Russia Collusion Megathread v11: This Is It

[palerider500]

There is NO Russia Collusion. There is absolutely, positively NO EVIDENCE of Russian Collusion. Those are the FACTS.

But of course, liberals want to deny facts, reason, and evidence.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

And ignoring very obvious and concerning conflicts of interest and actions taken by high ranking government officials involved in a presidential election tells every one all they need to know about you.

 

[ChainFlow]

And ignoring very obvious and concerning conflicts of interest and actions taken by high ranking government officials involved in a presidential election tells every one all they need to know about you.

Hillary lost, get over it.

Even if every crazy accusation of people helping her is true, even if much worse things were done that eventually come to light, that doesn’t shield trump and his team from investigation for what they did.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

Hillary lost, get over it.

Even if every crazy accusation of people helping her is true, even if much worse things were done that eventually come to light, that doesn’t shield trump and his team from investigation for what they did.

Keep up, this isn’t about just helping her, it’s about the very recent findings about the very top of the trump investigation having major conflicts of interest and openly saying they “can’t risk” trump being president and having an insurance policy incase he won. The deputy director of the fbi, who’s still in place, being involved in it. The #4 guy in DOJ’s wife being the one who actually worked on the trump dossier which may have been the base of a FISA warrant and arranging meetings with fusion gps, a British spy, and her husband at DOJ.

This should be extremely concerning to anyone with a brain who isn’t completely blinded by partisan hackery.

It would be just as unacceptable if it was reversed and they were doing these things to Hillary. These are serious problems coming to light in the last few days.

 

[ChainFlow]

Keep up, this isn’t about just helping her, it’s about the very recent findings about the very top of the trump investigation having major conflicts of interest and openly saying they “can’t risk” trump being president and having an insurance policy incase he won. The deputy director of the fbi, who’s still in place, being involved in it. The #4 guy in DOJ’s wife being the one who actually worked on the trump dossier which may have been the base of a FISA warrant and arranging meetings with fusion gps, a British spy, and her husband at DOJ.

This should be extremely concerning to anyone with a brain who isn’t completely blinded by partisan hackery.

It would be just as unacceptable if it was reversed and they were doing these things to Hillary. These are serious problems coming to light in the last few days.

But all I’ve seen that’s remotely suspicious is stuff that was done, as you said, during the election. Like the language change that probably was a benefit to Hillary. That guy got kicked off the case by Mueller when he was found to be vocally partisan. Okay! Great! Good job Mueller.

As far as the “can’t risk” / insurance policy bit, as someone said above that’s entirely consistent with one of the outcomes of the investigation: that Trump’s campaign was in bed with a hostile foreign power. You can’t discredit an investigation because some people thought that it was a good idea! That’s insanity. I mean, what do InfoWars readers even think the insurance policy IS? Beyond a vaguely menacing pair of words?

The dossier is a popular bogeyman but it was initially funded by the Republicans so if anything it should indicate that the FBI #4 has a possible conflict in that direction. And since a ton of it has been borne out by investigation since then, um.. sorry that the facts hurt Trump?

It all seems like a bunch of first paragraphs of scary stories, but if you don’t let your brain stew in scary buzzwords and start trying to figure out how all these conspiracy theories are supposed to even work, it starts to fall apart.

What is this supposed insurance policy supposed to even be?

How is a largely-borne-out investigation report initially funded by Republicans supposed to be a reason to drop the investigation of Trump’s team?

Why is an agent who seems to think that a candidate is too influenced by a hostile foreign power expressing his opposition to that candidate winning a reason to not investigate that candidate’s ties to that nation?

Why should we keep pretending that Trump’s team members getting caught talking to Russians through a FISA-authorized surveillance is a reason to NOT investigate Trump’s team?

It all sounds so murky, but when you lay it out it all goes:

1) An investigation found connections between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and some guys at the FBI got freaked out by it!
2) ???
3) We shouldn’t investigate Trump’s campaign’s ties and friendliness to the Russians.

Or

1) A guy seemed to prefer Hillary (who currently holds no office and no power) over Trump!
2) ???
3) We shouldn’t investigate Trump’s campaign’s ties and friendliness to the Russians.

 

[hillelslovak87]

There is NO Russia Collusion. There is absolutely, positively NO EVIDENCE of Russian Collusion. Those are the FACTS.

But of course, liberals want to deny facts, reason, and evidence.

Just multiple indictments, multiple guilty pleas, multiple meetings between the campaign and Russian officials, Trump refusing to say bad word 1 about Putin, Trump's financial ties to Russia and his debt to Russia, meetings in his buildings with Russian officials behind closed doors, the proffering of information between supposed Russian officials and the campaign.

Nope, NOTHING!! BELIEVE ME!!! IT'S TRUE!! IT'S TRUE!!

 

[Bloody Pulp]

But all I’ve seen that’s remotely suspicious is stuff that was done, as you said, during the election. Like the language change that probably was a benefit to Hillary. That guy got kicked off the case by Mueller when he was found to be vocally partisan. Okay! Great! Good job Mueller.

As far as the “can’t risk” / insurance policy bit, as someone said above that’s entirely consistent with one of the outcomes of the investigation: that Trump’s campaign was in bed with a hostile foreign power. You can’t discredit an investigation because some people thought that it was a good idea! That’s insanity. I mean, what do InfoWars readers even think the insurance policy IS? Beyond a vaguely menacing pair of words?

The dossier is a popular bogeyman but it was initially funded by the Republicans so if anything it should indicate that the FBI #4 has a possible conflict in that direction. And since a ton of it has been borne out by investigation since then, um.. sorry that the facts hurt Trump?

It all seems like a bunch of first paragraphs of scary stories, but if you don’t let your brain stew in scary buzzwords and start trying to figure out how all these conspiracy theories are supposed to even work, it starts to fall apart.

What is this supposed insurance policy supposed to even be?

How is a largely-borne-out investigation report initially funded by Republicans supposed to be a reason to drop the investigation of Trump’s team?

Why is an agent who seems to think that a candidate is too influenced by a hostile foreign power expressing his opposition to that candidate winning a reason to not investigate that candidate’s ties to that nation?

Why should we keep pretending that Trump’s team members getting caught talking to Russians through a FISA-authorized surveillance is a reason to NOT investigate Trump’s team?

It all sounds so murky, but when you lay it out it all goes:

1) An investigation found connections between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and some guys at the FBI got freaked out by it!
2) ???
3) We shouldn’t investigate Trump’s campaign’s ties and friendliness to the Russians.

Or

1) A guy seemed to prefer Hillary (who currently holds no office and no power) over Trump!
2) ???
3) We shouldn’t investigate Trump’s campaign’s ties and friendliness to the Russians.

Seemed to prefer Hillary? Minimize much?

Hillary has no power, great, so never mind whatever super shady things happened around her in our government even though the people doing the shady things still are in power?

The guy playing a huge role in the investigation had massive and what should be obvious conflicts of interest and involved a still current deputy director of the FBI in them.

One of the top DOJ officials is tied to an unverified dossier on trump which may have been the base for a warrant and that’s okay?

Ever heard of the fruit of a poisonous tree? If, “well, the investigation bore fruit” justifies the means then you’re cool with any other authorities making up whatever BS they need to in order to obtain a warrant for whatever they want as long as they find something? Cops think you have meth lab in your house so they write a search warrant based on false statements made by the officers writing the warrant that they saw you and a couple hookers carrying bags of meth into your house, when they didn’t, to get in and they do end up finding a meth lab. I assume you’d have no problem with the warrant being based on false information cause the investigation bore fruit?

No ones saying don’t investigate any of the trump collusion stuff. At least I’m not. I’m saying don’t do that on one hand and completely ignore everything else going on around it on the other.

Ignore that kind of malfeasance at that level of government and law at your own peril.

 

[ChainFlow]

Seemed to prefer Hillary? Minimize much?

Hillary has no power, great, so never mind whatever super shady things happened around her in our government even though the people doing the shady things still are in power?

The only definitely shady things were done by Strzrok and he got kicked off the investigation. Mueller keeping it real.

The guy playing a huge role in the investigation had massive and what should be obvious conflicts of interest and involved a still current deputy director of the FBI in them.

What do you even think the dept Director did, exactly? Was talked to by a guy who was freaked out about Flynn/Manafort/etc's Russian connections? Oh noooooooo.

One of the top DOJ officials is tied to an unverified dossier on trump which may have been the base for a warrant and that’s okay?

"Tied to" lol. "Unverified" lol. "May have been" lol. Some of the claims in the dossier were accurate, someone in the FBI was married to one of the people working on it because connections make that kind of work easier, and it's just guessing that it was the basis (let alone sole basis) for the warrant that caught Trump's associates red-handed talking to the Russians.

Ever heard of the fruit of a poisonous tree? If, “well, the investigation bore fruit” justifies the means then you’re cool with any other authorities making up whatever BS they need to in order to obtain a warrant for whatever they want as long as they find something? Cops think you have meth lab in your house so they write a search warrant based on false statements made by the officers writing the warrant that they saw you and a couple hookers carrying bags of meth into your house, when they didn’t, to get in and they do end up finding a meth lab. I assume you’d have no problem with the warrant being based on false information cause the investigation bore fruit?

This is more like the cops got a report from a private investigator who they aren't sure if they completely trust that a guy is running a krokodil lab out of his basement. So they investigate and then find that his son-in-law and three of his friends at least are selling krokodil.

And no, the situations are not analogous because there's no evidence that the basis for the investigation was fabricated. Weasel words are not proof.

No ones saying don’t investigate any of the trump collusion stuff. At least I’m not. I’m saying don’t do that on one hand and completely ignore everything else going on around it on the other.

Ignore that kind of malfeasance at that level of government and law at your own peril.

I'm sorry but could you please lay out EXACTLY what the malfeasance is supposed to be? Not just "may have" "tied to" "could be"?

So far all I've seen is Strzrok and he was taken care of by Mueller.

 

[Rational Poster]

There is NO Russia Collusion. There is absolutely, positively NO EVIDENCE of Russian Collusion. Those are the FACTS.

But of course, liberals want to deny facts, reason, and evidence.

 

[Juventud]

I find the Republican officials and medias selective outrage over bias in an investigation funny when Trey Gowdy was on Fox News every other week trashing Hillary while leading his.

 

[DickSarp]

There is NO Russia Collusion. There is absolutely, positively NO EVIDENCE of Russian Collusion. Those are the FACTS.

But of course, liberals want to deny facts, reason, and evidence.

The investigation is secret.

Where are you getting your facts to make your wildly ridiculous conclusion?

 

[DickSarp]

Here is another glimpse into the demented mind of the right wing drone. Do you right wingers truly believe that the FBI could manufacture a case where none existed & that conjured case would drive the President of The United States from office?

I have one question. Are you fucking stupid or just irretrievable suckers? A fair question considering the fantasy that must be sustained to believe one fucking word out of Trump's mouth or those from his sycophantic defenders.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

The only definitely shady things were done by Strzrok and he got kicked off the investigation. Mueller keeping it real.
What do you even think the dept Director did, exactly? Was talked to by a guy who was freaked out about Flynn/Manafort/etc's Russian connections? Oh noooooooo.
"Tied to" lol. "Unverified" lol. "May have been" lol. Some of the claims in the dossier were accurate, someone in the FBI was married to one of the people working on it because connections make that kind of work easier, and it's just guessing that it was the basis (let alone sole basis) for the warrant that caught Trump's associates red-handed talking to the Russians.This is more like the cops got a report from a private investigator who they aren't sure if they completely trust that a guy is running a krokodil lab out of his basement. So they investigate and then find that his son-in-law and three of his friends at least are selling krokodil.

And no, the situations are not analogous because there's no evidence that the basis for the investigation was fabricated. Weasel words are not proof.

I'm sorry but could you please lay out EXACTLY what the malfeasance is supposed to be? Not just "may have" "tied to" "could be"?

So far all I've seen is Strzrok and he was taken care of by Mueller.

So what “exactly” has Trump himself done? No reason to investigate anything then, right?

The malfeasance would be if the FBI and DOJ knowingly used a dossier created by the wife of a high up DOJ official with information they knew to be unsubstantiated to obtain a warrant that resulted in someone being charged with a crime. Refer to the poisonous tree.

I’m not saying that is “exactly” what happened, I’m saying there’s enough to warrant further investigation into how that all went down.

Stzrok wasn’t removed from the investigation until earlier this year, after the election was long over. So the guy who said he loathed Trump and needed “insurance” in case trump won was still in a leading role investigating Trump for months after he won the election. Go on not seeing a problem there if you like.

I think it warrants looking into at the very least. Not just a “well she lost anyway so don’t worry about”

 

[palerider500]

Just multiple indictments, multiple guilty pleas, multiple meetings between the campaign and Russian officials, Trump refusing to say bad word 1 about Putin, Trump's financial ties to Russia and his debt to Russia, meetings in his buildings with Russian officials behind closed doors, the proffering of information between supposed Russian officials and the campaign.

Nope, NOTHING!! BELIEVE ME!!! IT'S TRUE!! IT'S TRUE!!

Almost everything you've stated is flat out... wait for it...
WRONG!

The guilty pleas was to giving a false statement. Something you have done just this very moment.

I guess Mueller may be coming after YOU!

Newsflash: We have all given false statements in our lives. That is not a big deal and in no way proves that Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia.

 

[palerider500]

What evidence is there that Trump colluded with Russia? Please tell me, I want to know...

 

[palerider500]

The investigation is secret.

Where are you getting your facts to make your wildly ridiculous conclusion?

The investigation is NOT secret.

Let me ask you this: What is the basis for this investigation? Do you even know? Or do you just watch CNN all day long like most liberals?

 

[Rational Poster]

The investigation is NOT secret.

Let me ask you this: What is the basis for this investigation? Do you even know? Or do you just watch CNN all day long like most liberals?

 

[Rational Poster]

What evidence is there that Trump colluded with Russia? Please tell me, I want to know...

No you don't.

 

[DickSarp]

The investigation is NOT secret.

Let me ask you this: What is the basis for this investigation? Do you even know? Or do you just watch CNN all day long like most liberals?

Yes it is secret.

From what's been divulged already, it seems like you're the one who has no fucking clue.

Here is the basis of the investigation: Investigate the Russian sabotage of the election and ANY CRIMINAL MATTER DISCOVERED DURING THAT MISSION (I paraphrased but read it for yourself here: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download )

I don't have cable tv so I don't watch CNN.

Do you read books or have an education or are you a typical right winger?

 

[hillelslovak87]

Almost everything you've stated is flat out... wait for it...
WRONG!

The guilty pleas was to giving a false statement. Something you have done just this very moment.

I guess Mueller may be coming after YOU!

Newsflash: We have all given false statements in our lives. That is not a big deal and in no way proves that Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia.

And what did they give false statements pertaining to? I think you might have the capability to figure this out.