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 -
OverSword

FISA memo set to end collusion investigation

2,151 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

South Alabam
31 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

I don't anyone here is surprised that Schiff loaded it up with stuff that needed to be redacted so people like you could say things like this and guess what, everyone sees through it, but you apparently, and that is why Schiff has been relatively quiet.  You, on the other hand, marched right up and jumped off the cliff.  Well done.  :rolleyes:

The funny thing is, the Democrats said that was what they are going to do. And there are those who knowing this are accusing Trump of "hiding stuff" because he didn't release it. And they loaded it up with sensitive stuff so that if he did release it he would reveal a lot of classified sources and methods, therefore showing how blatantly careless he is with classified material. And if he had redacted all the stuff that needed to be redacted, it wouldn't say anything. Schiff through cast that out, and pulled the gullible in hook, line and sinker.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
7 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

And they loaded it up with sensitive stuff so that if he did release it he would reveal a lot of classified sources and methods

Do you have any evidence of this?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
16 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

And it's not even just our intelligence. We don't believe British intelligence. We don't believe Dutch intelligence.

But RT...sure...why not?

It's like we're living in Bizarro World. 

It's like an episode of Dark Mirror. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam
5 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Do you have any evidence of this?

That was what they said they were going to do before the memo was even drafted. It was on the news and I won't look it up, however here is a good link that details why Trump didn't release it: https://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=157&sid=46257857&title=trump-accuses-democrats-of-playing-politics-with-memo

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
18 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

That was what they said they were going to do before the memo was even drafted. It was on the news and I won't look it up, however here is a good link that details why Trump didn't release it: https://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=157&sid=46257857&title=trump-accuses-democrats-of-playing-politics-with-memo

The reason why Nunes' memo was so irresponsible was because he knowingly omitted information that was of a sensitive nature that would have shown proper context while making his claims. It has always been known that to refute the narrative he was pushing they would have to reveal that sensitive information.

And regarding Trump's excuse: the intelligence committee, the DOJ and the FBI all okayed the new memo for release. All of them. It is laughable to think for a second that the blame would then be placed on Trump merely for following their recommendations.

We all know why he doesn't want it released. Nunes' memo was a pile of steaming hot garbage.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
33 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

That was what they said they were going to do before the memo was even drafted. It was on the news and I won't look it up, however here is a good link that details why Trump didn't release it: https://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=157&sid=46257857&title=trump-accuses-democrats-of-playing-politics-with-memo

The Nunes memo was specifically designed to provide information which without context placed the investigation in a bad light. That required context is what is classified. Nunes and company did this on purpose. 

Honestly I'm at the point where I'm not sure why the dems are even bothering. Nunes' memo is so blatantly political and inaccurate no one outside of foxnews circles are taking it seriously anymore. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

Be careful everyone who you choose to champion in all this hub-bub. Some folks have very odd beliefs or beliefs you may not agree with.

All about Justin Amash (from Mother Jones no less): https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/justin-amash-nsa-surveillance/

One notable exception to Amash’s leave-me-alone ethos: He believes fetuses are protected by the 14th Amendment and supports banning all abortions. And while Amash was an outspoken critic of the Defense of Marriage Act, arguing that such issues should be left up to the states, as a member of the Greek Orthodox Church he’s personally opposed to same-sex marriage. When I ask him in Arlington if he’d support a lawsuit from a lesbian couple challenging Michigan’s prohibition on gay marriage, he hesitates. “I don’t know enough about the particular case,” he says. “But my position has stood since the beginning of time: I don’t think government should be defining marriage.”

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
15 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Be careful everyone who you choose to champion in all this hub-bub. Some folks have very odd beliefs or beliefs you may not agree with.

All about Justin Amash (from Mother Jones no less): https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/justin-amash-nsa-surveillance/

 

 

So I post about a Republican who has seen both memos, doesn't think they are particularly dangerous to national security and that both should be released, and instead of addressing what he has claimed - something others who have seen both have akso claimed, including, I imagine, the intelligence committee that unanimously voted to release the counter memo - you try to discredit him due to his religious beliefs?

A Republican trying to discredit another Republican because his particular archaic abortion beliefs are a bit too crazy. That's actually funny. (Not saying anything about your particular view on abortion, but, regardless of what you for some reason try to claim on here, you are clearly a Republican).

And I wasn't playing his 'champion'. I was merely relaying the opinion of a man who's seen both memos and obviously isn't part of the vast, ever-reaching deep state conspiracy that concocted every American left wing anything, ever.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 hour ago, Lilly said:

I, too, think that the Democratic memo contains things involving national security that need to be redacted. I also think it was done on purpose for political reasons.

LOL we were telling you a week before the Nunes memo was released that he was writing a memo designed specifically so the innuendo therein could only be dispelled via classified intelligence. 

1 hour ago, Lilly said:

If Trump allows the national security information to become public he will be vilified. If Trump refuses to ok the memo until the national security information is removed he will be vilified. Win/Win situation for the Democrats...but only perhaps. I highly suspect a great many people can see right through this paticular plan.

Nah this is simply all that Trump and company have. Havent you noticed the pattern yet? Breathless reports of how the next   release of info will be the damning proof that Trumps actually the victim as part of a week or so buildup to the unveiling which of course fizzles because its nothing more than rumor and mildly believable innuendo and then the next day Hannity is leading the way with a report of the next conspiracy theory "proving" Hillary is the evil global puppetmaster. 

 

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
On 2/9/2018 at 7:39 AM, ExpandMyMind said:

There is no fire. What are you talking about? It was part of the investigation and Nunes himself tried to meet Steele.

And this is exactly the point I was making. These 'fires' aren't even smoke. 

If there is no fire, then how come it is all over the media now? 

Nunes did try to meet Steele, did he try doing so by way of going through back channels to the Russians? Did Nunes say "I'd rather not have a paper trail"?

Apples and Oranges. One is a Senator sending his guys to talk to Steele, and one is a Senator talking to Russian agents, on purpose, to try to arrange a meeting in a back room.

If this isn't even smoke, then Trump has nothing to fear, as most of the "links" to the Russians that are made so much of in the Trump campaign by the Media wouldn't even be warms spots on dry grass.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
7 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Read back. The question had nothing specifically to do with Carter Page. You asked what had been verified and I provided an example of what had been verified with a link to an article that details more.

When adults are talking, they are interested in the pertinent info.  I assumed incorrectly that you were an adult.  And what flabbergasts me is that you did exactly what I just said you would do “…the pertinent info is non-trivial in nature and that is what is of interest.  The Left loves to sprinkle trivial facts so that when the argument goes south for them, they can always retreat to the trivial so they can win the argument.”

 

Nothing about your Republican conspiracy theories require common sense. In fact, they require a suspension of both common sense and logic.

Keep believing fantasy.

 

In the public domain? I'm sure you know the answer to that. 

I absolutely do.  There is no collusion.  At least not with Trump or anyone associated with him.  When Trump took office, there seemed to be a leak a day.  Why through all of that, there was nothing that proved collusion?  Because there is no collusion.  If there was collusion, charges would have already been brought.  There is no case.  Trump will have completed his second term before Mueller presses charges.  The time is coming that Congress is going to call Mueller before a committee to present his evidence and determine if the investigation into Trump continues.  Oh, there is plenty of investigating to do, just not including Trump or his team.

 

What we do know is that there is enough evidence of his team colluding with Russia along with circumstantial evidence against he himself to warrant an investigation. Time will tell, but I strongly suspect he was being blackmailed after laundering money for Russians. Some of his property deals are pretty blatant examples of money laundering.

We know no such thing.  There is no evidence of collusion.  You know nothing about real estate.  Trump is a business man with interests around the world.  That is hardly evidence, circumstantial or otherwise of collusion.  But it does fit your childish conspiracy theories.  If you want a good juicy money laundering case, check out the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One.  Dragging this out does nobody any good.  It only hurts the nation.  That's how you know this is just the Progs trying to save face because they would rather harm this nation to gain power than anything else.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
4 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

  When Trump took office, there seemed to be a leak a day.  Why through all of that, there was nothing that proved collusion?

The leaks were coming from the WH , not the investigation. Is an inability to grasp that basic concept why you keep demanding Mueller has no evidence?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

Honestly I'm at the point where I'm not sure why the dems are even bothering. Nunes' memo is so blatantly political and inaccurate no one outside of foxnews circles are taking it seriously anymore. 

The circle of Fox is wide.  The more time and effort it takes to find a kernel of truth in all of the fluff, the more people depend on canned and packaged factoids.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
6 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

The leaks were coming from the WH , not the investigation. Is an inability to grasp that basic concept why you keep demanding Mueller has no evidence?

I didn’t say anything about the leaks coming from the investigation.  The leaks came from Obama holdovers and the Deep State.  EO 12333 pretty much opened it up to anybody in the Deep State.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
3 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

There is no evidence of collusion.

His team met with known members of the Russian government in an attempt to receive information on HRC. That right there is the very definition of collusion. What we didn't know until details surrounding Flynn came out, was what the Russians were to receive in turn (though with Trump's attempt to end the Magnitsky sanctions we could already have made an educated guess).

8 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

You know nothing about real estate. 

I know that he sold a condo for nearly $100m to a Russian billionaire who immediately demolished the property. That sounds totally on the up-and-up.

10 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

But it does fit your childish conspiracy theories

Technically the Trump collusion is a conspiracy theory. But it is one with enough evidence supporting it to warrant a criminal investigation.

I think you'll find that all conspiracy investigations are theories until proven in court. Quite different, though, to the unsubstantiated nonsense that is spewed forth daily by US conservative media. To emphasise my point see: the Uranium One conspiracy you mentioned. Thanks.

14 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

If there was collusion, charges would have already been brought.

You and others keep saying this. What makes you think this is the case? Do you, like, even understand how investigations work? This looks like it is being treated like a RICO case. How often do you think that cops arrest the leader of a gang and try to get him to squeal on his henchmen? It seems you have the process backwards.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, RavenHawk said:

I didn’t say anything about the leaks coming from the investigation.  The leaks came from Obama holdovers and the Deep State.  EO 12333 pretty much opened it up to anybody in the Deep State.

Why would they have access to inside information from the Trump campaign as it relates to the Russia investigation? 

Not to beat a dead equine , I just find this mantra that "if there were evidence we would have seen it by now" interesting. I imagine this is a GOP talking point hammered home by every talking head from Levin in the AM to Hannity at night, but cant swear to it. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
5 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Yep and he did. 

You have nothing telling you he didn't either and given his other sources what do you think he did?

I think that the guy whose unique selling point is his access to some of the best sources of Russian insider intel in the world, probably asked his sources.
 

5 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Someone will turn.   This isn't nearly over, the truth is it is just starting and the S hasn't even gotten close to the fan.  Unbelievably, the Uranium One scandal is seemingly coming to a head now and that will be a criminal trial from the beginning if it happens.  Yikes

Let me know when you find a witness reliable enough for the DOJ to put in front of a judge.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
22 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

My mother always used to say that charity starts at home. I'll post you my address when the time comes.

B)

I put my money where my mouth is. The "time" will never come, but I'll send a Christmas card.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
22 hours ago, South Alabam said:

If Russia hacked the Democratic National Convention and John Podesta's emails and posted them to Wikileaks, how did this help win the election for Trump?   How many people changed their minds, or made up their mind to vote for Trump because of the release of these emails? Are there any facts and figures? How can we know the release of the emails to Wikileaks from Russian Hackers stole the election? How did Russia throw this election? Anyone on UM vote for Trump based on the Russian email hacks? Anyone....?    Didn't think so.

https://gellerreport.com/2017/03/trump-vindicated-comey-says-no-evidence-russia-stole-election.html/

Fact is, the whole Russia-hacked-the-election mantra has been a false narrative from the start.

In fact, that possibility was never discussed, except by the most partisan of politicos — by people like Barack Obama and his fan base. The most the Russians ever hacked was into Democratic National Committee emails and documents, like ones of Clinton loyalists John Podesta, and it was those communications that showed the Democrats in a bad light.

The bottom line is this. The Democrats ran the one candidate that Trump probably was guaranteed to beat. They shot themselves in the head (not the foot) when they took out Sanders. They cheated and lied left and right, and they still lost. Hillary's negativity was the elephant in the room. She certainly was *not* an appealing and attractive candidate with no hints of corruption and criminality. She definitely was *not* a fresh young face who addressed the issues that mattered to all Americans, no matter their demographic group. Who needs Russians with a choice like Clinton?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
23 hours ago, Tiggs said:

I trust the intelligence community.

Why? Have you looked at the history of our alphabet agencies? I believe that most members, of the community, are good and patriotic people. I place no blind faith in their employers, though.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
9 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

The bottom line is this. The Democrats ran the one candidate that Trump probably was guaranteed to beat. They shot themselves in the head (not the foot) when they took out Sanders. They cheated and lied left and right, and they still lost. Hillary's negativity was the elephant in the room. She certainly was *not* an appealing and attractive candidate with no hints of corruption and criminality. She definitely was *not* a fresh young face who addressed the issues that mattered to all Americans, no matter their demographic group. Who needs Russians with a choice like Clinton?

I think that's quite a large exaggeration. Guaranteed to beat? Not only did she win the popular vote by 3m, Trump only won the entire election by 70,000 votes split across 3 states. That's a tiny percentage of overall votes. Like, 0.5% of all the people who voted or something like that.

Some people seem to be under the impression that Trump annihilated her.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
48 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

His team met with known members of the Russian government in an attempt to receive information on HRC. That right there is the very definition of collusion.

Sorry, that is not collusion.  I suppose using a British agent to dig up dirt on Trump is not collusion, right?  Using a Russian source for dirt on Hilary does not hack voting machines.

 

What we didn't know until details surrounding Flynn came out, was what the Russians were to receive in turn (though with Trump's attempt to end the Magnitsky sanctions we could already have made an educated guess).

You must write for prime time TV.  Do you really think that Putin cares about lifting the Magnitsky Act?  Do you think Putin would threaten his ace card in Trump for that?  I would think it would be for something far more valuable.  You’re really going to have to try harder.

 

I know that he sold a condo for nearly $100m to a Russian billionaire who immediately demolished the property. That sounds totally on the up-and-up.

Actually it does.   We’re talking about a Russian billionaire.  He either didn’t like Trump or he was more interested in the real estate.

 

Technically the Trump collusion is a conspiracy theory. But it is one with enough evidence supporting it to warrant a criminal investigation.

It doesn’t have any evidence.  If what you’ve presented so far is evidence, I truly hope you are not a police detective.  There is tons of evidence with the collusion and corruption with Hilary and Obama.  And some people seem to ignore that and as long as they do, they or anything they have to say can never be taken seriously.

 

I think you'll find that all conspiracy investigations are theories until proven in court.

It has to go to court first.  Until then, it is just a conspiracy theory.  So we will see, waiting and watching.  And waiting and waiting….  Waiting still…

 

Quite different, though, to the unsubstantiated nonsense that is spewed forth daily by US conservative media. To emphasise my point see: the Uranium One conspiracy you mentioned. Thanks.

All Seesions has to do is dust off the FBI jacket and Hilary is going to go to jail.  The Dossier, Uranium One, the Clinton Foundation are all going to give Hilary company.  I don’t know why they are playing cat and mouse?  On either side.  It has nothing to do with justice.  The Clinton magic has run out and the level of corruption makes Tea Pot Dome look like a church social.

 

You and others keep saying this. What makes you think this is the case? Do you, like, even understand how investigations work? This looks like it is being treated like a RICO case. How often do you think that cops arrest the leader of a gang and try to get him to squeal on his henchmen? It seems you have the process backwards.

They don’t need to get the henchmen to squeal.  They have the leader.  They already have the evidence.  What more can you get from the henchmen?  Sounds like Mueller is trying to relive the glory days of Ness vs Capone.  Except there is nothing there.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
1 minute ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I think that's quite a large exaggeration. Guaranteed to beat? Not only did she win the popular vote by 3m, Trump only won the entire election by 70,000 votes split across 3 states. That's a tiny percentage of overall votes. Like, 0.5% of all the people who voted or something like that.

Some people seem to be under the impression that Trump annihilated her.

I said "probably guaranteed". Let's face it. She had to be a particularly odious candidate to lose to an obnoxious and offensive personality like Trump. Maybe it really *was* just her.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
4 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Do you really think that Putin cares about lifting the Magnitsky Act?  Do you think Putin would threaten his ace card in Trump for that? 

It is estimated that Putin, personally, has suffered billions of dollars in losses from the Magnitsky Act. You don't think an 'ace card' is worth billions of dollars? Okay then.

But let's just consider Putin's political situation. He is able to hold onto power because, since he came to power, his relationship with the West has made hundreds of billions for the Russian oligarchs. How long do you think he would be able to hold onto power while these people with the resources of entire countries continue to lose money? I'd guess that ending the Magnitsky Act is his Trump card. Sorry, 'ace card'. My bad.

11 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Actually it does.   We’re talking about a Russian billionaire.  He either didn’t like Trump or he was more interested in the real estate.

Yeah, okay then. That condo was also only worth half the price that it was sold for, but I guess nothing will convince you. Carry on.

14 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

It doesn’t have any evidence.  If what you’ve presented so far is evidence, I truly hope you are not a police detective.  There is tons of evidence with the collusion and corruption with Hilary and Obama.  And some people seem to ignore that and as long as they do, they or anything they have to say can never be taken seriously.

It has loads of evidence, and I suspect Mueller has a lot more.

And, again, Hillary and even Obama are brought up. You should just impeach her already and get it over with.

17 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

It has to go to court first.  Until then, it is just a conspiracy theory.  So we will see, waiting and watching.  And waiting and waiting….  Waiting still

My point is that some of these theories or accusations, including practically every Rico case, has enough merit to warrant an investigation. The crap you come out with doesn't. That's the difference. 

I don't think we'll have too much longer to wait, btw. I expect a few here to completely disappear. And others to double down.

21 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

All Seesions has to do is dust off the FBI jacket and Hilary is going to go to jail.  The Dossier, Uranium One, the Clinton Foundation are all going to give Hilary company.  I don’t know why they are playing cat and mouse?  On either side.  It has nothing to do with justice.  The Clinton magic has run out and the level of corruption makes Tea Pot Dome look like a church social

Yeah, okay then. Good luck with that. I expect it to bear as much fruit as past investigations. How many and for how many years is that now?

23 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

They don’t need to get the henchmen to squeal.  They have the leader.  They already have the evidence.  What more can you get from the henchmen?  Sounds like Mueller is trying to relive the glory days of Ness vs Capone.  Except there is nothing there.

Ah, so you don't know how a RICO case works then. That explains your inability to understand why Trump wasn't charged 20 minutes after the investigation began.

I tell ya, man. If Trump himself confessed, I bet some of you guys would concoct an outlandish conspiracy theory about how his family had been threatened, forcing him into a false confession.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
27 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

Maybe it really *was* just her.

It just occurred to me that her campaign slogan may come back to haunt a few of her minions: "I'M WITH HER"  :w00t:

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.