 1 1
BillStime Posted June 21, 2023 Posted June 21, 2023 49 minutes ago, Chris farley said: So, what started the Russia investigation? Crossfire hurricane? and that was used based on the Dossier. Silly Lies
Big Blitz Posted June 21, 2023 Posted June 21, 2023 23 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: I actually read the entire thing. But in the introduction, he specifically states that he's not even evaluating collusion. So any claim that he stated there was no collusion is a misrepresentation of the report at best, or a lie at worst. "In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law." Mueller Report, p.2 Not sure how you can read "We are not looking at collusion" and come up with "We found no collusion" but there ya go. My God you people: STATEMENT: U.S. Senate Report Confirms Trump Campaign Colluded With Russia, CAP’s Neera Tanden Says Washington, D.C. — Today, the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee issued a report finding that the Trump presidential campaign chairman’s interaction with Russian intelligence officials during the 2016 election posed a “grave counterintelligence threat.” In response, Neera Tanden, president and CEO of the Center for American Progress, issued the following statement: This report confirms that President Donald Trump colluded with Russia during the 2016 election. It confirms the worst suspicions about Trump’s relationship with Russia, filling in the holes left in the report from former special counsel Robert Mueller. As Trump excuses Russian President Vladimir Putin placing bounties on U.S. troops and Russia continues to interfere in our democracy to aid Trump’s reelection, this report makes clear that there is no such thing as a coincidence with Trump and Russia. https://www.americanprogress.org/press/statement-u-s-senate-report-confirms-trump-campaign-colluded-russia-caps-neera-tanden-says/ ….Putin wants Trump to win and appears to be seeking to undermine the legitimacy of our election. ….it will be up to American voters to decide when and how cooperation with foreign actors during a presidential election crosses the line. Trump's activities to date are not appropriate. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1237743 Omg Putin wants Trump to win! Inappropriate! What a scandal! Another foreign leader has an interest who wins in America! They used social media to do so - allegedly. Also - this is fine: Barack Obama: Brexit would put UK ‘back of the queue’ for trade talks US president, visiting London, says ‘part of being friends is being honest’ as he lays out perils of leave vote in EU referendum Barack Obama has warned that the UK would be at the “back of the queue” in any trade deal with the US if the country chose to leave the EU, as he made an emotional plea to Britons to vote for staying in. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/22/barack-obama-brexit-uk-back-of-queue-for-trade-talks Oh……also: NGO connected to Obama’s 2008 campaign used U.S. tax dollars trying to oust Netanyahu …..the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) has released a report today confirming allegations that an NGO with connections to President Obama’s 2008 campaign used U.S. taxpayer dollars attempting to oust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2015. President Obama has had the worst relationship of any U.S. president with the elected prime minister of the Jewish State. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/07/12/ngo-connected-to-obamas-2008-campaign-used-u-s-tax-dollars-trying-to-oust-netanyahu/ You people are a joke. 1 1
ChiGoose Posted June 21, 2023 Posted June 21, 2023 4 minutes ago, Big Blitz said: My God you people: STATEMENT: U.S. Senate Report Confirms Trump Campaign Colluded With Russia, CAP’s Neera Tanden Says Washington, D.C. — Today, the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee issued a report finding that the Trump presidential campaign chairman’s interaction with Russian intelligence officials during the 2016 election posed a “grave counterintelligence threat.” In response, Neera Tanden, president and CEO of the Center for American Progress, issued the following statement: This report confirms that President Donald Trump colluded with Russia during the 2016 election. It confirms the worst suspicions about Trump’s relationship with Russia, filling in the holes left in the report from former special counsel Robert Mueller. As Trump excuses Russian President Vladimir Putin placing bounties on U.S. troops and Russia continues to interfere in our democracy to aid Trump’s reelection, this report makes clear that there is no such thing as a coincidence with Trump and Russia. https://www.americanprogress.org/press/statement-u-s-senate-report-confirms-trump-campaign-colluded-russia-caps-neera-tanden-says/ ….Putin wants Trump to win and appears to be seeking to undermine the legitimacy of our election. ….it will be up to American voters to decide when and how cooperation with foreign actors during a presidential election crosses the line. Trump's activities to date are not appropriate. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1237743 Omg Putin wants Trump to win! Inappropriate! What a scandal! Another foreign leader has an interest who wins in America! They used social media to do so - allegedly. Also - this is fine: Barack Obama: Brexit would put UK ‘back of the queue’ for trade talks US president, visiting London, says ‘part of being friends is being honest’ as he lays out perils of leave vote in EU referendum Barack Obama has warned that the UK would be at the “back of the queue” in any trade deal with the US if the country chose to leave the EU, as he made an emotional plea to Britons to vote for staying in. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/22/barack-obama-brexit-uk-back-of-queue-for-trade-talks Oh……also: NGO connected to Obama’s 2008 campaign used U.S. tax dollars trying to oust Netanyahu …..the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) has released a report today confirming allegations that an NGO with connections to President Obama’s 2008 campaign used U.S. taxpayer dollars attempting to oust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2015. President Obama has had the worst relationship of any U.S. president with the elected prime minister of the Jewish State. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/07/12/ngo-connected-to-obamas-2008-campaign-used-u-s-tax-dollars-trying-to-oust-netanyahu/ You people are a joke. I'm sorry, did you just respond to my comment that Mueller didn't look at collusion with a report saying that the Senate did? Because last time I checked, Mueller wasn't in the Senate... 1
ChiGoose Posted June 21, 2023 Posted June 21, 2023 (edited) 6 minutes ago, B-Man said: Agreed. Neither the Steele Dossier nor the contents of Hunter's laptop should be taken as true. Edited June 21, 2023 by ChiGoose
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted June 21, 2023 Posted June 21, 2023 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: I actually read the entire thing. But in the introduction, he specifically states that he's not even evaluating collusion. So any claim that he stated there was no collusion is a misrepresentation of the report at best, or a lie at worst. "In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law." Mueller Report, p.2 Not sure how you can read "We are not looking at collusion" and come up with "We found no collusion" but there ya go. I used "collusion" the way most Americans not threading a nickledick needle tend to use it. If you see my choice of language as a misrepresentation, it's not material to the matter at hand and not of particular concern to me. What I can tell you is this...the facts and outcome are clear. From AG Barr's summary of the Mueller report: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html ...the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses. Summary: Lots of people with lots of juice knocked on doors, shook down perps, tried to flip witnesses, shook the trees and really, really tried to find evidence of collusion oops criminal conspiracy. Later on, AG Barr had this to say: The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Summary: The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russians. It seems to me that disregarding the entirety of the report, the exceptionally thorough and extremely broad scope of the investigation, the follow up by Barr and his team, and referring to some Illuminati-esque 'bad actors' reflects poorly on those who choose to follow that path. It also indicates to me that while you are no doubt intellectually up to the task of reviewing the Mueller report in its entirety, perhaps emotionally you stopped somewhere after page 10. 3 1
Recommended Posts