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

32 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I wonder... Have any of the other "Russians" that were at the meeting actually said that the "documents" came from the Crown Prosecutor? Or, was the only source of that info the Russian Lady Lawyer who lied about that information in order to get the meeting in the first place?

Seriously... I don't know if she is the only source of that or not? I think she was though.

How did the nytimes get a copy of his email or is this someone's speculation of what was said?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

What is funny to me is that a lot of these people who are anti-Trump are talking about having him Forcibly removed.... Because... He didn't respect the law. How the Hell is forcibly removing him then respectful of the law? Idiots. 

It amuses me that some people get so Happy with the idea of removing Trump, when they haven't even thought a second on how that would ever come about. The VP isn't going to vote him out. The House isn't going to vote for Impeachment. And even if they did Impeach, the Senate wouldn't get a 2/3 to convict. Just never is going to happen. Idiots....

I suppose it is a happy fairytale for them to play with in their minds, as they enjoy the best economy in decades.... Stores are full of people. Movie Theaters are full of people. Restaurants are full of people. Roads are way Over full of people. House prices still shooting up. Unemployment down. Jobs created is up. I guess some people just Require something to be Angry about, and Trumps a good target.

They are counting on a "blue wave" this November in which case they take the house and, no matter what, impeach Trump.    The reason for impeachment will be whatever ridiculous suspicions Mueller reports (Mueller has nothing but his report will be suggestive of "something") and with a simple majority it will pass.  The repercussions for the democrats will be catastrophic and probably end the party as we presently know it but that is irrelevant, they have to appease their rabid base which they have been inflaming for nearly two years and so would be forced into this suicidal act. 

Personally I don't see a blue wave, not with the economy booming the way it is and a democrat message comprised of nothing more than "Get rid of Trump!" and "Reverse the economy back to Obama days."   Ridiculous message and destroying the DNC  in its present form would actually be the best thing they could ever do (they have been getting annihilated at the voting booth) but if the blue wave materializes it will only give them a small majority in congress and the republicans will keep the senate and would never vote to impeach.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I don't think the issue is as much about whether or not she was really working for the Russian government (but she clearly was), it's more that Trump's team thought that she was

I don't know that either of those are true. That she was there with the OK of the Kremlin, or not. Has there been any confirmation from upper levels of Russian Government that they sent her there? Seems to me she basically was acting as a lobbyist for Russian orphanages, or whatnot, to get Russian kids accepted back into US adoption programs. 

I get that she regularly communicated with Russian government officials. But is she on the Books as an employee? At best she is a contractor who sells information and legal help to Russian officials.

Is there rubles that showed up in her account when she made the meeting? Is there some kind of smoking gun here?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, skliss said:

How did the nytimes get a copy of his email or is this someone's speculation of what was said?

If you are talking about the email ExpandMyMind posted... It is one of the emails Don Jr turned over when he was asked what had happened. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, skliss said:

How did the nytimes get a copy of his email or is this someone's speculation of what was said?

Oh my goodness...that would be terrible if someone got a hold of emails in some nefarious way. 

They didn't...in this case...but it would be terrible.

Wouldn't it?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

They are counting on a "blue wave" this November in which case they take the house and, no matter what, impeach Trump.    The reason for impeachment will be whatever ridiculous suspicions Mueller reports (Mueller has nothing but his report will be suggestive of "something") and with a simple majority it will pass.  The repercussions for the democrats will be catastrophic and probably end the party as we presently know it but that is irrelevant, they have to appease their rabid base which they have been inflaming for nearly two years and so would be forced into this suicidal act. 

Personally I don't see a blue wave, not with the economy booming the way it is and a democrat message comprised of nothing more than "Get rid of Trump!" and "Reverse the economy back to Obama days."   Ridiculous message and destroying the DNC  in its present form would actually be the best thing they could ever do (they have been getting annihilated at the voting booth) but if the blue wave materializes it will only give them a small majority in congress and the republicans will keep the senate and would never vote to impeach.

So far it is a bit of a "Blue Ripple". They've given up on the Senate seemingly, and are putting all their "Good Thoughts" (Because they are anti-Christian, so they don't have Prayers.), into winning the House. I think it possible the House might flip to a very, very thin Democrat majority, but I don't even believe that all Democrats would throw in for Impeachment. I think there are some who are from districts that they won by very slim margins, and they're going to have to be given guarantees, or enticements, in order to get their votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GlitterRose said:

Oh my goodness...that would be terrible if someone got a hold of emails in some nefarious way. 

They didn't...in this case...but it would be terrible.

Wouldn't it?

Sarcasm? I was asking a question of more informed individuals about this particular instance.  Since this is an investigation in play I wasn't sure if they were released, another instance of leaking or speculation. Each can change the way such information can be viewed. Sue me for trying to clarify.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

don't know that either of those are true. That she was there with the OK of the Kremlin, or not. Has there been any confirmation from upper levels of Russian Government that they sent her there? Seems to me she basically was acting as a lobbyist for Russian orphanages, or whatnot, to get Russian kids accepted back into US adoption programs. 

She works for the Russian governmentA paid employee. She was also a lobbyist against the Magnitsky Act, which 'adoptions' is used as code for. How can you still think this was about adoptions? 

She also turned up to the meeting with Russian spies.

Revelations since have further confirmed her ties to the Kremlin. At this point it's actually ridiculous to consider her as anything but a Russian agent. And I'm sure Mueller and his team will have more information than is currently in the public domain.

But my point remains: the Trump team were operating under the assumption that it was the Russian government. Which means, from their standpoint, whether or not she actually was or was not is a distinction without difference.

Like if you arrange to meet someone online to buy drugs and it turns out to be a sting operation. Your intent is the part that matters, not that it was really the DEA.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, skliss said:

Sarcasm? I was asking a question of more informed individuals about this particular instance.  Since this is an investigation in play I wasn't sure if they were released, another instance of leaking or speculation. Each can change the way such information can be viewed. Sue me for trying to clarify.....

Someone leaked them to the NYT, then Jr found out about it and posted the whole exchange hours before the story was due to break. I suspect after the NYT had contacted him for a comment.

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Mueller has nothing but his report will be suggestive of "something"

You got an inside man feeding you this info?

22 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

The repercussions for the democrats will be catastrophic and probably end the party as we presently know it

How so?

The way I see it, the level of obstruction going on from Republicans in order to protect a sitting President who is an obvious traitor will likely have the opposite effect. It makes what you suggest more likely to happen to the Republicans when the full truth comes out. You'll have a full generation growing up with the knowledge of what Trump did and how the Republicans chose party over country.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

You got an inside man feeding you this info?

How so?

The way I see it, the level of obstruction going on from Republicans in order to protect a sitting President who is an obvious traitor will likely have the opposite effect. It makes what you suggest more likely to happen to the Republicans when the full truth comes out. You'll have a full generation growing up with the knowledge of what Trump did and how the Republicans chose party over country.

 

Q

lol

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I wonder... Have any of the other "Russians" that were at the meeting actually said that the "documents" came from the Crown Prosecutor? Or, was the only source of that info the Russian Lady Lawyer who lied about that information in order to get the meeting in the first place?

Seriously... I don't know if she is the only source of that or not? I think she was though.

Veselnitskaya's not even mentioned within that email. Have another read.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what will happen soon. Mr. Mueller's investigation will be over and his findings will be released, and known to the American public.


If Trump is found to have implicated himself I will accept those facts. If he is cleared, that will not be accepted by many Democrats and the impeachment reasons will shift to something else.


If he is cleared, I expect this to be released right after the mid term elections so it will not affect the elections democrat wise.


If he is found to have implicated himself of anything found by Mr. Mueller I expect that to be known the weekend before mid terms to try and influence the elections.


When that happens you know it was all political. When Justice is politicized, there can be no true Justice. It can simply turn a blind eye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, South Alabam said:


If he is cleared, I expect this to be released right after the mid term elections so it will not affect the elections democrat wise.


If he is found to have implicated himself of anything found by Mr. Mueller I expect that to be known the weekend before mid terms to try and influence the elections

As far as I'm aware, and I can't find the exact details so might have it not 100% correct, but Mueller is not allowed to present his findings within a certain amount of time before elections that could be influenced. I think it's 60 days or something.

Actually, found an article on it. CNN:

Quote

Under long-standing Justice Department custom, prosecutors are generally advised to avoid public disclosure of investigative steps involving a candidate for office or related to election matters within 60 days of an election.

To that end, attorneys general have issued memos over the years surrounding election "sensitivities," prohibiting the selection of the "timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election."

The last memo on the topic issued by Attorney General Loretta Lynch in 2016 states: "politics must play no role in the decisions of federal investigators or prosecutors regarding any investigations or criminal charges. Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party."

I suspect the report on obstruction will be presented to Rosenstein before that deadline, and any charges or other findings regarding the collusion with Russia will come after the midterms.

44 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

When that happens you know it was all political. When Justice is politicized, there can be no true Justice. It can simply turn a blind eye.

I assume this means that you believe that Comey releasing the findings of his investigation into Hillary days before the elections was also 'political'? Curious to see if the applied logic extends to situations where the shoe is on the other foot.

Applying that same reasoning would suggest that Comey's intention was to hurt Hillary and help Trump.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, GlitterRose said:

I'd say that someone who decides to yank security clearances from people who don't suck up enough...they're probably not all about the Constitution. 

As with far too many issues in government today, there is nothing whatever Constitutional about those security clearances.  Extending them to former high ranking officials has become a custom, over time, in case they're needed in a time of "national crisis" - in reality, I suspect it's more about a "once you're in the club, you stay in the club" kind of wink and nod.  I don't recall ever having a former CIA director being openly, viciously vocal against a sitting president in my lifetime.  By pulling his clearance, he will have to walk a tighter line with his public pronouncements.  If he casually speaks of matters that require that clearance to be known, he's going to be spending a lot of money for legal defense.  He's a private citizen now.  He has the same free speech rights that the rest of us enjoy.  He just can't make bank off of some imprimatur of being a source with inside info.  If the truth is ever known, I'd be willing to bet that he was the driving force behind this whole coup attempt.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, and then said:

By pulling his clearance, he will have to walk a tighter line with his public pronouncements

The exact opposite is true. Now he's more free to speak his mind than he previously was.

16 minutes ago, and then said:

If he casually speaks of matters that require that clearance to be known, he's going to be spending a lot of money for legal defense

Pretty sure he hasn't divulged any national secrets via Twitter so far. Also fairly sure that everyone who might read Twitter would be required to have clearance if he had revealed classified info in the past.

Having security clearance gives you permission to know things personally, not to tell anyone you want.

16 minutes ago, and then said:

Extending them to former high ranking officials has become a custom, over time, in case they're needed in a time of "national crisis" - in reality, I suspect it's more about a "once you're in the club, you stay in the club" kind of wink and nod.

It's done so that previously employed, highly experienced people can be automatically read-in on ongoing matters and will be quickly available to provide their valuable input. Calling it a 'boy's club' isn't very accurate.

It should also be noted that he hasn't been prohibited from being read-in. All this does is ensure he doesn't get automatic updates. Any intelligence official with the authority can give him clearance on a case-by-case basis, circumventing this revocation.

So, essentially, it was pointless, petty and counter-productive to boot, and yet another attempt by this administration to try to silence its critics and defame someone who might be called to provide testimony against Trump and his team.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, GlitterRose said:

Oh my goodness...that would be terrible if someone got a hold of emails in some nefarious way. 

They didn't...in this case...but it would be terrible.

Wouldn't it?

She gets no sympathy on the emails.  She was so arrogant and so focused on her coming reign that she tried to get around the law and stiff-arm a real potential nemesis (FOIA) by keeping all of her communications separate and secret from their access.  The fact that she actually thought she'd get away with it still astounds me.  She probably has an ulcer the size of Texas and the words JUDICIAL WATCH burned into her nightmares.  She must be lovely company to keep these days... :w00t:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DieChecker said:

So far it is a bit of a "Blue Ripple". They've given up on the Senate seemingly, and are putting all their "Good Thoughts" (Because they are anti-Christian, so they don't have Prayers.), into winning the House. I think it possible the House might flip to a very, very thin Democrat majority, but I don't even believe that all Democrats would throw in for Impeachment. I think there are some who are from districts that they won by very slim margins, and they're going to have to be given guarantees, or enticements, in order to get their votes.

Agreed and most of the leadership realizes there is nothing to this garbage, at least nothing worthy of impeachment and are trying to calm the crazies down but I think it is too late and the media isn't helping by continuously banging the various scandal drums (they seem to change daily now).  Barring some massive scandal I don't think the dems will take either house.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Agreed and most of the leadership realizes there is nothing to this garbage, at least nothing worthy of impeachment and are trying to calm the crazies down but I think it is too late and the media isn't helping by continuously banging the various scandal drums (they seem to change daily now).  Barring some massive scandal I don't think the dems will take either house.

 

I hope your hunch is correct.  I actually think the president would garner a LOT more support after he was impeached over this nonsense but I just don't want to have to listen to these little demagogues for months on end about how they're saving the Republic.  I get queasy and angry just thinking about it.  If they retake the House and nutter Nancy has the gavel again, it is going to be a nonstop spectacle.  ALL investigations will be shut down or redirected against those who've been searching for the truth.  OTOH... it will be oddly surreal and VERY funny to see auntie Maxine carried in triumph from the House floor to deliver the articles of Impeachment.  I wonder if she'll put a laurel wreath in her hair? :w00t:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say, for me, if the Trump presidential campaign has been scrutinized within an inch of its life, and the only potentially suspect thing they can come up with is Don Jr was in a room for less than 5 mins with someone who misled him about the reason for it and nothing came of it that was used in any capacity .... .... I gotta say...I'm relieved....I mean.... wouldnt you think that if these guys were as all out evil as so many think they would have found loads of evidence for real out and out corruption by now? 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

As far as I'm aware, and I can't find the exact details so might have it not 100% correct, but Mueller is not allowed to present his findings within a certain amount of time before elections that could be influenced. I think it's 60 days or something.

Actually, found an article on it. CNN:

I suspect the report on obstruction will be presented to Rosenstein before that deadline, and any charges or other findings regarding the collusion with Russia will come after the midterms.

I assume this means that you believe that Comey releasing the findings of his investigation into Hillary days before the elections was also 'political'? Curious to see if the applied logic extends to situations where the shoe is on the other foot.

Applying that same reasoning would suggest that Comey's intention was to hurt Hillary and help Trump.

But is the 60-day custom a firm rule?

No. In fact, as the Justice Department's internal watchdog recently noted in a report about the 2016 election: "The 60-Day Rule is not written or described in any Department policy or regulation. Nevertheless, high-ranking Department and FBI officials acknowledged the existence of a general practice that informs Department decisions."
 
We'll see...
 
And as for the assumption of Comey releasing the findings being political. Maybe, but I am generally saying the appointment of people into the Justice system based on politics is a bad idea. With a two party system and politics split right down the middle of this country - Justice is never going to be fair.
 
This is akin to openly or hidden racist Police Officers, Lawyers, Judges etc... Do you honestly believe a white racist Police Officer is going to throw all his racism aside every single time and do his job correctly when arresting a black man? Or that racist Judge sentencing a black man fairly?
Edited by South Alabam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, skliss said:

I have to say, for me, if the Trump presidential campaign has been scrutinized within an inch of its life, and the only potentially suspect thing they can come up with is Don Jr was in a room for less than 5 mins with someone who misled him about the reason for it and nothing came of it that was used in any capacity .... .... I gotta say...I'm relieved....I mean.... wouldnt you think that if these guys were as all out evil as so many think they would have found loads of evidence for real out and out corruption by now? 

In a sane, just world we could take heart from that but it's been apparent from the beginning that this isn't about any real crime or even misbehavior.  They will be relentless until they can put someone in jail - the closer to Trump, the better - and his hands will be tied until he wins reelection.  It makes me literally SICK that my former Senator, Sessions, has stabbed him in the back this way.  I used to really respect Jeff.  His welcome here in Alabama is going to be a lot colder from now on.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact people are taking QAnon seriously blows my mind. It's 4chan conspiracy theory baloney. I feel sorry for those who want to believe that crap.

We do not know what Mueller has exactly. We know that several arrests and charges have been made. There's even two guilty verdicts found.

Chances are we may not hear what he has for several months or more. It's the nature of the beast, investigations take a long time. Haste makes waste and with Cohen probably singing like a canary, Mueller's got all his paperwork to sort through.

Remember:

Nixon's investigation took two years. Multiple arrests and many were charged.

The H. Clinton Benghazi investigation took four years, ran by people who wanted to nail her to the floor. They couldn't find a thing, no charges were filed. The only thing they could do is lecture her about her emails.

So give it time. We haven't seen the end of this affair by far.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, locashPundit said:

The fact people are taking QAnon seriously blows my mind. It's 4chan conspiracy theory baloney. I feel sorry for those who want to believe that crap.

We do not know what Mueller has exactly. We know that several arrests and charges have been made. There's even two guilty verdicts found.

Chances are we may not hear what he has for several months or more. It's the nature of the beast, investigations take a long time. Haste makes waste and with Cohen probably singing like a canary, Mueller's got all his paperwork to sort through.

Remember:

Nixon's investigation took two years. Multiple arrests and many were charged.

What were those charges for exactly?

37 minutes ago, locashPundit said:

The H. Clinton Benghazi investigation took four years, ran by people who wanted to nail her to the floor. They couldn't find a thing, no charges were filed. The only thing they could do is lecture her about her emails.

What investigation, she lied as did her boss and the State Department.  :rolleyes:

37 minutes ago, locashPundit said:

So give it time. We haven't seen the end of this affair by far.

You're correct, everyday reveals new and even more shocking evidence that the DoJ and the FBI were neck deep in a massive conspiracy with the latest news being about  Bruce Ohr and Christopher Steele.  Keep going Mueller, you are the worst thing to ever happen to the democrats.    Flip side is the democrats will now be hounding Mueller to shut it down.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don.jr knew there was an investigation going on of all Trump's campaign staff. If he thought those emails were of any real consequence, he could have deleted them, and had an IT guy wipe the drive. (you know, like a rag)                                                               Was that computer subject to government oversight with FOIA laws? No. Of course he could have deleted them before the investigation too, that was his prerogative. But he did neither. He obviously had nothing to hide.

And if that is the only findings of "collusion" then we can suspect it was all from spying through the NSA who had FISA warrant based on an nonfactual and unproven dossier .. His emails are from June 2016, investigation starts with naming Mueller in May 2017, and Don Jr's emails are "leaked" July of 2017.

So if this is the only smoking gun...:rolleyes:

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.