Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Russia probes kick into high gear


Farmer77

Recommended Posts

Just now, Tiggs said:

Which words, specifically, have the Special Counsel's team said to make you think that?
 

The anti-Trump tweet comes to mind. Why, specifically, do you trust this team to be impartial and objective in their investigation? Do you not think that there are valid questions as to their fairness? I would understand why Democrats would question the fairness of such a team if the scripts were flipped.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Paranormal Panther said:

The anti-Trump tweet comes to mind. Why, specifically, do you trust this team to be impartial and objective in their investigation? Do you not think that there are valid questions as to their fairness? I would understand why Democrats would question the fairness of such a team if the scripts were flipped.

Which anti-Trump tweet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tiggs said:

Which anti-Trump tweet?

I'll answer your question after you answer my question. Why do you trust this team?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

I'll answer your question after you answer my question. Why do you trust this team?

I'm talking about Strzok's texts. He was removed due to them. Now, please tell me why you trust his investigative team to be impartial and objective. It's not unreasonable to not trust the team.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Paranormal Panther said:

I'll answer your question after you answer my question. Why do you trust this team?

Mostly because I trust Mueller.

Mueller was appointed by G W Bush to head up the FBI, and was then asked to stay on by Obama an additional two years past the normal ten years of service. That's not something I believe would have happened if he showed any signs of being a partisan.

He also removed Strzok from his team, when Strzok's private text messages making fun of Trump came to light.

IMO-- that's not the action of someone who allows a culture of partisanship, either.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tiggs said:

Mostly because I trust Mueller.

Mueller was appointed by G W Bush to head up the FBI, and was then asked to stay on by Obama an additional two years past the normal ten years of service. That's not something I believe would have happened if he showed any signs of being a partisan.

He also removed Strzok from his team, when Strzok's private text messages making fun of Trump came to light.

IMO-- that's not the action of someone who allows a culture of partisanship, either.

His picks seem to cast doubt on his objectivity. I don't put much stock in the Bush administration *or* the Obama administration, but that's for another thread. It seems as though this is just a fishing expedition to find something rather than a real search for answers to the Russian question. I doubt that they'll find one iota of evidence of collusion. It could be that they'll bust people on this or that while they look for the smoking gun that ties Trump to Putin. They may find enough to cast doubt on the outcome in some people's minds. The problem is that the probe looks like it will never end until Trump leaves the White House. I appreciate your honest answer to my honest question, though. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

His picks seem to cast doubt on his objectivity. I don't put much stock in the Bush administration *or* the Obama administration, but that's for another thread. It seems as though this is just a fishing expedition to find something rather than a real search for answers to the Russian question. I doubt that they'll find one iota of evidence of collusion. It could be that they'll bust people on this or that while they look for the smoking gun that ties Trump to Putin. They may find enough to cast doubt on the outcome in some people's minds. The problem is that the probe looks like it will never end until Trump leaves the White House. I appreciate your honest answer to my honest question, though. 

Whether Mueller finds evidence of Russian collusion or not, I think he's looking in all the right places.

As regards the probe continuing, Ken Starr fashion, until they find something -- I doubt it will. Many of the lawyers on Mueller's team are foregoing million dollar plus salaries back in the private sector. I doubt they'd want to chase ghosts for any extended length of time.

I doubt a Republican Congress will continue funding the investigation for the entire term of Trumps presidency, either.

Time, as always, will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Whether Mueller finds evidence of Russian collusion or not, I think he's looking in all the right places.

As regards the probe continuing, Ken Starr fashion, until they find something -- I doubt it will. Many of the lawyers on Mueller's team are foregoing million dollar plus salaries back in the private sector. I doubt they'd want to chase ghosts for any extended length of time.

I doubt a Republican Congress will continue funding the investigation for the entire term of Trumps presidency, either.

Time, as always, will tell.






 

It's likely a waste of time and money as political witch hunts often are. It's an investigation in search of a crime. There's no evidence of collusion. Trump would be gone by now if there was. The investigation(s) probably will continue in some form or another. The past *year* of investigation(s), none of which has shown evidence of collusion, demonstrate this. I'll give a big donation to the charity of your choice if there's evidence of real collusion. Even Mueller likely knows that there was no conspiracy between Trump and Putin, which is just one reason why I question the real motives of this fishing expedition.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno, he started May 17.  So far, in eight months he indicted 4 people.  That's a person investigated and charged for every two months.  Ken Starr's investigation was what?  4 years?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, .ZZ. said:

Wife of demoted DOJ official worked for firm behind anti-Trump dossier

Source

How many doubts, on Mueller's motives, does this make now? It's not just one or two events. It's a collection of them. As my careless and rushed mistakes on the names of the varied players show, we need a scorecard.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gromdor said:

I dunno, he started May 17.  So far, in eight months he indicted 4 people.  That's a person investigated and charged for every two months.  Ken Starr's investigation was what?  4 years?

Where's the evidence of collusion? I thought that that was the original reason for the witch hunt, er, probe.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tiggs said:

A coup? With, like, guns?

As opposed to, say, Mueller finding evidence of criminal wrongdoing, followed by a bipartisan impeachment?

Or does any removal of Trump constitute a coup, from your perspective?

Attend, please.  A coup is by definition an illegal power grab.  Obviously, if proof, REAL proof in the form of documents, emails, phone conversations, etc. that can be CORROBORATED were to appear then it would mean he had indeed attempted to illegally subvert the electoral process.  IF that is provided then I'd be in favor of his removal.  Allusions, inferences, and innuendo need not apply.  Up to now, those 3 are all the Progs have provided.  That is singular and VERY telling for a rational mind.  The first three months there were nearly daily leaks from what was supposed to be secure communications within his Whitehouse and among his appointees.  CRIMES were committed to put that secret info out there for the public to consume and draw conclusions from. The problem over and above this subversion was that the details were cherry-picked.  Flynn's discussions with Kislev were transcribed and then only portions were leaked.  Since that time, nothing.  If real evidence existed that proved Trump had colluded with Russia, the R's would have gotten on board the I-train and he'd be gone by now.

And yes, I was definitely alluding to a violent action against those that illegally removed a duly elected president.  Don't get thinking that all Americans are so whipped into government worship that we wouldn't take up arms against Tyranny.  I guess you think that only outraged neo-nullification/anarchy types have a right to stand for what they believe.  You'd be dead wrong about that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Paranormal Panther said:

How many doubts, on Mueller's motives, does this make now? It's not just one or two events. It's a collection of them. As my careless and rushed mistakes on the names of the varied players show, we need a scorecard.

LOL, Ohr and his wife aren't part of the Trump investigation.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gromdor said:

LOL, Ohr and his wife aren't part of the Trump investigation.......

That's fine. Where's the evidence of collusion?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Paranormal Panther said:

That's fine. Where's the evidence of collusion?

But, but, but, he groped women!  He's a pig!  He HAS to do the honorable thing and step down!  :w00t:   Say some of the least honorable people on the planet.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Paranormal Panther said:

Where's the evidence of collusion? I thought that that was the original reason for the witch hunt, er, probe.

Well, for collusion to happen, Party A would have to give something to Party B in exchange for something or to accomplish a common goal.

I'll let you answer these questions for yourself.  Did Trump get anything from Russia?  Like election hacking help, information, etc?

Did Russia get something?  Like a promise to end sanctions?  No Hillary? 

If you can definitively answer, "No" to these, then the investigation would be done for.

 

Another thing for collusion to happen is for both parties to communicate with each other.  Did Trump or members of his campaign communicate with Russians?

If you can definitively answer, "No" then the investigation would be done for.

 

Now, if you can answer, "Yes" to any of these, then what occurred to make the answer "Yes" is what is called "evidence" and would probably be used in a trial if you can link them all together.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, and then said:

But, but, but, he groped women!  He's a pig!  He HAS to do the honorable thing and step down!  :w00t:   Say some of the least honorable people on the planet.

How dare you impugn the integrity of fine people, like Chelsea Handler. I hope that he does step down so that they can regret their campaign after a real conservative takes his place. Talk about witch hunt remorse! They'll pine for the days of cheap shots and low blows after Pence enters the Oval Office.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Paranormal Panther said:

How dare you impugn the integrity of fine people, like Chelsea Handler. I hope that he does step down so that they can regret their campaign after a real conservative takes his place. Talk about witch hunt remorse! They'll pine for the days of cheap shots and low blows after Pence enters the Oval Office.

Let me be the first to add "Big whoop"

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Well, for collusion to happen, Party A would have to give something to Party B in exchange for something or to accomplish a common goal.

I'll let you answer these questions for yourself.  Did Trump get anything from Russia?  Like election hacking help, information, etc?

Did Russia get something?  Like a promise to end sanctions?  No Hillary? 

If you can definitively answer, "No" to these, then the investigation would be done for.

 

Another thing for collusion to happen is for both parties to communicate with each other.  Did Trump or members of his campaign communicate with Russians?

If you can definitively answer, "No" then the investigation would be done for.

 

Now, if you can answer, "Yes" to any of these, then what occurred to make the answer "Yes" is what is called "evidence" and would probably be used in a trial if you can link them all together.

 

 

 

The bottom line is that there's absolutely no proof of a conspiracy between Trump and Putin. Most of us know that. For instance, there's no tape of Trump telling Putin that "we can work it out". There's just a long string of failed attempts to remove Trump from the White House.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, and then said:

Attend, please.  A coup is by definition an illegal power grab.  Obviously, if proof, REAL proof in the form of documents, emails, phone conversations, etc. that can be CORROBORATED were to appear then it would mean he had indeed attempted to illegally subvert the electoral process.  IF that is provided then I'd be in favor of his removal. 

Whatever Mueller finds will have to stand up in a court of law.

Odds are that Trump would be listed as an "unindicted co-conspirator", if charges are filed against others -- given the problems with indicting a sitting President.
 

11 minutes ago, and then said:

And yes, I was definitely alluding to a violent action against those that illegally removed a duly elected president.  Don't get thinking that all Americans are so whipped into government worship that we wouldn't take up arms against Tyranny.  I guess you think that only outraged neo-nullification/anarchy types have a right to stand for what they believe.  You'd be dead wrong about that.

No-one's going to convince the Senate to remove Trump without real evidence. 2/3rds to convict, and no party is likely to have that number, anytime soon.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paranormal Panther said:

Where's the evidence of collusion? I thought that that was the original reason for the witch hunt, er, probe.

The Trump Tower meeting. A recent email sent from Goldstone to another who was at that meeting all but confirms that Goldstone did discuss the DNC leak during that 30 minute meeting, and there is evidence of Jr coordinating the leaks with Wikileaks through messages. 

I've posted this at least three times now in this thread.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

The Trump Tower meeting. A recent email sent from Goldstone to another who was at that meeting all but confirms that Goldstone did discuss the DNC leak during that 30 minute meeting, and there is evidence of Jr coordinating the leaks with Wikileaks through messages. 

I've posted this at least three times now in this thread.

Where's the proof that Trump plotted with Putin to win the presidency? Hasn't that Junior charge been debunked, by the way?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, .ZZ. said:

Wife of demoted DOJ official worked for firm behind anti-Trump dossier

Source

It's pretty good that this has been brought to light because this likely is at least part of the reason the man was taken off the investigation. Considering that we haven't seen his messages, no one actually knew why he was removed. This seems to give us a clue to the reasoning.

So many still continue to post about this guy as though it supports their theory that the investigation is biased. Mueller acting on it shows the exact opposite is true. It makes no sense - there's no logic behind this reasoning at all. If he were biased then he wouldn't have done anything about it. In fact, according to some on here, Mueller would have picked him for his bias.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

No-one's going to convince the Senate to remove Trump without real evidence. 2/3rds to convict, and no party is likely to have that number, anytime soon.

On this, we agree.  I've said it often.  No current politician that I can think of has the integrity to risk his/her seat by removing a president that still has significant popular support.  The sad thing is they'd still be that way even if that president HAD committed a crime and had that proven with evidence.  Trump is a loudmouth and speaks too casually for the chair he occupies but he was elected legally and he wouldn't be the first president to be over his head in the job.  He's been in office ONE YEAR.  ONE.  The economy is improving, people are going back to work and the world hasn't melted down into a global war on his watch.  I think we both know these things to be true but his haters will never give him credit and it's becoming ever more apparent that they are going to continue the hue and cry until he is booted or removed or his term(s) end.  They HATE Trump.  As disgusted as I was with Obama, I didn't actually hate the man until his plans for this nation became transparent.  IOW, I accepted that he was duly elected and I knew that our Constitution had to be honored if America was to survive.  Sometime during the last 8 years, an awful lot of Americans lost that knowledge.  Without respect and compromise, we all will fail.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
  • The topic was unlocked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.