What's new
By:
Filters

Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

  • Total voters
    29
Red said:
I did not realize that you felt you knew me at all, let alone knew how I would respond to specific situations. And no, I do not think it was "spying" at all. If I had been the boss of the FBI, I would have put agents on the case. I would have wanted surveillance on Carter Page for one, the FBI had already contacted him years earlier to inform him they knew the Russians were trying to recruit Page as an asset, just in case he did not realize it. And Pampadopolis tells the Australian ambassador that someone is offering him Clinton emails, and you think the FBI has no business looking at Pampadopolous? What a joke! Give me a break.

And BTW, we still know nothing regarding the counterintelligence aspects to this investigation. And, therefore, for all I know, Trump may still be a subject of a counterintelligence investigation.

So Donald Trump, and 18 of his associates, have at least 140 contacts with Russian nationals and Wikileaks during the campaign and transition, and the best you can come up with is "the sorts of operations that we now know the FBI conducted against the Trump campaign", as if all those contacts should warrant no concern whatsoever. And your use of the term "against" is just as loaded as Barr's use of the term "spying". But, you're pissed, apparently, and for some reason unknown to me, you've chosen me as somehow the face of what it is that you're so pissed about.

You feel "certain" you know me so well. No, you do not. Feel certain to your heart's content, but you're full of it.
Click to expand...

I don't know red. It is a little weird that the Federal Bureau of Investigation might be involved in investigating people they suspect are committing crimes at the behest of a foreign government. Doesn't really seem like something they should be doing tbh.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Red
Does it seriously not bother Trumpers that their boy’s campaign had such an abnormal amount of contact with the Russians?

And when questioned about it, either failed to disclose these contacts or altogether lied about them?

Why did Trump’s campaign continue to have contact with the Russians despite being warned in October by the FBI, CIA, and NSA that Russians were interfering in the 2016 election?

Seems to me like our immune system (FBI) after exactly the way they should. Why wouldn’t you want the rats willing to work with Russia within your campaign caught by the FBI so you could run a good and honest campaign? Unless... you wanted Russian help.

“Russia, if you’re listening...”
 
Trumpers can’t have it both ways. They can’t blame Obama for masterminding a Russian conspiracy and then blame him for not doing enough to prevent it.

Maybe it’s time for Trumpers to aim their “anger” at Mitch mcconnell, who threatened to go public accusing Obama of interfering with the election if Obama went public with the Russian interference that our intelligence communities were uncovering.

Pick your lane Trumpers. Either Obama was a mastermind at dooming Clinton’s campaign and causing Trump legal problems for 4+ years or he faltered to keep us informed and safe out of fear of McConnell’s politicalization of Russian interference
 
Red said:
Joe, I'm sure these questions are of interest to you, maybe even reflecting pressing issues on your part. But, for me to begin addressing them will likely require a lot of work, another one of my "novellas", as my comments have been termed by some, and, in general, since we are inhabiting different echo chambers, what really is the point?

It sounds like you have already located answers that satisfy you, although you don't describe those answers. But from your comments, I'm guessing you have done some reading/research of your own. But, you want me to jump through hoops for you. I have never asked you to jump through hoops, have never addressed you with a series of questions in similar fashion. Here you ask me 4 questions, and you expect me to just answer them for you, regardless of the time and effort that will take. As if I owed you a thing.

I feel I put a lot into the political threads on this forum. I'll grant most of my comments are probably not worth the cyberspace they inhabit, but it takes work, and I do put an effort in. Now, why the hell should I feel obligated to address 4 questions from you, when you clearly already have your own answers in mind?
Click to expand...
I have not heard any reasonable answers to these questions. Should I therefore conclude that there really was a conspiracy at the highest levels of government in order to invalidate the election? It doesn't surprise me that you're not interested in answering any of those questions. The evidence appears to go directly against the narrative you've convinced yourself of. You seem to be an honest man, though, and maybe there will come a time when you become curious about these things. For me, at this time, it looks like the investigation was primarily politically motivated.
 
Red said:
I did not realize that you felt you knew me at all, let alone knew how I would respond to specific situations. And no, I do not think it was "spying" at all. If I had been the boss of the FBI, I would have put agents on the case. I would have wanted surveillance on Carter Page for one, the FBI had already contacted him years earlier to inform him they knew the Russians were trying to recruit Page as an asset, just in case he did not realize it. And Pampadopolis tells the Australian ambassador that someone is offering him Clinton emails, and you think the FBI has no business looking at Pampadopolous? What a joke! Give me a break.

And BTW, we still know nothing regarding the counterintelligence aspects to this investigation. And, therefore, for all I know, Trump may still be a subject of a counterintelligence investigation.

So Donald Trump, and 18 of his associates, have at least 140 contacts with Russian nationals and Wikileaks during the campaign and transition, and the best you can come up with is "the sorts of operations that we now know the FBI conducted against the Trump campaign", as if all those contacts should warrant no concern whatsoever. And your use of the term "against" is just as loaded as Barr's use of the term "spying". But, you're pissed, apparently, and for some reason unknown to me, you've chosen me as somehow the face of what it is that you're so pissed about.

You feel "certain" you know me so well. No, you do not. Feel certain to your heart's content, but you're full of it.
Click to expand...
I do not feel certain that I know you (that's not at all what I said), and posts like this make it clear to me that I know you even less well than I thought.
 
Zombie said:
I don't know red. It is a little weird that the Federal Bureau of Investigation might be involved in investigating people they suspect are committing crimes at the behest of a foreign government. Doesn't really seem like something they should be doing tbh.
Click to expand...
I agree, and I'm sure it won't bother any of you when the FBI under the Trump administration opens an investigation on his eventual Democratic rival on the basis of whatever unsubstantiated accusations they can dream up.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I agree, and I'm sure it won't bother any of you when the FBI under the Trump administration opens an investigation on his eventual Democratic rival on the basis of whatever unsubstantiated accusations they can dream up.
Click to expand...
It's been pointed out to you numerous times that there was plenty of reason to suspect various people in the Trump orbit were involved with Russian efforts to steal information from the DNC and others. Thats a far cry from being unsubstantiated. And of course there's all the lying about those contacts, plans for a Trump Tower in Moscow etc. Typically when you are being accused of something and you do nothing but lie, it tends to make investigators more suspicious, not less. Just a little tip there for you.
 
Zombie said:
I don't know red. It is a little weird that the Federal Bureau of Investigation might be involved in investigating people they suspect are committing crimes at the behest of a foreign government. Doesn't really seem like something they should be doing tbh.
Click to expand...
Oh right. There was all of that valuable information in the Dossier, and then there was all of that wonderful corroboration of the Dossier by... by the news outlets who reported the Dossier as fact. And there was... other stuff. Lots of it, and it was bad. Trust us. If you'll just assign a special council with an unlimited budget to investigate then within a couple of years we'll give you hard evidence of... nothing. Meanwhile the news outlets can go crazy reporting that the end is near, EVERY SINGLE DAY!
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
It doesn't surprise me that you're not interested in answering any of those questions. The evidence appears to go directly against the narrative you've convinced yourself of. You seem to be an honest man, though, and maybe there will come a time when you become curious about these things. For me, at this time, it looks like the investigation was primarily politically motivated.
Click to expand...

Are you actually saying that the Russians did not meddle in our election? I accept that they did, and a major part of Mueller's investigation was to describe exactly what they did. Mueller indicted 13 Russian nationals and the Internet Research Agency. And I can say that you are also convinced of a narrative: "the investigation was primarily politically motivated".

My narrative is that Russia meddled, and 140+ contacts by the Trump team with Russia absolutely justified a good, close look. There was nothing political about it. Comey torpedoed Clinton, not word one from him that Trump's campaign was being investigated. Comey, the head of the FBI, kneecapped Clinton two weeks before the election.

And I am not surprised that you think the FBI investigation and the counterintelligence investigation was unjustified. As many times as you have claimed not to like Trump, you always defend him to the hilt. So you are not an honest broker at all. You are a full throated supporter of this clown. Which is your right, but I don't buy your occasional protestations of his character at all. I concluded a long time ago, but never spelled it out to you, that you approve of his policies, and therefore can more easily overlook his character. I disapprove of both, policies and character.

You don't find it odd that there were so many contacts with Russians on the part of the Trump campaign and associates of Trump? Why would that not cause me to be suspicious? What was I to think of Trump standing in front of the cameras at Helsinki and basically saying "pound salt" to our intelligence community? That he believed Putin instead. What president, what commander in chief would ever do such a thing, and why?

Can you not see that that act alone might cause one to wonder what the hey is going on between our president and the head of a mafia state?

I can buy that it bothers him that Russian meddling might be seen as diminishing his victory, but to speak the way he did on that, and other occasions, is putting himself above his country. Again, what president would do that? And, if one accepts that the Mueller report concluded, with no shadow of a doubt, that Russia meddled, what president calls Putin, who orchestrated the meddling, and refers to it as "the Russia hoax"?

I told you several comments ago that there were two competing narratives. Even Barr admitted, when questioned about using the term "spying", that the surveillance may have been justified. Mueller's objection to Barr's 4 page "summary" was that it made it sound like there might not be evidence of obstruction of justice by Trump, whereas Mueller had made clear his decision was based on the accepted Justice Department policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted. The decision was not founded on a lack of evidence of obstruction. 5 of the 10 potential obstruction incidents Mueller documented satisfied all 3 criteria for obstruction. Barr did not make that clear. And Mueller complained to him for that reason.

Let Congress follow the money, something which Trump is fighting tooth and nail. Not because "it's over", but because he absolutely has something to hide.

I don't have One Brow's considerable gift of brevity, so novella it will be.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Oh right. There was all of that valuable information in the Dossier, and then there was all of that wonderful corroboration of the Dossier by... by the news outlets who reported the Dossier as fact. And there was... other stuff. Lots of it, and it was bad. Trust us. If you'll just assign a special council with an unlimited budget to investigate then within a couple of years we'll give you hard evidence of... nothing. Meanwhile the news outlets can go crazy reporting that the end is near, EVERY SINGLE DAY!
Click to expand...
Hey quick question, when did the Russian investigation begin, was it before or after the Steele Dossier was put together?

What event kicked it off?
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Wow.
Click to expand...

Wow what?! I provided you with one specific example of how the Russians tried to influence black voters. I provided you with a description that put the blame on Clinton for her failure to attract black voters. And both things I had ALREADY provided you in the short Ebony article, which you clearly did not read.

And I provided that link and one other, because I was trying to HELP you find some answers to the question Hack had asked. And I politely indicated that this would not specifically answer you, but was part of a broader question that might be kept in mind. I was trying to HELP! Get it?

And after providing some context when you came back with "how would Russians convince blacks how to vote", (despite my having already provided helpful links), you reply by basically dismissing my effort to help by saying you will just go with the preconceived conclusion you held. So I tell you, since you already had a preconceived answer(exactly what One Brow told you) not to ask me anymore. And for doing that, I get "wow" from you?

Well, wow, right back at ya! And a lol for good measure.
 
Red said:
Are you actually saying that the Russians did not meddle in our election?
Click to expand...
No. I'm talking about the investigation of Trump for collusion, the suggestion that he was a Russian pawn, that he was under their control because they had video of him peeing on prostitutes, etc.
[/QUOTE]I accept that they did, and a major part of Mueller's investigation was to describe exactly what they did. Mueller indicted 13 Russian nationals and the Internet Research Agency. And I can say that you are also convinced of a narrative: "the investigation was primarily politically motivated".

My narrative is that Russia meddled, and 140+ contacts by the Trump team with Russia absolutely justified a good, close look. There was nothing political about it. Comey torpedoed Clinton, not word one from him that Trump's campaign was being investigated. Comey, the head of the FBI, kneecapped Clinton two weeks before the election.[/QUOTE]
Do you have all of the contacts between Hillary's team and Russian's chronicled so well? Is it a surprise to you that government officials and prospective government officials talk to one another?
And I am not surprised that you think the FBI investigation and the counterintelligence investigation was unjustified. As many times as you have claimed not to like Trump, you always defend him to the hilt. So you are not an honest broker at all. You are a full throated supporter of this clown. Which is your right, but I don't buy your occasional protestations of his character at all. I concluded a long time ago, but never spelled it out to you, that you approve of his policies, and therefore can more easily overlook his character. I disapprove of both, policies and character.
Click to expand...
I think it is a fair statement that I more easily overlook character flaws because I approve of the majority of his policies. I think the same is true of people who supported Hillary. While we all wish we could have a perfect candidate to represent our interests, in reality we are always faced with compromises. You are incorrect that my support of Trump is full-throated, though. I simply see him as the best available option. I did not vote for him and would pick someone different in a heartbeat.
You don't find it odd that there were so many contacts with Russians on the part of the Trump campaign and associates of Trump? Why would that not cause me to be suspicious? What was I to think of Trump standing in front of the cameras at Helsinki and basically saying "pound salt" to our intelligence community? That he believed Putin instead. What president, what commander in chief would ever do such a thing, and why?
Can you not see that that act alone might cause one to wonder what the hey is going on between our president and the head of a mafia state?
Click to expand...
What did you think of Obama's open mike guffaw when he said he'd have greater flexibility after the election? Does that cause you to wonder? It should. What did you think of the Ukranian reports that the Clinton Campaign was in contact with them during the election?
I can buy that it bothers him that Russian meddling might be seen as diminishing his victory, but to speak the way he did on that, and other occasions, is putting himself above his country. Again, what president would do that? And, if one accepts that the Mueller report concluded, with no shadow of a doubt, that Russia meddled, what president calls Putin, who orchestrated the meddling, and refers to it as "the Russia hoax"?

I told you several comments ago that there were two competing narratives. Even Barr admitted, when questioned about using the term "spying", that the surveillance may have been justified. Mueller's objection to Barr's 4 page "summary" was that it made it sound like there might not be evidence of obstruction of justice by Trump, whereas Mueller had made clear his decision was based on the accepted Justice Department policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted. The decision was not founded on a lack of evidence of obstruction. 5 of the 10 potential obstruction incidents Mueller documented satisfied all 3 criteria for obstruction. Barr did not make that clear. And Mueller complained to him for that reason.

Let Congress follow the money, something which Trump is fighting tooth and nail. Not because "it's over", but because he absolutely has something to hide.

I don't have One Brow's considerable gift of brevity, so novella it will be.
Click to expand...
I'm unaware of Barr ever claiming that the surveilance was not justified. I like that he's going to investigate that issue. I sure hope it was justified. At the moment it does not look to me like it was. Regarding obstruction, I have never thought that someone ought to bend over for a proctologist if they do not want an exam, and especially if they have not seen the evidence that an exam is necessary.
 
The Thriller said:
Trump going on his knees and opening his mouth wide open for Putin and republicans shrugging this off is perhaps the most bizarre thing I’ve seen in politics in my lifetime.

It’s almost like he called Putin up to get their stories straight rather than telling Putin to back off America or else.

But you know, tax cuts, conservative judges, and owninthelibs
Click to expand...

You are still my alt.
 
silesian said:
Wow, still obsessed with HRC? She is such a loser and totally irrelevant.

It’s 2019, move on to the personal attacks on AOC!!!!
Click to expand...

Exactly! AOC is the greatest threat to murika! She’s a socialist commie Nazi Muslim atheist abortion and you can tell by The way she dances and how hot she is and where she actually lives and how hot she is and Instagram and and how hot she is and cow farts! She makes me soooooooo angry I wanna dress up in tea bagger clothing and yell uncontrollably at someone’s town hall!
 
The Thriller said:
Exactly! AOC is the greatest threat to murika! She’s a socialist commie Nazi Muslim atheist abortion and you can tell by The way she dances and how hot she is and where she actually lives and how hot she is and Instagram and and how hot she is and cow farts! She makes me soooooooo angry I wanna dress up in tea bagger clothing and yell uncontrollably at someone’s town hall!
Click to expand...

I disagree with 90% of AOC’s policies. Pre-crazy Republicans would have taken her on as a challenge, treated her respectfully, debated her on issues, and won said debates. Today’s Trump Republicans are just a pack of irrational rabid dogs. I think they are torn between wanting to kill her and wanting to **** her.

Bring back William F Buckley and Jack Kemp, bring back the intelligent and principled wing of the Republican Party. Bring back republicans who were respectful and honored the rule of law.

Sorry, speech over.

Thriller must have triggered me. Smiley smiles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top