Russiagate

[rushmc 18]

I also find it really interesting that the lawyers, Mueller's team, have finished presenting their info and evidence in the manafort case. Not one word about Russia, Collision, or anything involving manafort's work on the Trump team. So how the hell is that tied to Trump?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,122]

rushmc

***He is under investigation. It's what this whole fucking thread is about. Jesus Christ.

the FBI has said that Trump jr. Is neither a subject or Person of Interest or a Target in the Russia collusion investigation

And now Hilary sympathizer Strozk has been fired. About damn time.

You will have to point that out where the FBI has said that about Jr.

[LeeroyJenkins 2]

rushmc

***He is under investigation. It's what this whole fucking thread is about. Jesus Christ.

the FBI has said that Trump jr. Is neither a subject or Person of Interest or a Target in the Russia collusion investigation

And now Hilary sympathizer Strozk has been fired. About damn time.

Oh so now you trust the FBI? Lol, thats called confirmation bias if you aren't aware. Rush, you know Muller is investigating the Trump tower meeting, don't lie to us or yourself like that, it's not healthy.

Quote

and by the way the TP document was put together by Steel with information that he told everybody was gathered from Russian informants. Again you need to learn about what's really going on.

I uhhh, I know that. I said it in my post... did you read my post? Did you comprehend what you read in my post? Steel got info from his Russian contacts. That's not debated.

Quote

I also find it really interesting that the lawyers, Mueller's team, have finished presenting their info and evidence in the manafort case. Not one word about Russia, Collision, or anything involving manafort's work on the Trump team. So how the hell is that tied to Trump?

I try very hard to be civil but dude, come on. Have you ever considered either not commenting about things you don't know anything about or at least googling it before you open your figurative mouth?

There was talk about Trumps campaign in the court room, primarily involving Steve Calk. Look it up if your don't believe me since you clearly didn't look it up before you made your comment.

That being said, why does it need to be tied to Trump? Manafort allegedly committed crimes, the FBI investigated it, and it went to court. Do you have an issue with that? Manafort being found guilty or not guilty has no bearing on the alleged Trump Russia collusion because that is not what Manaforts trial is about.

[rushmc 18]

Nothing about Trump collusion during the Manafort trial.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/08/trump-manafort-trial-766439

But I know you like the Political spin. But even they posted this

Quote

Even if the core subject of Mueller’s probe — potential collusion with the Kremlin — never came up, the references were a reminder that the case has implications that go far beyond two Republican lobbyist-consultants who concealed the fortune they made assisting a Ukrainian politician years before joining Trump’s campaign.

But I do not blame you for trying.


As for the FBI
I trust the rank and file. Thie4 voices will be heard at some date.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Oh

About collusion not being a crime.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/collusion-crime-it-may-not-matter-why-manafort-s-trial-ncna896511

Quote

Most legal experts would probably agree with Giuliani on this point — collusion, in the legal sense, is generally only applicable in antitrust cases. Meanwhile, the prosecutors in the Manafort case have told the judge that they may not even utter the word Russia in what is expected to be a three-week trial. Instead, they are focusing on Manafort’s financial crimes, including bank fraud and tax evasion.

I think I just heard a thousand bubbles pop.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DJL 232]

Quote

This post just shows how little you know about election law. Which really isn't that surprising because it is intentionally complicated. Doing opposition research is completely legal. Hilary paid a law firm, that law firm then hired Fusion, fusion hired Steel, Steel talked to Russians. Clinton did it the legal way. Don Jr. met directly with a Russian, that's the illegal way. There is a difference. I agree that it is dumb, but that is how election law works. It's gray and fuzzy but it is like that for a reason. To make the distinction a little more clear and very simplified. On paper Clinton got information form americans, jr got information from Russians.

This requires some further expansion, the people meeting with Don Jr. said very clearly that their efforts were at the behest of the Russian government. The information Steele gathered was commonplace intelligence gathering which includes people who are Russians willing to provide information (This does not mean that his sources were truthful and not working in a counterintelligence capacity, e.g., the pee pee tapes). The two are entirely opposites. Let's say that someone running against a New Jersey mayor hired some investigators to do some digging and found dirt on their opponent via a mob snitch, they turn it over to the authorities and the person goes on trial - that is an example of what the HRC campaign did. The counter example would be a campaign member meeting with the mob as part of a coordinated effort for them to get a specific person elected.

Edit: Further expansion is that if you think what the HRC Campaign did was wrong then you have to REALLY think that what the Trump Campaign did was wrong.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[Phil1111 910]

rushmc

I also find it really interesting that the lawyers, Mueller's team, have finished presenting their info and evidence in the manafort case. Not one word about Russia, Collision, or anything involving manafort's work on the Trump team. So how the hell is that tied to Trump?

You need to diversify your sources of information.

What's next for Paul Manafort?
"Most notably, the longtime GOP operative still faces a second federal trial slated to begin in mid-September in Washington. And that case, accusing Manafort of money laundering and failing to register as a foreign agent while lobbying for the government of Ukraine, could be even more challenging."
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/13/whats-next-for-paul-manafort-774312

[rushmc 18]

From your link.

Quote

. (The current charges against Manafort are largely unrelated to the 2016 election.)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Phil1111 910]

rushmc

From your link.

Quote

. (The current charges against Manafort are largely unrelated to the 2016 election.)

That would come under Don Jr's trial and trump's impeachment. Then Trump's subsequent trial prosecuted by the NY attourney's office.

[Phil1111 910]

rushmc

******A college degree doesn’t make you politically savvy.

Perhaps not, but you'll find few educated people without one.


LOL

And it's really easy to find a whole bunch of educated idiots

The best supporting argument for Marc is trump's Wharton degree.

[DJL 232]

rushmc

From your link.

Quote

. (The current charges against Manafort are largely unrelated to the 2016 election.)

Are you regaining some trust in the FBI et al in their ability to chase crimes rather than focus on Trump?

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[LeeroyJenkins 2]

rushmc

Nothing about Trump collusion during the Manafort trial.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/08/trump-manafort-trial-766439

But I know you like the Political spin. But even they posted this

Quote

Even if the core subject of Mueller’s probe — potential collusion with the Kremlin — never came up, the references were a reminder that the case has implications that go far beyond two Republican lobbyist-consultants who concealed the fortune they made assisting a Ukrainian politician years before joining Trump’s campaign.

But I do not blame you for trying.


As for the FBI
I trust the rank and file. Thie4 voices will be heard at some date.

Rush, you said " anything involving manafort's work on the Trump team" You don't get to move the goalposts to "Nothing about Trump collusion during the Manafort trial" That's absurd. The trump campaign was mentioned during the trial, that is a fact. You were wrong accept that.

You are also correct in your new statement that there was nothing about Trump collusion during the Manafort trial, which makes sense because that's not what his trial is about.

[LeeroyJenkins 2]

rushmc

Oh

About collusion not being a crime.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/collusion-crime-it-may-not-matter-why-manafort-s-trial-ncna896511

Quote

Most legal experts would probably agree with Giuliani on this point — collusion, in the legal sense, is generally only applicable in antitrust cases. Meanwhile, the prosecutors in the Manafort case have told the judge that they may not even utter the word Russia in what is expected to be a three-week trial. Instead, they are focusing on Manafort’s financial crimes, including bank fraud and tax evasion.

I think I just heard a thousand bubbles pop.....

Do you really need me to post the USC code defining conspiracy again?


Rush, how about you lay out your point right here. you keep flip flopping. I have a couple questions for you.

1. Did Hilary Clinton collude with the Russians.

2. Is collusion a crime?

[SkyDekker 1,122]

rushmc

Oh

About collusion not being a crime.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/collusion-crime-it-may-not-matter-why-manafort-s-trial-ncna896511

Quote

Most legal experts would probably agree with Giuliani on this point — collusion, in the legal sense, is generally only applicable in antitrust cases. Meanwhile, the prosecutors in the Manafort case have told the judge that they may not even utter the word Russia in what is expected to be a three-week trial. Instead, they are focusing on Manafort’s financial crimes, including bank fraud and tax evasion.

I think I just heard a thousand bubbles pop.....

So when you constantly said collusion is not a crime. What you really meant was collusion is only a crime in antitrust cases. Makes sense.

Never mind that collusion is being used in a colloquial manner, relating to a number of actual crimes.

[DanG 1]

Killing is not a crime, homicide is.
Stealing is not a crime, larceny is.
Collusion is not a crime, conspiracy is.

The Trump team is being investigated for conspiracy.

- Dan G

[SkyDekker 1,122]

DanG

Killing is not a crime, homicide is.
Stealing is not a crime, larceny is.
Collusion is not a crime, conspiracy is.

The Trump team is being investigated for conspiracy.

I posted something very similar a few weeks ago. I am pretty sure it is lost on Trump supporters though.

[kallend 1,623]

A new CNN poll finds:

Only 34 percent of Americans approve of Trump’s handling of the Russia investigation, vs. 55 percent who disapprove.
58 percent say this is a serious matter that should be investigated, vs. only 37 percent who think it’s mainly an effort to discredit Trump.
56 percent say Trump has interfered with the investigation, vs. only 38 percent who say he has not.
Only 37 percent say the things Trump has said publicly about the investigation are true, vs. 56 percent who say they are false.
70 percent say Trump should testify to Mueller, vs. only 25 percent who say he should not.
57 percent say Trump knew about contacts between his campaign operatives and Russians, vs. only 36 percent who say he did not.

Trump is losing every single public argument about the Mueller probe. His latest, in a tweet citing Judicial Watch, is that the firing of former FBI agent Peter Strzok, who authored texts critical of Trump, shows that the “fundamental underpinnings of the investigation were corrupt.” This is a lie: The inspector general’s report into all this actually found that the FBI decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton was untainted by bias or politics, completely laying waste to Trump’s narrative.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,400]

>His latest, in a tweet citing Judicial Watch, is that the firing of former FBI agent Peter Strzok . . .

So much for supporting the "rank and file" FBI.

[LeeroyJenkins 2]

billvon

>His latest, in a tweet citing Judicial Watch, is that the firing of former FBI agent Peter Strzok . . .

So much for supporting the "rank and file" FBI.

One thing I find funny, Trump supporters that complain about bias in the FBI seem to always assume it is political bias. It is like they burry their heads in the sand so they don't have to acknowledge the chance that the bias is professional.

[billvon 2,400]

There hasn't been much coverage of this arrest and upcoming trial (what with all the coverage of the reality TV show that is our presidency) but it's going to be pretty significant with respect to investigating Russia's attempts to influence our elections.

=============
Feds Add Expert on Weapons Trafficking and Sanctions to Team Prosecuting Maria Butina
August 11, 2018
The Trace

The Department of Justice has added an attorney with expertise in weapons export and sanctions laws to the team prosecuting Maria Butina, the accused Russian agent whose handler was entwined with Kremlin-connected arms manufacturers banned from doing business in the United States.

The addition of Will Mackie brings to three the number of prosecutors pursuing the case against Butina. She faces charges of conspiracy and acting as an unregistered foreign agent for what authorities say was her attempt to gain political influence through the National Rifle Association, part of a broader Russian campaign to install Donald Trump in the White House.

Mackie, an assistant U.S. attorney in the Justice Department’s National Security Division, has spent years prosecuting violations of U.S. sanctions and international arms embargoes. In 2008, he helped win a guilty verdict in the high-profile case against John Reece Roth, a University of Tennessee professor who passed secret military data to research assistants from China and Iran. More recently, Mackie was involved in the controversial prosecution of Marc Turi, an Arizona arms dealer who sought to sell sniper rifles, machine guns, and other weapons to Libyan rebels during the uprising against Muammar el-Qaddafi.
=================

[nigel99 143]

rushmc

Nothing about Trump collusion during the Manafort trial.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/08/trump-manafort-trial-766439

But I know you like the Political spin. But even they posted this

Quote

Even if the core subject of Mueller’s probe — potential collusion with the Kremlin — never came up, the references were a reminder that the case has implications that go far beyond two Republican lobbyist-consultants who concealed the fortune they made assisting a Ukrainian politician years before joining Trump’s campaign.

But I do not blame you for trying.


As for the FBI
I trust the rank and file. Thie4 voices will be heard at some date.

Marc I honestly don’t get it. You realise that the article and even the extract you posted go against your viewpoint and don’t back it up?

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

nigel99

Marc I honestly don’t get it. You realise that the article and even the extract you posted go against your viewpoint and don’t back it up?

I honestly don't get it.

Why does no one seem to understand that he doesn't care?

He won't answer your questions.
He won't provide proof for his ludicrous assertions (which doesn't exist in the first place).
He won't post in a rational manner, or even in decent English (unless it serves his needs).
He posts links where the headline sort of matches the point he wants to push, but doesn't care if the actual text in the article agrees or disagrees.

As was noted by Billvon somewhere recently, he's in favor of anything that opposes the Democrats. It doesn't have to be true. If someone says it and it makes the Ds look bad, he repeats it.
Provide proof that he's wrong and he ignores it.
Ask for proof and he ignores it.

He refuses to acknowledge anything that makes Trump or the Rs look bad. He simply ignores it.

The repeated demands by many for him to back up his claims are foolish. He ignores them and keeps posting his garbage.

WHY does anyone treat him as if he is going to do anything different?

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[LeeroyJenkins 2]

Hey Rush,

Can we have a civil debate about something closely related to Trump-Russia? You can pick the subject.

LJ

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

LeeroyJenkins

Hey Rush,

Can we have a civil debate about something closely related to Trump-Russia? You can pick the subject.

LJ

Can you find one instance where he did that?

One.

Anytime in the past, say 3 years.

Where he actually answered questions and responded in a rational manner, where he provided at least some sort of backup for his assertions?

Betcha can't.

See my post above yours.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[ryoder 1,384]

wolfriverjoe

I honestly don't get it.
Why does no one seem to understand that he doesn't care?

Why does anyone waste their time responding to him? I stopped reading his drivel a couple of years ago when it became clear that he was incapable of posting anything worth reading. If I want to understand the alt-right, I can go to any of their websites where the spelling and syntax is actually correct.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.