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

Discussion in 'United States' started by HumbledPi, Jan 11, 2019.

  1. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ???? Ok, I will imagine. Is there some point in me doing so?

    Yeah, Steele has made that pretty clear
     
  2. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, its not the same as Trump didn't receive any dirt from the Russians while Hillary got a book of it from the Russians. As well while Hillarys situation involve money laundering, Trumps situation didn't involve any money.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2019
  3. Nemesis

    Nemesis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    16,129
    Likes Received:
    8,850
    Trophy Points:
    113
    *LOL*

    If you're going to continue to ignore reality and make **** up, maybe this isn't so productive.
     
  4. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pointing out what was not reality in my post would have been more productive. And Hillary paying a law firm and calling it legal fees, who pays Fusion GPS who pays a British spy to get dirt from the Russians is money laundering(if that is what you are disputing), done with the intent of hiding the original source of the money.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2019
  5. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nice complete mischaracterization. Sure does demonstrate your brilliance. A shining example of expert turd polishing.
     
  6. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Over your head? don't bother looking up.



    Yep he sure did. He was appalled by the intell he gathered and truly believed it amounted to a serious threat to American national security.

    But then again, that alarm sure does disqualify him and the dossier, doesn't it? I wonder what would have caused him to become so alarmed, given his own expertise in how the russians operate.

    I guess I shouldn't be surprised since expertise is not a requirement in trumpland.
     
  7. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'll interpret that as an answer of no, there was no point
     
  8. MickAtNight

    MickAtNight Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2019
    Messages:
    587
    Likes Received:
    475
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    True. Because the Trump campaign didn't actually do that. The Hillary Clinton campaign did. Only one campaign received dirt from Russia. Only one campaign paid for dirt from Russia. Only one campaign's political propaganda from Russia was used to spy on their opponent.

    Geez, who needs to investigated for potential collusion again? *chuckles*
     
    Lil Mike likes this.
  9. MickAtNight

    MickAtNight Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2019
    Messages:
    587
    Likes Received:
    475
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    He was so "appalled" that when challenged in court under oath in Britain about the veracity of the dossier he himself didn't even stand by it.

    He was so "appalled" and credible that he was telling Bruce Ohr that he hated Donald Trump before writing much for the dossier.

    He was so "appalled" that he was trying to peddle his propaganda to media outlets in the U.S. for the sake of trying to alter the election even though the FBI explicitly told him not to do so.

    He was so "appalled" that when the FBI confronted him about peddling propaganda they told him not to peddle he lied to them and told them he didn't do it leading to his termination as an FBI source.

    Christopher Steele should be in a U.S. prison right now. It's illegal for a foreign national to meddle in U.S. elections. His peddling of anti-Trump propaganda to U.S. media outlets before the election was a clear attempt to meddle.
     
  10. MickAtNight

    MickAtNight Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2019
    Messages:
    587
    Likes Received:
    475
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Speaking of "fact scenarious" if you really want to be given a chance to be taken seriously here you need to stop spreading left wing propaganda. There was no meeting "in return" for anything. The dubious Russian lawyer, who was also a Fusion GPS client, told them she had had dirt on Hillary Clinton. She wasn't promising anything in return. They agree to check it out and see if it was legitimate. It wasn't. Only was it then that she tried to pitch the Magnitsky Act on them. Which Don Jr. had never heard of at the time. When they realized that's all she wanted and she had no dirt or wasn't going to share any dirt they ended the meeting. They were duped. There was no agreement "in return".

    And, yes, paying for opposition research isn't illegal. But you keep telling us that if the source of the propaganda is the Russian government that major collusion is somehow occurring. But now because it was laundered through an American company and it's bank to foreigners first it's a-okay now? ROFL.

    You left wingers are brilliant. Can't get anything past you.
     
  11. Nemesis

    Nemesis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    16,129
    Likes Received:
    8,850
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Russian governmental officials offering dirt on Clinton and wanting to discuss the Magnitsky Act is not remotely the same as paying a legitimate opposition research firm for opposition research. Unless you have no clue and no perspective.

    The end.
     
    James Evans likes this.
  12. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Keep polishing, I bet you can see your face in that turd.
     
    James Evans likes this.
  13. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    BULLSHIT. Apparently you don't know that a raw intell gathering report is not a statement of facts. In fact the first rule of intell gathering is that whatever is gathered from humint could be disinformation deliberately put out there.

    He stood by his process, but not the raw data, since as a pro he had no way of verifying the content of what he gathered.

    But I get how you can't discern the "nuance" in that.

    Yet another stupid mischaracterization.

    No he didn't lie to them. You can't even get your friggin facts right.

    Sure thing. Perhaps you can explain why he isn't? Afterall, trump holds grudges and its his DOJ? Why haven't his legal beagles gone after STeele? Oh right, because he didn't commit any crimes.

    But I also get how you think that anyone who gets the goods on your dear leader should be in jail, while you blithely ignore his unethical, immoral and crooked behavior, in fact you revel in it.

    At least your motivations are as transparent as your arguments' bullshit partisan spin.
     
    James Evans likes this.
  14. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except it's not "the end" because that "legitimate opposition research firm" had Russian sources.
     
  15. Nemesis

    Nemesis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    16,129
    Likes Received:
    8,850
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. It's "the end" because I am correct, and you are in the weeds.

    Where is a former MI6 agent with Russian sources supposed to perform his opposition research---Jamaica?

    BTW, using Russian sources that you cultivated working for one of our allies is not in the same universe as meeting directly with Russian agents offering "dirt" on your opponent while they discuss dropping Magnitsky Act sanctions with you. You guys are the absolute worst at drawing analogies.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2019
    James Evans and Jonsa like this.
  16. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah, for sure Steele should have used Lichtenstein sources to investigate trump's ties to russia. He should never have used his extensive network of contacts and sources he developed that makes him a leading expert on Russian intell and mobs.

    (didn't see nemesis's response above) DITTO tho.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2019
  17. Nemesis

    Nemesis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    16,129
    Likes Received:
    8,850
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I like Jamaica more than Lichtenstein.

    "B-b-b-b-but Steel had Russian sources! It's exactly the same as the Trump campaign meeting directly with Russians except with the Trump campaign, it wasn't "collusion"!

    If you can follow that illogic, you're better at understanding terrible reasoning than I am.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2019
    James Evans likes this.
  18. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ummmm, what do you expect from people who believe what comes out of trump's mouth?
     
    Nemesis and James Evans like this.
  19. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Russian Agents."

    Are you referring to an actual FSB or GRU operative? If so, I'm curious who you are talking about. And how do we know Steele's Russian informants were not "agents?" Maybe they should be called in to testify.
     
  20. Nemesis

    Nemesis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    16,129
    Likes Received:
    8,850
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ruh Roh, Raggy!

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/nyregion/trump-tower-natalya-veselnitskaya-indictment.html

    As to Steele's assets, we don't know. If they are, they'd soon find themselves on the business end of a polonium sandwich if they were revealed. Nevertheless, since we don;t know who Steele's very accurate sources were, we can hardly try to equate them with the Trump Tower meeting attendees, now can we?
     
  21. Nemesis

    Nemesis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    16,129
    Likes Received:
    8,850
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh no!

    https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/trump-tower-collusion-and-the-law/

    https://www.lawfareblog.com/trumps-preposterous-collusion-not-crime-defense

    Congress has enacted and reenacted the foreign-national prohibition in 1966, 1974 and 2002, seeking on each occasion to strengthen it. So the lawyer reviewing a contact between the campaign and a foreign national—particularly a foreign national with apparent ties to a foreign government—would understand that the rules in question are not among the backwater provisions of the law, under-enforced relics of the aged and discredited regulations. The lawyer would also be familiar with the congressional investigations and criminal investigations that arose out of allegations that China developed and implemented a plan to influence the course of the 1996 presidential election. And, finally, he or she would keep in mind that the Supreme Court recently affirmed in Bluman v. Federal Election Commission the constitutionality of these draconian legal controls.

    Federal election law pairs the these prohibitions on foreign national electoral activity with restrictions on the behavior of the would-be U.S. beneficiaries. U.S. nationals, including campaigns, cannot “substantially assist” a foreign national in any of these activities, and Americans cannot solicit, accept or receive any such illegal foreign-national support. Viewed together, these prohibited activities— assistance, solicitation, acceptance, or receipt—certainly capture the essence of what some might understand by references to “collusion.”

    From the standpoint of a competent lawyer, the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Kremlin emissaries directly implicates these rules. The Russians did not merely offer information, plucked from the sky: In the first place, they had to have procured it. To have done so would normally require the expenditure of funds “in connection with” a federal election: opposition material assembled on a U.S. presidential candidate. Certainly the Russian traveling party spent money to travel to the United States for the meeting. Both the material they proposed to provide and the expenses associated with creating and arranging to deliver it raise the serious question of in-kind contributions to the campaign. Moreover, the hypothetical campaign lawyer would have to be concerned that urging the campaign to invest its own resources in a specific line of attack on Hillary Clinton would constitute illegal “participation” in the campaign’s decision-making on its own spending.

    In addition, the lawyer would consider that any meeting with a foreign government to discuss mutual goals in winning an election could constitute an illegal “solicitation” of unlawful foreign national spending.. The “acceptance” of the meeting could be such a solicitation if the foreign national dangled the possibility of a benefit and the U. S. campaign, in pursuing the discussion, made clear that it was in the market and open for business. The willingness to discuss Russian government support on this one occasion could be an additional ground for exposure under the solicitation ban. By taking the meeting, the campaign would be signaling an interest in whatever the foreign government might have to offer in the future. How much exposure the campaign incurred on this score could depend in part on what was said at the meeting. But it is yet another issue the lawyer would identify in the Russian offer and the American openness to entertaining it.

    The campaign counsel would know well that in this area, there is little room for maneuver, and for the standard exploration of “loopholes.” Foreign nationals have no constitutional rights to influence U.S. elections, and so the U.S. national supporting an illegal Russian national scheme would have limited First Amendment rights to claim in its own defense. To take one example, it would not help the American manager of a PAC to appeal to “freedom of speech” in defending a conversation with a foreign national colleague about the choice of candidates for PAC support. It is highly unlikely that a lawyer would conclude that, after all this effort over the years, Congress had designed a statute somehow reasonably interpreted to prevent an individual foreign national from giving a $25 contribution to a campaign but failing, despite all these detailed legal restrictions, prohibit a relationship like the one that the Trump campaign seems to have fashioned with the Putin regime.

    All these questions would compel the lawyer to advise in strongest terms against campaign representatives agreeing to meet with a Russian government delegation to hear the “dirt” it claimed to have. And this is the outcome even without bringing into the discussion the lawyer’s option under Rule 2.1 of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct to advise on the “political” or “moral” implications of agreeing to the meeting. It is the legal judgment that the lawyer would be virtually required to reach and convey to the client. What does or does not constitute “collusion” would have nothing to do with the legal analysis.
     
  22. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,667
    Trophy Points:
    113

    For the life of me, I can't figure out why you Collusion Conspiracy theorists think Veselnitskaya is a part of that. The fact that she has "Kremlin ties" seems almost redundant for any professional Russian working to lobby the US government about legislation that has to do with Russia, in this case the Magnitsky Act.

    Given all we know about this meeting, you sound like a nut trying to tout this as some part of any collusion conspiracy. The unanswered question here is why she was given a visa by the U.S. attorney's office for the Southern District of New York after being refused one through the normal process. However I suspect that's not even on your radar.

    So tell me, why you have such faith and trust in Steele's Russian assets even though you admit we don't know if they were agents of the FSB or GRU, and apparently none of their information has checked out. Unless you are sticking with the peeing on the bed story.

    You conspiracy theorists are just weird.
     
  23. Nemesis

    Nemesis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    16,129
    Likes Received:
    8,850
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It’s not a “conspiracy theory” if there’s really an underlying conspiracy, my delusional amigo.

    You’re aware that this is being investigated by a special counsel, right?

    LOL!
     
    AZ. likes this.
  24. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,667
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Oh I'm aware

    As I've stated on multiple occasions on this forum, when the special counsel is finally finished, they won't have found any conspiracy between Trump or the Trump campaign and the Russians to do something to help him win in exchange for some unspecified quid pro quo. I don't expect it to make any difference to you or your fellow travelers. You're like anti-vaxxers or Kennedy assassination conspiracy nuts; immune to facts and reason.
     
  25. Nemesis

    Nemesis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    16,129
    Likes Received:
    8,850
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Uh, no.

    Is Mueller investigating vaccines? The Kennedy assassination?

    No. He was, however, appointed to investigate real life Russian interference in our election and whether Americans assisted in that.

    Even as things stand now, you’re a hell of a lot closer to a wacko conspiracy theorist than I am. Ask yourself which political stripe do anti-vax, Kennedy assassination nut balls, birthers, anti science,etc. wear? It sure as he’ll isn’t a donkey stripe.

    Go ahead and deny reality while projecting your own way out of mainstream thought all you like. You’re embarrassing yourself.
     

Share This Page