Comey confirms FBI probe into Trump-Russia collusion

There is a difference.

Wiretapping. FBI position: we've looked into it. We've looked really hard. There is no evidence to support Trump's tweets. Investigation closed. (I'm sure they would re-open it if Trump actually brought some evidence to them or pointed them in the right direction.)

Russian interference in election. FBI position: we are confident that Russia wanted to hurt Clinton and the USA, and to help Trump. That investigation, including whether there was any collusion between Russia and Trump (or any of his campaign or supporters) continues. Investigation ongoing. That does not mean no evidence. It means that the investigation is ongoing.

 

I know that was suppose to make sense, so try again

 

See post 297.

 

Really? Its been a theme throughout Trump's career. He's claimed for 40 years that the system was rigged against him.. Who the hell knows what he "means".

 

Which is another way of saying 'We need more time to dream up a reason to validate our claims.'

 

I heard one of the stupidest things we should ever have to hear from an elected official at yesterdays committee hearing with Comey.

A democrat actually asked Comey and the Admiral,
"Did you solicit the UK intelligence agencies to spy on Trump or anyone involved in his campaign"?

as if they would answer yes under ANY circumstance.

We have entered into a new state of suspended reality in liberal world

 

It was pretty obvious the first time round, but if your intellect is unable to deal with that, I will try to spell it out step by step.

You claimed that both the wiretapping investigation and the Russian influence investigation should be prefaced or footnoted with "no proof" by media.

For wiretapping, the FBI had determined there is no proof so they have closed their investigation.

"COMEY: With respect to the president's tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by the prior administration, I have no information that supports those tweets and we have looked carefully inside the FBI. The Department of Justice has asked me to share with you that the answer is the same for the Department of Justice and all its components. The department has no information that supports those tweets."

For Russian influence, they have not said there is no proof. They said they are investigating:

"I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts. As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed."

Your suggestion that the two situations are equivalent is just plain wrong. They are not equivalent.

 

Gowdy was the only one worth listening to, since he wanted to go for the heart of the matter. The actual crimes we KNOW were committed. Not the Russian Conspiracy. And likewise, I was very frustrated with the denials and half opinions given by Comey. It leads me to believe there's far more secrecy then what's going on and no, it's not to protect the POTUS but to protect their own self-interested pockets. Gowdy very cleverly exposed the 20 people including former AG Lynch. These are the targets we should be interested in, in an ongoing investigation if it were serious.

The FBI/CIA have basically run renegade, should never have been created and now I think the American People have reason to look again at these agencies for massive reform or closure.

 

Only if you're so blindly following Trump and his sordid enterprise that you can't be bothered to think critically. Like I said to you before, enjoy your Icarus.

The thing with the wiretapping claim is that it is downright dangerous. Not to make the claim in the first place. But it is dangerous in the context that there is a large, mindless, unthinking mass of flesh following this elitist parasite and clinging to every word he says as if it were straight from the gospel.

I never trusted the government. Ever. Not with anything or anyone.

And I won't start now.

You have chosen to believe this administration and by proxy the government.

Enjoy the show.

 

That's a big 'If'? Of the number of voters who based their decision owing to having read Wikileaks, then I'd guess they didn't make very much difference to the overall result? How many voters do you think read Wikileaks? I'd say about .5 of a percent. And what exactly do you think it was that 'Russia did what it did'?

 

That's a blatant non sequitur cynically designed to cloud the issue, which is his presidency.

 

Go away, you're scaring me!

 

I'm very saddened that you have to deal with this circus, and I apologize to the Russians as well. It's a unique thing to America. The world gets to see just how inept the US is. When the investigation clears all of the actors of any wrongdoing, there will not be a single retraction or apology. Move on to the next scandal, see if that sticks.

 

Of course it is prefaced with "if". The investigation is ongoing.

I agree that very few people go to the source and read Wikileaks. But the fact and content of what Wikileaks published was widely reported, so people did not need to go to the original source.

Do you say those leaks had no influence on the outcome of the election? Because, as I say, a lot of people on here and in the press (and I think even Trump himself) thought they WERE important in the outcome of the election.

You asked: "in what way could Russian hackers - or any other hackers for that matter - have materially influenced the result of the presidential election". This is an answer to your question. Now, you might not think any of it happened. Up to you. But you asked how COULD they have done it. I have given you an answer.

 

We will have to see if the investigation clears everyone. If it does, great. If it doesn't ...

You seem to know how it will all pan out before the FBI knows. Impressive.

And, by your reasoning, Trump should apologise to Obama for having falsely accused him of illegal wiretapping. Will you call for him to issue a retraction or apology?

 

Thanks for that, I did miss it; but I don't have the time right now to reply - I'll get back to you. you make an interesting point.

 

The FBI has its own agenda???

 

Sure, I infact was planning to make a post on it and have made posts about it when(more leaks) indicated that it was indeed the case. I'm no prophet, but with the information we do have, I have the logical sense to note: None of it connects at all. None of the "Russian Connections" colalborate in any form(not that we know of anyway). And that in the case of several of these people(Page, Manafort or even Sessions) all had much more extensive ties to the US than Russia.

The conspiracy is far fetched, to utterly improbable. So I do suspect this investigation will ultimately come up in the end empty. If it does, the AG of the US had been Slandered(by former colleagues no less.) I think that will forever be a black mark on their careers and its a personal black mark with me. If they asked me to co-sponsor a bill of theirs, it'd be "Well, if I didn't would I be slandered like AG Sessions?"

 

So he got caught up in wiretaps of the Russians they kept calling. And? Trump said obama out a "tapp" on him.[/QUOTE]


Putin aide: Clinton advisers met with Russian ambassador 'lots' of times

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...sian-ambassador-lots-of-times/article/2617149

 

Yup, cause that's what happened, if you believe the fake news New York Times

 

The FBI is investigating. What they "know" will be determined by what they find in the investigation.

I have to say, I find Comey to be completely apolitical. He has dropped bombshells that have hurt both Republicans and Democrats.

 

Since none exists, and since Vladimir Putin hates Hillary Clinton and did not want to have to business with her, your supposition is little more than a fake news fantasy.

 

Actually I believe he was impeached. He just resigned before the proceedings could result in his being removed from office. I think the difference in viewpoints depend on if impeachment is the filing of articles of impeachment or the final vote.

 

Vladimir Putin spokesman: Hillary Clinton associates met with Russian officials during campaign

Russia confirms envoy met with Trump and Clinton camps during election

Hillary Clinton’s campaign also met with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak

 

No. Only two Presidents have ever been impeached. One is Big Bill Clinton. Can you name the other?

HINT: It's not Nixon.