Russia probes kick into high gear

[aztek]

i have a feeling after 2018 election in Russia will be looking for Americans involved in trying to sway their election, i can see entire embassy stuff, and other officials be held during investigation, in russia they would not let you out on bail. you sit in a cell from arrest till trial

[+and-then]

37 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

It's a federal offence to receive assistance from a foreign government to win an election.

I'd say this creates more of a problem for HRC and her Party than for the sitting president.

[ExpandMyMind]

13 minutes ago, aztek said:

i have a feeling after 2018 election in Russia will be looking for Americans involved in trying to sway their election, i can see entire embassy stuff, and other officials be held during investigation, in russia they would not let you out on bail. you sit in a cell from arrest till trial

Democracy in Russia.

'They do have free elections in Russia. As long as you vote for Putin, you'll remain free'.

[Merc14]

1 hour ago, Tiggs said:

Investigating a crime isn't the same as committing one.

It's a federal offence to receive assistance from a foreign government to win an election.
It's perfectly legal to investigate that foreign government giving illegal assistance.

Exactly Tiggs and we know for a fact that the Hillary campaign, through their hired contractors at Fusion GPS, worked directly with the Russian government via Russian intelligence, so why isn't Mueller questioning those democrats involved if he is so interested in Russian interference in the election?  Why is he prosecuting Manafort and some foreign lawyer for a crime committed years before in the Ukraine?   If we switched players to Trump hiring Fusion GPS and getting this Russian dossier you'd be howling like a scalded dog for Trump's head.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Merc14

[Tiggs]

4 minutes ago, .ZZ. said:

And is that what you think happened in the months leading up to November 8, 2016?

Let's get this out in the open. You've already got your mind made up, don't you?

Why would I, given that there's still no smoking gun in the public domain?

What is in the public domain is enough circumstantial evidence to suggests that it's a definite possibility -- and definitely one that requires further investigation.

I believe that the email to Don Jr and his "I love it" response shows that he was, at best, "collusion-curious".

Quote

The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

Bolding mine.


I also think that there are lots of interesting coincidences surrounding that meeting which should be investigated. For example:

Trump spoke to Putin about "adoptions", during the G20 summit, on July 7th, 2017.

That same evening, on the flight back from the G20 summit -- Trump used "adoptions" to describe the substance of the meeting at Trump tower, when he drafted his son's statement to the NYT.


As I've said on several occasions -- if Mueller investigates it and finds there's nothing there -- then I'd believe him.

But until Mueller publicly calls it -- as far as I'm concerned, it's still an open question.

[Merc14]

19 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Why would I, given that there's still no smoking gun in the public domain?

What is in the public domain is enough circumstantial evidence to suggests that it's a definite possibility -- and definitely one that requires further investigation.

I believe that the email to Don Jr and his "I love it" response shows that he was, at best, "collusion-curious".

Bolding mine.


I also think that there are lots of interesting coincidences surrounding that meeting which should be investigated. For example:

Trump spoke to Putin about "adoptions", during the G20 summit, on July 7th, 2017.

That same evening, on the flight back from the G20 summit -- Trump used "adoptions" to describe the substance of the meeting at Trump tower, when he drafted his son's statement to the NYT.


As I've said on several occasions -- if Mueller investigates it and finds there's nothing there -- then I'd believe him.

But until Mueller publicly calls it -- as far as I'm concerned, it's still an open question.

Did Trump Jr. accept any of that material?  Curious is not guilty even in Mueller's world.  Hillary, on the other hand, did accept info from the Russian government, albeit false info, but she still felt comfortable enough with its authenticity to allow it to be "leaked" just prior to the election.  BTW, Mueller will not call anything until at least after the midterms because part of his job is to keep up a constant barrage on Trump is guilty noise, I expect some indictments in October.  Absolute BS IMHO and time for Sessions to get off his **** and do some indicting of his own because real crimes agauinst the country have been committed by democrats not fantasy crimes like Mueller is "investigating".

Edited February 21, 2018 by Merc14

[.ZZ.]

8 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

 

 

I also think that there are lots of interesting coincidences surrounding that meeting which should be investigated. For example:

Trump spoke to Putin about "adoptions", during the G20 summit, on July 7th, 2017.

That same evening, on the flight back from the G20 summit -- Trump used "adoptions" to describe the substance of the meeting at Trump tower, when he drafted his son's statement to the NYT.


As I've said on several occasions -- if Mueller investigates it and finds there's nothing there -- then I'd believe him.

But until Mueller publicly calls it -- as far as I'm concerned, it's still an open question.

 

Still clinging to that meeting I see.

Thin Tiggs, very very thin.

That meeting didn't help Trump win the election, now did it?

In regards to the bold, fair enough.

[Tiggs]

5 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Exactly Tiggs and we know for a fact that the Hillary campaign, through their hired contractors at Fusion GPS, worked directly with the Russian government via Russian intelligence, so why isn't Mueller questioning those democrats involved if he is so interested in Russian interference in the election.

Wild guess -- but I strongly suspect Mueller just ignores partisan attempts at word-lawyering false equivalency.

Again -- investigating a crime isn't illegal.
 

5 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Why is he prosecuting Manafort and some foreign lawyer for a crime committed years before in the Ukraine?

Same reason any Federal prosecutor would dredge up someone's past. For leverage to flip him.

Donald Trump is telling friends and aides in private that things are going great — for him.

Some reasons: He's decided that a key witness in the Russia probe, Paul Manafort, isn't going to "flip" and sell him out, friends and aides say. 

Source: NBC
 

5 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

If we switched players to Trump hiring Fusion GPS and getting this Russian dossier you'd be howling like a scalded dog for Trump's head.

If multiple Western Intelligence Agencies were also raising red flags about her campaign, I expect I'd be howling for a Special Prosecutor to investigate Clinton.

[Merc14]

46 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Wild guess -- but I strongly suspect Mueller just ignores partisan attempts at word-lawyering false equivalency.

Again -- investigating a crime isn't illegal.

Are you saying that Steele did not use Russian intelligence sources for his dossier?  If you aren't then, explain to me how Hillary and her campaign aren't copmplicit in that activity as he was their hired gun?

Quote

 

Same reason any Federal prosecutor would dredge up someone's past. For leverage to flip him.

Donald Trump is telling friends and aides in private that things are going great — for him.

Some reasons: He's decided that a key witness in the Russia probe, Paul Manafort, isn't going to "flip" and sell him out, friends and aides say. 

Source: NBC

 

LMAO.  Fine but he better have more than Manafort's words because coerced testimony from one guy isn't go9ing to hack it.  You know, something like the Fusion GPS banking records that everyone but Mueller has.

 

Quote

If multiple Western Intelligence Agencies were also raising red flags about her campaign, I expect I'd be howling for a Special Prosecutor to investigate Clinton.

Yeah, all based on what?  Papa+10's drunken ravings in a bar?  LMAO.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Merc14

[Tiggs]

18 minutes ago, .ZZ. said:

Still clinging to that meeting I see.

Thin Tiggs, very very thin.

That meeting didn't help Trump win the election, now did it?

If you assume that Don Jr's now telling the truth about what happened in that meeting on his fourth or so attempt -- no.

But there's much, much more to investigate than just that one meeting.

[ian hacktorp]

More and more political commentators are starting to call out Mueller's investigation for the obvious farce that it is.  Unless Mueller is actually working behind the scenes to expose the true criminals behind the 2016 election fraud (Hillary-Obama-Comey-Lynch-etc.), he has painted himself into a corner so tightly, he is now standing on one foot.

Here is what David Stockman has to say about the entire charade (he opens with one of Tiggs' favorite sayings):

Quote

We have always heard that a determined government prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, and now we know it's true. After 38 years in the prosecution racket, Robert Mueller just made his biggest score ever---that is, he nailed a great big Nothingburger.

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/muellers-comic-book-indictment-how-to-prosecute-a-great-big-nothingburger/

[Tiggs]

6 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Are you saying that Steele did not use Russian intelligence sources for his dossier?  If you aren't then, explain to me how Hillary and her campaign aren't copmplicit in that activity as he was their hired gun?

I'm saying that if you investigate a crime being committed by the Russian government, you're going to have to talk to whistleblowers in or around there.

Again -- investigating a crime isn't illegal.
 

6 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

LMAO.  Fine but he better have more than Manafort's words because coerced testimonty form one guy isn't go9ing to hack it.  You know, something like the Fusion GPS banking records that everyone but Mueller has.

Pretty sure if he flips that Manafort will have more than hearsay. Money always leaves a trail.
 

6 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Yeah, all based on what?  Papa+10's drunken ravings in a bar?  LMAO.

I suspect given the reporting naming the intelligence services of several countries contributing --  there's more shoes still to drop on that front.

[+and-then]

8 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Again -- investigating a crime isn't illegal.
 

The "crimes" in that dossier were so blatant that NO media arm would touch it during the campaign because of our Libel laws.  Libeling a public figure is nearly impossible to prove in court, yet NONE of them would publicize it.  It will be exactly this kind of tortured "logic" that we'll be treated to when Herr Mueller's inquisition finally ends - after the mid-terms if the D's lose more ground or some indistinct point in the future, should they regain the House.  Meanwhile, the disgust and anger keep building on the Right.  Pyrrhic victories can be quite costly.  

[Tiggs]

Federal investigators are probing whether former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort promised a Chicago banker a job in the Trump White House in return for $16 million in home loans, two people with direct knowledge of the matter told NBC News.

Manafort received three separate loans in December 2016 and January 2017 from Federal Savings Bank for homes in New York City, Virginia and the Hamptons.

The banker, Stephen Calk, president of the Federal Savings Bank, was announced as a member of candidate Trump's Council of Economic Advisers in August 2016.

Source: NBC

[Lilly]

Ok, so Mr Manafort is a sleazy character...doesn’t seem to support any of the allegations in the Steele Dossier, or the notion that Trump criminally collided with the Russians to steal the 2016 election. 

[Tiggs]

1 minute ago, Lilly said:

Ok, so Mr Manafort is a sleazy character...doesn’t seem to support any of the allegations in the Steele Dossier, or the notion that Trump criminally collided with the Russians to steal the 2016 election. 

Fairly obvious to me that Mueller's accruing a series of non-pardonable offences against Manafort, in order to persuade him to flip, and testify.

[Lilly]

17 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Fairly obvious to me that Mueller's accruing a series of non-pardonable offences against Manafort, in order to persuade him to flip, and testify.

Pretty hard to give up something if it doesn't exist. I'm not saying I know if  'Trump criminally collude with Russia' event exists or not...but if it doesn't ...

[aztek]

5 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Pretty hard to give up something if it doesn't exist. I'm not saying I know if 'Trump criminally collude with Russia' event exists or not...but if it doesn't ...

it's been almost 2 years and still nothing, pretty clear there is nothing, except hot air and political game

[Tiggs]

Just now, Lilly said:

Pretty hard to give up something if it doesn't exist. I'm not saying I know if the 'Trump criminally collude with Russia' event exists or not...but if it doesn't ...

Conversely -- if Mueller's going to all this effort to throw charges at Manafort -- it's because Mueller believes it does.

[Lilly]

Just now, Tiggs said:

Conversely -- if Mueller's going to all this effort to throw charges at Manafort -- it's because Mueller believes it does.

Or, Mr Mueller is simply *throwing* with the hope that it does? 

This remains: "Show me the money" (aka the evidence of Trump's criminal collusion with the Kremlin to steal the 2016 election). 

I'm waiting....still.

[aztek]

it because  Muller was hired  to find something, not to see if there is anything there.,

[Lilly]

As more and more time passes I'm starting to think this may all be a case of : "Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime" (the head of Stalin's secret police coined this phrase).  

[Tiggs]

Just now, Lilly said:

Or, Mr Mueller is simply *throwing* with the hope that it does? 

This remains: "Show me the money" (aka the evidence of Trump's criminal collusion with the Kremlin to steal the 2016 election). 

I'm waiting....still.

And I'm still waiting for the exoneration letter for Trump.

Guess we'd both best get comfortable.

[Lilly]

LOL! Even if Mueller and friends find nothing there will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever (add a few more 'evers') be a letter of exoneration for Trump. Oh, I believe they will find 'something' alright,  but probably will be either inconclusive or having nothing to do with criminal Russian collusion. Just my personal guess there. 

[Tiggs]

1 minute ago, Lilly said:

LOL! Even if Mueller and friends find nothing there will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever (add a few more 'evers') be a letter of exoneration for Trump.

At some point, the Special Counsel will write a report for the Deputy Attorney General. If that report doesn't have any recommendations to charge Trump for coordinating with Russia -- then that's close enough for me.