Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

[bravesnumberone]

Have our detectives cracked the case yet as to why the pro-Hillary, anti-Trump FBI held a press conference about the Hillary investigation and then announced in late October the investigation was being reopened but didn't think it was equally worthwhile to let the public know Trump campaign people, including the campaign manager and deputy manager, were under investigation? Or why right before the election, they told the liberal fake news New York Times there was no Trump-Russia link?

[thethe]

Just a reminder this is still out there, too.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018...pector-general

And its probably the reason McCabe stepped down. That and the alleged changes made to Flynns 302 statement.

[thethe]

Have our detectives cracked the case yet as to why the pro-Hillary, anti-Trump FBI held a press conference about the Hillary investigation and then announced in late October the investigation was being reopened but didn't think it was equally worthwhile to let the public know Trump campaign people, including the campaign manager and deputy manager, were under investigation? Or why right before the election, they told the liberal fake news New York Times there was no Trump-Russia link?

Because the left was extremely arrogant the whole election cycle. There were people from the Times and other leftist establishments that still believed Hillary would win with 330+ electoral vote margins. They was a COA act by the acting government to make it seem on the up and up while still not impacting the results of the election. Lets just say they misread the tea leaves.

So while you are at it asking these types of questions I still want to know what Trump received from Putin and what Putin benefited from Trump winning the Presidency.

[bravesnumberone]

Claims of pundits are irrelevant. In the formal communication to the American people by the Republicans on the House Intel committee they gave the facts that the investigation was opened up based on Papa. So they Dem memo including that doesn't actually refute anything in the GOP memo. Its more an emphasis point to draw Americans away from the fact that no FISA warrants would have been granted without the Dossier.

You keep saying that no FISA warrants would have been granted without the dossier. From what we know they had plenty of info independent of it and the renewals required even newer information. What was that new info? Well, it's redacted.

[thethe]

I think subsequent events have overtaken that situation. I'll refer you to the numerous articles from winter 2017 about attempts inside the Trump WH to unilaterally undo the Crimea sanctions. That they didn't succeed doesn't invalidate the fact that they tried.

So attempts at diplomatic relations with Russia indicate a quid pro quo? What about Obamas hot mic statements? Its silly to think that normal negotiations to gain leverage in future discussions does not happen between every relationship.

[thethe]

You keep saying that no FISA warrants would have been granted without the dossier. From what we know they had plenty of info independent of it and the renewals required even newer information. What was that new info? Well, it's redacted.

Well there was no new info on the initial application and McCabes own statetment, that the GOP alleged he made, has not been formally refuted by the Dems.

I can't wait to find out the new information. From the very beginning I have wanted to read it all. I've read both memos, each parties response and the full Simpson testimony. I can't get enough of this. Please release the McCabe testimony as well as the FISA application.

[bravesnumberone]

Well there was no new info on the initial application and McCabes own statetment, that the GOP alleged he made, has not been formally refuted by the Dems.

I can't wait to find out the new information. From the very beginning I have wanted to read it all. I've read both memos, each parties response and the full Simpson testimony. I can't get enough of this. Please release the McCabe testimony as well as the FISA application.

But there was much more other information on the initial application. Several of the committee's Democrats have publicly rejected the Republicans' characterization of McCabe's statement. No it's not in this memo, unless it has been redacted.

We are in agreement. Release the McCabe testimony. The majority on the committee and the president have the power to do so. What are your thoughts on almost the entire section that describes information corroborating the dossier part being redacted?

[Runnin]

So while you are at it asking these types of questions I still want to know what Trump received from Putin and what Putin benefited from Trump winning the Presidency.

Trump got the win with Russia's help and Russia got an American govt in daily chaos and meltdown plus an idiot in the Oval Office who wants to destroy democracy almost as much as Putin himself. He probably didn't want DJT to win, knowing that would be too unpredictable and could just as easily backfire.

[thethe]

But there was much more other information on the initial application. Several of the committee's Democrats have publicly rejected the Republicans' characterization of McCabe's statement. No it's not in this memo, unless it has been redacted.

We are in agreement. Release the McCabe testimony. The majority on the committee and the president have the power to do so. What are your thoughts on almost the entire section that describes information corroborating the dossier part being redacted?

My thoughts? I want to read it. However, the FBI seemed to believe that this information should be redacted? How am I supposed to react to information that has not been provided? The facts confirmed could either be material or immaterial. Speculating on that is pointless at this point.

There is no reason for McCabes testimony on that fact to be redacted. It was not included and can only lead a rationale person to believe that McCabe did make that statement. If it was so factually inaccurate it would have been rebutted in this memo and you know that.

[thethe]

Trump got the win with Russia's help and Russia got an American govt in daily chaos and meltdown plus an idiot in the Oval Office who wants to destroy democracy almost as much as Putin himself. He probably didn't want DJT to win, knowing that would be too unpredictable and could just as easily backfire.

How did Russia help? We have no proof that they hacked the DNC. And the indictment shows there was no intent of collusion. Just to sow discord in America. This is evident by MSNBC/Joy Reid being retweeted more than anyone else. I'm sure their statements helped Trump tremendously.

Putin now has to deal with an America with a more aggressive military that is winning, a robust economy that is growing at a much higher clip than the Obama economy did and most importantly an America that is serious about being an energy producer. McCain famously said that Russia is just a oil company masquerading as a country. Well now you add America to the equation on the global energy production and Russia is tremendously weakened. This should not be ignored.

[Runnin]

How did Russia help? We have no proof that they hacked the DNC. And the indictment shows there was no intent of collusion. Just to sow discord in America. This is evident by MSNBC/Joy Reid being retweeted more than anyone else. I'm sure their statements helped Trump tremendously.

Putin now has to deal with an America with a more aggressive military that is winning, a robust economy that is growing at a much higher clip than the Obama economy did and most importantly an America that is serious about being an energy producer. McCain famously said that Russia is just a oil company masquerading as a country. Well now you add America to the equation on the global energy production and Russia is tremendously weakened. This should not be ignored.

I don't blame you for being in a panic. Trump never really had a chance once Mueller was brought it to clean up the mess.

[thethe]

I don't blame you for being in a panic. Trump never really had a chance once Mueller was brought it to clean up the mess.

Great response since you can't debate facts. Fitting for the hysterical leftists of today.

There is no panic as Trump will be our President for another 6 years and once the country sees how successful these conservative parties are the regressive lefts stranglehold on the conversation will be removed. This is a global movement. The right wing party in Germany is close to obtaining power. Brexit was worked out very well for the British people. Even Marcon is moving towards the right.

But please - tell me how it is me who is in a panic.

[bravesnumberone]

My thoughts? I want to read it. However, the FBI seemed to believe that this information should be redacted? How am I supposed to react to information that has not been provided? The facts confirmed could either be material or immaterial. Speculating on that is pointless at this point.

There is no reason for McCabes testimony on that fact to be redacted. It was not included and can only lead a rationale person to believe that McCabe did make that statement. If it was so factually inaccurate it would have been rebutted in this memo and you know that.

The president has the power to make public whatever he wants to. He seems to have listened to the FBI here. Regarding the Nunes memo, whether you think the FBI and Justice Department were grossly exaggerating their concerns, there was apparently little interest from the president and the majority in what they had to say on it. I haven't read it yet, but I see where the Republicans have put out a response to this Schiff memo. Did it undergo the same process?

I agree there's no reason to redact McCabe's testimony on that. If it was factually accurate, I think a rational person would also expect the majority and the president to release the testimony.

[thethe]

The president has the power to make public whatever he wants to. He seems to have listened to the FBI here. Regarding the Nunes memo, whether you think the FBI and Justice Department were grossly exaggerating their concerns, there was apparently little interest from the president and the majority in what they had to say on it. I haven't read it yet, but I see where the Republicans have put out a response to this Schiff memo. Did it undergo the same process?

I agree there's no reason to redact McCabe's testimony on that. If it was factually accurate, I think a rational person would also expect the majority and the president to release the testimony.

Did the dem response to the gop memo go through a response?

This has been played well by the administration in my eyes. We have half truths being supplied by both sides. Now there will be a collective call to release the full information. If this was done before it would be viewed as obstruction by trump. Now it's satisfying the American people's request.

[bravesnumberone]

Because the left was extremely arrogant the whole election cycle. There were people from the Times and other leftist establishments that still believed Hillary would win with 330+ electoral vote margins. They was a COA act by the acting government to make it seem on the up and up while still not impacting the results of the election. Lets just say they misread the tea leaves.

So while you are at it asking these types of questions I still want to know what Trump received from Putin and what Putin benefited from Trump winning the Presidency.

As an aside, yes, the left was extremely arrogant.

OK, so it was all about appearances to be on the up and up? Aside from that being very generous to the person they were trying to destroy, I'm sure you would apply the same logic to why things between the Trump administration and Putin don't seem to always be in lockstep.

First, go back to what I pointed out a couple days ago from devoted Trump supporter, Sam Nunberg: Trump screws over everyone. If nothing happened during the administration, that wouldn't excuse or invalidate what happened during the campaign if it's proven to have happened. Still illegal. Let's then look at the differences between Trump and other foreign policy people in his administration. Won't pass the bipartisan sanctions because, the White House claims, Russians are being deterred. His intelligence community says that's not true. They're engaging in similar behavior in 2018 and probably will in 2020. Mr. Trump? Look, Putin says he didn't do anything. That's good enough for me.

[bravesnumberone]

And its probably the reason McCabe stepped down. That and the alleged changes made to Flynns 302 statement.

I'm interested to see if it played a role in McCabe stepping down. Or as Don Jr. calls it, fired.

I'm also interested to see if it will address the conduct of the FBI in October 2016, why the discovery of the emails on Weiner's laptop wasn't immediately relayed to Comey and why Rudy G. was on Fox News three days before Comey's Oct. 28 announcement saying there were a couple more surprises on the way (all the while he'd been talking continuously about the fervent anti-Hillary anger and sense of betrayal at the bureau that she wasn't being charged).

[Runnin]

Most people on the left were confident Hillary would win. That's not arrogance. Michael Moore and others were much less sure of her victory.

Trump said he could shoot a person down in the street and get away with it. That's arrogance. He attacked the FBI while knowing that he's dirty through and through. That's arrogance. Meanwhile, a judge just ordered Trump to pay over $ 5 million for trying to scam fees from golf club members when he is already a billionaire. That's arrogance.

[Hawk]

Great response since you can't debate facts.

A recurrent theme in this thread.

[bravesnumberone]

^

[Hawk]

5 strikes me as the most interesting piece of new information

What’s the Russian for conveniently ambiguous?