Social Even Democrats now agree : No Russian Collusion

[glenwo2]

Spoken like someone who has never had to prove a case before a neutral party.

Never change, panamaican. Never change.

 

[panamaican]

Never change, panamaican. Never change.

Why would I? I like being right.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

IDK man. That seems a bit dismissive. There was a lot of official wrongdoing that got exposed—too much to flush down the memory hole. How many of the Crossfire Hurricane progenitors got fired or disciplined for misconduct? At least 7 (Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Ohr, Baker, Yates, Anderson), and a ton of resignations in disgrace. The Strzok/Page "insurance policy" text messages are particularly damning. The cat is pretty much out of the bag that these guys knew there wasn't any "Russian collusion" and that they targeted Trump for purely political reasons. They basically took a shot at a sitting President and missed. Tsk, tsk.

That said, when bombshells like this drop, nothing happens unless someone with power decides to act on it, e.g., by filing charges. Presently, no charges have been filed against the CH crew, and Democrats appear to believe this means that they are in the clear. But I wouldn't expect any charges to be filed until after Mueller formally closes his investigation anyway (after all, you can't determine that an investigation was baseless until the investigation is complete). Once Mueller's investigation formally closes without anything to substantiate the "Russian collision" allegations, I suspect the Crossfire Hurricane crew will reckon with a grand jury, and then with a petit jury. Mueller will probably flip, and the dominoes fall from there.

The lesson here is that you can't do the right thing by doing the wrong thing. The government agents involved in CH believed so strongly that Trump was evil that they were willing to abuse their authority, break the law, and betray their country. In so doing, they became evil themselves. Now, they could be facing life in prison, or even the death penalty. Pretty sad TBH.

Comey (offically) and McCabe were fired for things related to the Clinton investigation, to Clinton's detriment. And you even had Trump (and the current AG Barr in an op ed) praising Comey until Trump didn't like the "pressure" Comey was putting on him on the Russia investigation (per intelligence reports about his statements to Lavrov and Kislyak that seems to have triggered the 25th amendment talk).

And, correct me if I am wrong, but the IG didn't find any wrongdoing on the part of anyone when it comes to the Russia investigation, including even Strzok, despite the bad look of all the shit he was talking about Trump in his texts to his girlfriend Page.

And what are you talking about that " they knew there wasn't any Russian collusion"?

You are bleating back discredited propaganda that Trump said, Cyrano De Bergerac style, through his puppet Nunes, trying to make the investigation seem political. The FBI had open investigations into the Trump campaign (that Brennan said he and DNI Clapper were aware of) before Steele brought the dossier to the FBI, and Steele gave the dossier to the FBI in early July of 2016.

And, to beat a dead horse (I will stop here unless you want to go deeper), if Comey and McCabe were opening an investigation into the Trump campaign for nefarious political purposes, why wouldn't Comey have mentioned the Trump investigation when he announced the Weiner email stuff, let alone not leaking it to the press? Think it through.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

The likelihood of the Mueller and Senate investigations coming to wildly different conclusions is pretty much 0%.

No one on this form has ever given a valid counter or retort to this statement.

I have, but it appears you read through this thread as casually as you read the news.

In post #620 I brought up what Brennan said the other day about Burr's comments, that neither the house nor the senate is aware of the totality of evidence that Mueller has. Burr doesn't even know what Cohen has to say at this point (and it appears that Cohen has little respect for the senate committee), let alone about the evidence Mueller has on Manafort, Gates, Stone, and Trump Jr. (who purportedly has perjured himself to the house committee, which is a problem now that he doesn't have Nunes blocking for him anymore).

 

[12ga.]

Does senate have access to NSA Signal intelligence? Seems like Mueller is still rolling with it. I'm a democrat and RussiaGate always seemed dubious to me and more about weaponizing law enforcement against Deep State/elitist foes. They'll do the same with Sanders. I've already heard rumblings he's a soviet agent too.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

Stop posting your creepy pictures, you perv.

Stop quoting me unless you want to want to have an adult conversation, save that mean girl stuff for your Maroon 5 discussions with your friends.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

Does senate have access to NSA Signal intelligence? Seems like Mueller is still rolling with it. I'm a democrat and RussiaGate always seemed dubious to me and more about weaponizing law enforcement against Deep State/elitist foes. They'll do the same with Sanders. I've already heard rumblings he's a soviet agent too.

That was something Trump folks were trying to use as foil in the face of the Manafort and Stone stuff. .@bobgeese was running with that Bernie theory, until he came here and learned the facts.

 

[bobgeese]

That was something Trump folks were trying to use as foil in the face of the Manafort and Stone stuff. .@bobgeese was running with that Bernie theory, until he came here and learned the facts.

Bernie is a shirtless drunk commie.

Fact.

 

[glenwo2]

Why would I? I like being right.

The old "I'm right and you're wrong so there. PFFFFFT!!! " argument.

Oh well... believe what you like, pan. No sense in arguing against those that are dug-in to their own views.

Have a great day.

 

[bobgeese]

Comey (offically) and McCabe were fired for things related to the Clinton investigation, to Clinton's detriment. And you even had Trump (and the current AG Barr in an op ed) praising Comey until Trump didn't like the "pressure" Comey was putting on him on the Russia investigation (per intelligence reports about his statements to Lavrov and Kislyak that seems to have triggered the 25th amendment talk).

And, correct me if I am wrong, but the IG didn't find any wrongdoing on the part of anyone when it comes to the Russia investigation, including even Strzok, despite the bad look of all the shit he was talking about Trump in his texts to his girlfriend Page.

And what are you talking about that " they knew there wasn't any Russian collusion"?

You are bleating back discredited propaganda that Trump said, Cyrano De Bergerac style, through his puppet Nunes, trying to make the investigation seem political. The FBI had open investigations into the Trump campaign (that Brennan said he and DNI Clapper were aware of) before Steele brought the dossier to the FBI, and Steele gave the dossier to the FBI in early July of 2016.

And, to beat a dead horse (I will stop here unless you want to go deeper), if Comey and McCabe were opening an investigation into the Trump campaign for nefarious political purposes, why wouldn't Comey have mentioned the Trump investigation when he announced the Weiner email stuff, let alone not leaking it to the press? Think it through.

Again.



There’s a completely separate investigation.

 

[JamesRussler]

And, correct me if I am wrong, but the IG didn't find any wrongdoing on the part of anyone when it comes to the Russia investigation, including even Strzok, despite the bad look of all the shit he was talking about Trump in his texts to his girlfriend Page.

The IG investigation you're referring to pertained only to bias in the Clinton e-mail investigation ("Mid-Year Exam"), and it only assessed whether the agents' bias constituted a DOJ/FBI rule violation. It didn't assess whether the agents violated other laws, such as the Hatch Act, or committed crimes such as obstruction, perjury, etc. Moreover, the IG report expressly determined that the agents were biased, and that it "did not have confidence that [their decision to prioritize Trump/Russia over the Clinton investigation] was free from bias." While it did not second-guess the agents' decision to clear Clinton (which, as you know, many people disagree with), it did acknowledge that the agents' actions cast a "cloud" of doubt over its impartiality. The IG report did not reach the Crossfire Hurricane investigation (a separate IG investigation is ongoing IIRC), or the propriety of the Mueller probe.

You can find the report here. There is a summary a the top if you don't have time to read all 500 pages and attachments. Lots of interesting stuff in there aside from what I stated above. https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download

And what are you talking about that " they knew there wasn't any Russian collusion"?

You are bleating back discredited propaganda that Trump said, Cyrano De Bergerac style, through his puppet Nunes, trying to make the investigation seem political. The FBI had open investigations into the Trump campaign (that Brennan said he and DNI Clapper were aware of) before Steele brought the dossier to the FBI, and Steele gave the dossier to the FBI in early July of 2016.

You're gonna find out that nothing I said was "discredited." You have dismissed it out of hand, but it isn't going away. The Mueller probe was the Left's one and only shot to vindicate the Russia Collusion narrative. It missed. Like I said, blowback hasn't yet begun. When the Mueller investigation formally closes, that is when it begins.

And, to beat a dead horse (I will stop here unless you want to go deeper), if Comey and McCabe were opening an investigation into the Trump campaign for nefarious political purposes, why wouldn't Comey have mentioned the Trump investigation when he announced the Weiner email stuff, let alone not leaking it to the press? Think it through.

Comey is a self-interested idiot. He thought he was going to boost his own fortunes by grabbing the spotlight, and he thought wrong. That's all there is to that.

 

[panamaican]

The old "I'm right and you're wrong so there. PFFFFFT!!! " argument.

Oh well... believe what you like, pan. No sense in arguing against those that are dug-in to their own views.

Have a great day.

It's not dug in to point out a simple logical fallacy that anyone who has ever had to prove something understands.

Now, I understand that some people don't like it when they are presented with information that minimizes their sense of exultancy. But that's because they withdraw when forced to consider that their opinions were reached prematurely, not because the new information represents some dug in ideology (other than the ideology of being adequately informed...which isn't an ideology, just best practices).

Every lawyer and investigator knows that proving something can be done with direct evidence or with circumstantial evidence. Often there is very little direct evidence and lots of circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is evidence that does not require interpretation. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that does require interpretation.

My sharing with you and others that a lack of direct evidence is not proof that something did not occur isn't a dug in view. It's basic jurisprudence. A huge percentage of the work that lawyers do is gathering all of the circumstantial evidence and presenting it so that the proper interpretations can be formed.

Allow me to provide an example:

Johnny claims that Mike let him rent the apartment. Direct evidence is a signed contract between Johnny and Mike listing the terms of the rental agreement. But what if there was no written rental agreement?

Johnny provides checks that he wrote to Mike every month for the same dollar amount. Johnny provides a copy of the key to the apartment. Johnny has emails where Mike asks him if the refrigerator in the apartment is working. Johnny asks Mike to fix things.

None of those things are direct evidence that Mike is renting the apartment to Johnny. Taken together they could be interpreted to show that a landlord/tenant relationship existed. Absence of direct evidence can be overcome by sufficient circumstantial evidence.

Sharing that important detail is meant to inform, it's not my fault if people are upset by the implications of the information itself.

 

[curryjunkie]

It's not dug in to point out a simple logical fallacy that anyone who has ever had to prove something understands.

Now, I understand that some people don't like it when they are presented with information that minimizes their sense of exultancy. But that's because they withdraw when forced to consider that their opinions were reached prematurely, not because the new information represents some dug in ideology (other than the ideology of being adequately informed...which isn't an ideology, just best practices).

Every lawyer and investigator knows that proving something can be done with direct evidence or with circumstantial evidence. Often there is very little direct evidence and lots of circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is evidence that does not require interpretation. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that does require interpretation.

My sharing with you and others that a lack of direct evidence is not proof that something did not occur isn't a dug in view. It's basic jurisprudence. A huge percentage of the work that lawyers do is gathering all of the circumstantial evidence and presenting it so that the proper interpretations can be formed.

Allow me to provide an example:

Johnny claims that Mike let him rent the apartment. Direct evidence is a signed contract between Johnny and Mike listing the terms of the rental agreement. But what if there was no written rental agreement?

Johnny provides checks that he wrote to Mike every month for the same dollar amount. Johnny provides a copy of the key to the apartment. Johnny has emails where Mike asks him if the refrigerator in the apartment is working. Johnny asks Mike to fix things.

None of those things are direct evidence that Mike is renting the apartment to Johnny. Taken together they could be interpreted to show that a landlord/tenant relationship existed. Absence of direct evidence can be overcome by sufficient circumstantial evidence.

Sharing that important detail is meant to inform, it's not my fault if people are upset by the implications of the information itself.

you are gonna have to put it in simpler terms than that for numbnuts to even try and understand...

 

[MikeMcMann]

It's not dug in to point out a simple logical fallacy that anyone who has ever had to prove something understands.

Now, I understand that some people don't like it when they are presented with information that minimizes their sense of exultancy. But that's because they withdraw when forced to consider that their opinions were reached prematurely, not because the new information represents some dug in ideology (other than the ideology of being adequately informed...which isn't an ideology, just best practices).

Every lawyer and investigator knows that proving something can be done with direct evidence or with circumstantial evidence. Often there is very little direct evidence and lots of circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is evidence that does not require interpretation. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that does require interpretation.

My sharing with you and others that a lack of direct evidence is not proof that something did not occur isn't a dug in view. It's basic jurisprudence. A huge percentage of the work that lawyers do is gathering all of the circumstantial evidence and presenting it so that the proper interpretations can be formed.

Allow me to provide an example:

Johnny claims that Mike let him rent the apartment. Direct evidence is a signed contract between Johnny and Mike listing the terms of the rental agreement. But what if there was no written rental agreement?

Johnny provides checks that he wrote to Mike every month for the same dollar amount. Johnny provides a copy of the key to the apartment. Johnny has emails where Mike asks him if the refrigerator in the apartment is working. Johnny asks Mike to fix things.

None of those things are direct evidence that Mike is renting the apartment to Johnny. Taken together they could be interpreted to show that a landlord/tenant relationship existed. Absence of direct evidence can be overcome by sufficient circumstantial evidence.

Sharing that important detail is meant to inform, it's not my fault if people are upset by the implications of the information itself.

I like you educating the rubes but dammit I was looking for a good punch line to that Johnny joke!

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

The IG investigation you're referring to pertained only to bias in the Clinton e-mail investigation ("Mid-Year Exam"), and it only assessed whether the agents' bias constituted a DOJ/FBI rule violation. It didn't assess whether the agents violated other laws, such as the Hatch Act, or committed crimes such as obstruction, perjury, etc. Moreover, the IG report expressly determined that the agents were biased, and that it "did not have confidence that [their decision to prioritize Trump/Russia over the Clinton investigation] was free from bias." While it did not second-guess the agents' decision to clear Clinton (which, as you know, many people disagree with), it did acknowledge that the agents' actions cast a "cloud" of doubt over its impartiality. The IG report did not reach the Crossfire Hurricane investigation (a separate IG investigation is ongoing IIRC), or the propriety of the Mueller probe.

You can find the report here. There is a summary a the top if you don't have time to read all 500 pages and attachments. Lots of interesting stuff in there aside from what I stated above. https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download




You're gonna find out that nothing I said was "discredited." You have dismissed it out of hand, but it isn't going away. The Mueller probe was the Left's one and only shot to vindicate the Russia Collusion narrative. It missed. Like I said, blowback hasn't yet begun. When the Mueller investigation formally closes, that is when it begins.



Comey is a self-interested idiot. He thought he was going to boost his own fortunes by grabbing the spotlight, and he thought wrong. That's all there is to that.

You claimed, or least implied, that people were fired for misconduct in the crossfire hurricane investigation...please cite the relevant points of what you want me to read that support your point.

And the Russian collusion narrative is stronger than ever with Manafort's bullshit, don't know what you are talking about. Stone lied to congress and engaged in witness tampering about wikileaks (who according to Pompeo, is a "nonstate hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia,” and that “Russian military intelligence, the G.R.U., had used WikiLeaks to release data of U.S. victims that the G.R.U. had obtained through cyberoperations against the Democratic National Committee”, and that Assange does not "enjoy First Amendment protections") and and Don Jr. supposedly perjured himself to congress surrounding the Trump Tower meeting or Trump Tower Moscow, or both, or both and more.

Dowd, and anyone else representing or defending Trump, can make up a million reasons for why the POTUS can't answer "I don't recall" or "I don't know" to questions he doesn't know or doesn't recall without "guessing" (which is Dowd's recent euphemism Trump being a "fucking liar") but that just doesn't pass the smell test. Plus, Dowd said that he was concerned that Mueller had something that Trump's defense team wasn't aware of, based on Mueller's inexplicable behavior in their negotiations, which might be the real reason he wants to keep him away from having to tell the truth.

And your response clearly didn't answer my question about why Comey and/or McCabe wouldn't have leaked something about an investigation that was, as you say, without merit and was for political purposes. Again, why put in all that work and then not use it to help Killary win the election, what would be the point?

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

Bernie is a shirtless drunk commie.

Fact.

We have been over this Bob, remember you couldn't even get the bat off your shoulder to respond to the post quoted below?

"1. Stop acting like he was there during the Soviet Missile Crisis, it was in 1988 during the perestroika period when the Russkies were reforming their economy and political system. In 1987 Reagan and Gorby signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and Reagan himself spoke in Red Square in 1988.
2. He was there with 12 other people from Burlington, he wasn't meeting in secret and absconding with the interpreter's notes.
3. Bernie never lied about any of it, he wrote about it in his 1997 book, whereas Trump Et al. have lied about everything and anything Russia over the past several years."

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

Again.



There’s a completely separate investigation.

Low energy post.

Explain your point, cite sources, try to post at an 8th grade level.

 

[bobgeese]

You claimed, or least implied, that people were fired for misconduct in the crossfire hurricane investigation...please cite the relevant points of what you want me to read that support your point.

And the Russian collusion narrative is stronger than ever with Manafort's bullshit, don't know what you are talking about. Stone lied to congress and engaged in witness tampering about wikileaks (who according to Pompeo, is a "nonstate hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia,” and that “Russian military intelligence, the G.R.U., had used WikiLeaks to release data of U.S. victims that the G.R.U. had obtained through cyberoperations against the Democratic National Committee”, and that Assange does not "enjoy First Amendment protections") and and Don Jr. supposedly perjured himself to congress surrounding the Trump Tower meeting or Trump Tower Moscow, or both, or both and more.

Dowd, and anyone else representing or defending Trump, can make up a million reasons for why the POTUS can't answer "I don't recall" or "I don't know" to questions he doesn't know or doesn't recall without "guessing" (which is Dowd's recent euphemism Trump being a "fucking liar") but that just doesn't pass the smell test. Plus, Dowd said that he was concerned that Mueller had something that Trump's defense team wasn't aware of, based on Mueller's inexplicable behavior in their negotiations, which might be the real reason he wants to keep him away from having to tell the truth.

And your response clearly didn't answer my question about why Comey and/or McCabe wouldn't have leaked something about an investigation that was, as you say, without merit and was for political purposes. Again, why put in all that work and then not use it to help Killary win the election, what would be the point?

Cake, wtf is wrong with you lately?


Look at your first paragraph. Blatantly false. Ever hear of Bruce Ohr (among others)?

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

Cake, wtf is wrong with you lately?


Look at your first paragraph. Blatantly false. Ever hear of Bruce Ohr (among others)?

Cite a source then, prove me wrong...and no John Soloman either, news pieces not opinion pieces.

 

[bobgeese]

Cite a source then, prove me wrong...and no John Soloman either, news pieces not opinion pieces.

Here you go dumbass.

He was ultimately demoted—twice—following a House intelligence committee investigation. The first demotion came on Dec. 6, 2017, when he was stripped of his associate deputy AG title and ousted from the fourth floor of Main Justice. The second demotion occurred Jan. 8, 2018, when he was stripped of his title as head of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces.


And the only reason his ass isn’t in the unemployment line is he spilled the beans on the rest of the players.


PS, maybe you should read more John Solomon and embarrass yourself less.