F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia

Process crimes committed in attempting to cover up their actions. I'd say that is a big something. Unless of course you don't think that "process crimes" are not actual crimes. You might find that the actual laws of the land are quite clear as to the severity of such crimes.

 

F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia
It is truly a mind-boggling thought that ANY President of the U.S. could be a mole for a foreign power--especially one so antagonistic toward America as Russia. But there's a long line of redundant actions & public displays of affection by Trump toward Russia & Putin, so it's definitely in the realm of the possible. This will make the Mueller report even more interesting.

 

Actions that are not illegal in and of themselves or there wouldn’t be just process crimes.

 

???? His mandate was to investigate Russian involvement in the election. The Russian Dossier has had much more impact on the election than any fake facebook postings ever did.

 

I think these lying to the federal police crimes are nonsense. They should at least mirror perjury in court laws in that the lies must be relevant to the crime being charged in order to be considered perjury. If a lie to a judge in a court of law wouldn't be a crime, it shouldn't be a crime when the lie is to the FBI.

 

That's the New York Times investigators and its not 100 contacts with just Russians its contacts with Russians, WikiLeaks and "intermediaries" of both to get to their 100#

 

good

 

I guess the fact the russians were actually doing some of the crap that the dossier reports outlined does actually have a lot to do with the russian investigation. Gee good thing it was commissioned in the first place, wot?

 

You can think all you want, but its been the law of the land since 1863. So whine all you want, but its a crime punishable by rather severe jail time. The intent is that the perp can't lie their way outta things when it comes to the feds. Go figger.

 

"just" process crimes, so they don't count? Are you serious? It doesn't matter about the legality of the underlying events/actions the lies pertain to. NOT in the least. Would you rather an obstruction of justice charge, which is also "just" a process crime?

 

It doesn't have to be 'disproven', it has to be fact before it's presented to a FISA Court. Even the FBI said there was just a 50-50 chance some it might be true and Bruce Ohr tried to warn them.

Steele was hired by the FBI, and Hillary, was later fired by the FBI for leaking to the media. But despite this some members of the FBO continued to use his dossier material.

This is all public knowledge.

 

What evidence is therre that Trump was 'colluding' with the Russians? And 'colluding to do what?

We know enough that there should be a genuine investigation. Did you know, for example, that the only connection to 'the Russians' so far is related to the Clinton campaign?

 

As you know Trump has shown 'affection' for a lot of foreign leaders, as is his public style, even including those of North Korea and China. If you believe this makes him an international spy then you'll believe anything.

 

So far the only evidence we have at least two other members of his campaign were colluding with the russians. As for tying it to the leader himself, gee, I guess he must have just been the biggest useful idiot in intelligence operational history.

Like you know enough about Uranium one? Or how about enough for a 5th benghazi?

 

You can't be that simple. His "affection" for adversarial dictators doesn't make him anything other than completely ignorant of diplomatic communications. Things like passing information and changing policy and defending against sanctions for hostile actions and denying the russian cyberassault and ignoring both his generals and his intelligence chiefs because "he knows better", are things that SUGGEST he's under the influence of somebody that ain't an american patriot.

 

Anybody else think it's funny that Jonsa capitalizes "suggest"?

 

Absolutely, those are the only two possibilities. Trump was ether 1) the leader of a Russian collusion effort, or 2) he was the biggest useful idiot in intelligence operational history. The biggest, I tell ya!

 

If that were the only thing or only time Trump did these things, then I'd agree with you, but it isn't. There have been a series of pro-Putin, pro-Russia behaviors and favoritism displayed by Trump since he became President that compels us to question his loyalties. Very recently, we learn Trump had private talks with Putin in Buenos Aires, which he kept secret, and in which he had no American interpreter or aide to witness the discussion. About a month after that meeting Trump announces his order to abandon Syria, which has been one of Putin's big goals in foreign relations. There are many other examples of such behaviors, and it all smells like collusion or worse.

 

I like Russia too. Think I'm in on it?

 

I like Russia too; but not Putin.

 

so you aren't familiar with a common investigative motivation called suspicion? Gee that's even funnier.

 

IMHO, those are the only two plausible explanations for what the public is aware of, so far. Personally considering his character and obvious peculiarities I am leaning towards "useful idiot". (that's a technical term in the intell world).

Of course if I was a trumpette, I'd advance the theory that its a deep state conspiracy by butt hurt dems to get trump and to hell with the evidence and the serial lying about it by trump and his cronies.

 

Let me answer that as generously as I can for my Trump-hating friends, or what's left of them. The short answer is that members and former members of team Trump were having meetings, during the campaign, with people who can be at least indirectly connected either to elements of the Russian government or to a hacker who can be connected to Wikileaks and, arguably, Russian intelligence services. The "what" was, to help Trump obtain more votes than Clinton (I don't think anyone, other than a few nuts here, believe the Russians broke into actual voting machines and queered the vote count. A little more elaborated, I'd say:

1. It is a fact that hacking in 2016 resulted in non-consensual discovery of emails of certain Democrat operatives during the 2016 election.

2. It is a fact, that no one disputes, that the Wikileaks operation obtained and published those emails.

3. It is believed, by every good Trump-hater, though unproven and denied by Julian Assange, that "Russia" (meaning the Russian government under the direction of V. Putin) did the hacking and fed the product to Wikileaks. There is, let's admit it, good reason to believe that Russian intelligence services did or directed or facilitated or abetted the hacking, using this mysterious character or composite of a team of hackers named Guccifer 2.0

And most recently,

4. Roger Stone, a supporter of Trump, worked for the Trump campaign up to August, 2015, a year prior to the election. He is ACCUSED, among other things having nothing to do with Trump, of having "collaborated" with Assange/Wikileaks to discredit Hillary Clinton. Now, we all know that anyone who tries to discredit Hillary Clinton is a traitor because #metoo and because Trump is a liar and a jerk, man. I don't follow the logic there myself. And some of the proof of this is allegedly Stone's email or texting contacts with Guccifer, which he admits occurred but claims was innocent in intent and effect. I don't know and frankly doubt that Stone had direct contact with whoever did the actual hacking, though he seems to think that he did.

Lots of holes and "so whats" in this narrative, agree? To me, the most important hole is, how did the disclosure of these emails affect the election anyway? Who here voted for Trump because "omigod look what Hillary and John Podesta said in an email!"?

Another layer, which to me is humorous, is the fact that no one, literally no one, complains that the hacked emails were doctored or edited to make Hillary look any worse than she already was. I would either be embarrassed or proud of the disclosure of my private emails. I would admittedly be annoyed. What I would not be is indignant. If I didn't say anything bad, why would I care if the whole world knew it? And we all know that Democrats don't say anything bad. If I said something compromising, then the public needed to know about it anyway.

The hysteria surrounding the allegedly suspicious contacts with people who probably knew somebody who knew somebody who knew somebody that knew Vladmir Putin, reminds me of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.

Then you have to look at all this from Putin's perspective. He must be calling meetings and saying, "Wait, I did what?? When?"

 

Oh, trust me, I'm miles ahead of you, LOL. The point that you couldn't grasp, and apparently still can't, is that Trump haters like you are usually the last to admit that the "evidence" merely SUGGESTS collusion. It doesn't even do that, of course, but it's ironic that you chose to highlight the weakest part of your own argument. I guess I thank you for it, LOL. You kinda remind me of Jim Acosta of CNN and his bombshell discovery that no one was crossing the border where the wall was. He even got it on tape!

 

It smells like that to you because you are biased. Every connection to Putin, no matter how oblique, is another nail in the imaginary coffin. (I don't at all claim that Trump won't get fewer votes in 2020).

Trump was reasonably and justifiably complaining about U.S. interventions in the Middle East for ages before he decided to run for President. Of course, I can't prove that that wasn't part of the plot. Russia planted the seed years ago, see? Someone on here cited the Manchurian candidate movie, suggesting that Trump is colluding and doesn't even know it.

Clever Russians.