Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_itz7psb wrote

Wow! Got a few Republicans in CT pretending they didn't just spend four years tripping over themselves to fawn at a Russian asset that weaseld his way into our White House thanks to a massive foreign influence campaign that targeted gullible conservative voters.

And then we have Dinardis, Mary Sanders, Chai, and Pagliano, who appear to be openly supporting Vladimir Putin in their quest to undermine American democracy.

8

Mike-El t1_itzkjtj wrote

Oh the fake Russian collusion made up by Hillary…

12

flatdanny t1_iu0m7fy wrote

Someone else who never read the Mueller report

10

ShredInTheWoods t1_itzqlyl wrote

I’ve heard people reference this before but I don’t know much about it. Can you tell me more or do you have a good source?

6

ShredInTheWoods t1_iu17o6m wrote

From the Bloomberg article: “Still, other connections between Trump and Russia turned out to be true, as outlined in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report. For example, Trump campaign officials including Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort met with a group of Russians at Trump Tower on June 9, 2016, after Don Jr. had been told by an intermediary that they had dirt on Clinton that was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”

Trump also publicly encouraged Russia to “find” Clinton’s missing emails. “

I wouldn’t put it past Hillary to send anything even potentially damning about Trump to the media while actively in an election against him. But just because Hillary didn’t have hard proof and pushed a darker narrative than was proven, doesn’t mean Trump didn’t collude.

4

vorpalrobot t1_itzrc2b wrote

I think it was sarcasm

−3

ShredInTheWoods t1_itzxetj wrote

Based on their post history in r/the_Donald, I doubt it. Just wanted to hear them out.

−1

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_iu0ng02 wrote

This link doesn't have anything to do with Russia.

3

beazneaz t1_iu0vbeb wrote

Lol how do you figure?

1

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_iu0yel8 wrote

I replied to this nonsense elsewhere in depth. And as a matter of fact, it's not even that deep too deep for you though I guess.

2

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_iu0nko2 wrote

It's fake if maybe you are dumb and gullible but it absolutely is real and did happen, and there is no dispute within the global intelligence and diplomatic communities.

If you weren't dense or born yesterday, you could have watched it unfold in real time in 2016 as I did.

4

Mike-El t1_iu0r4hy wrote

That’s rich…Hillary supporter calling someone else gullible.

−2

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_iu0z2cu wrote

I replied to this nonsense elsewhere in depth. In short: come out of your bubble, turn off the outrage media, and actually read some nonfiction.

2

Mike-El t1_iu0zliv wrote

Outrage media, we talking CNN, MSNBC here? The ones that were outraged over every little thing Trump did or didn’t do, yet somehow give the current brain dead president a pass? People bitched and mined for 4 years (Hillary still does), and yet have the audacity to tell anyone who supports Trump they shouldn’t complain or listen to the non biased news. Sure buddy.

0

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_iu27699 wrote

No talking anything that has idiots talking at a table. That's not news. You don't listen to news.

You're also not on the other side of a two sided coin.

You are brainwashed and your side, being as it is anti democracy, is a national security threat.

2

gohabssaydre t1_itz8ex4 wrote

Holy shit - the Green Party answers are comedic gold. Russian shills.

5

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_iu0nur7 wrote

It's a shame too because the green party used to stand for something important and played a critical role in presidential electoral politics.

But you are spot-on that it has been co-opted by the Russians.

3

gohabssaydre t1_iu1zg16 wrote

It’s so crazy - honestly couldn’t believe the answers I was reading

0

beazneaz t1_iu09r4i wrote

Who is John Durham? Do you have any idea?

1

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_iu0vy9o wrote

>Who is John Durham? Do you have any idea?

I know they don't cover it during the daytime talk radio about John Durham and the actual sham investigation he is running, and how he is zero for two in federal criminal trials while the legitimate federal prosecutor's bar has a 99% conviction rate, but let's get real.

It seems like it's you who doesn't know who John Durham is or what he's charged with investigating, because it is not relevant whatsoever to the undisputed findings of the Mueller report.

Anyone who says otherwise is simply lying, as was the disgraced former attorney general and political hack, Bill Barr, who made Durham's sham appointment from the get go.

Actual, career investigators with DOJOIG (who is that? do you have any idea?) and not political yes men, investigated the bullshit conspiracies you heard about on the radio, and what did they find?

>. We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI's decision to seek FISA authority on Carter Page.

>. The FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane...after its receipt of information from a Friendly Foreign Government (FFG) reporting that...Trump campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos "suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs. Clinton (and President Obama)." [B]ased on the FFG information, "this investigation is being opened to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign are witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia."

>. We did not find information in FBI or Department ECs, emails, or other documents, or through witness testimony, indicating that any information other than the FFG information was relied upon to predicate the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. Although not mentioned in the EC... FBI officials involved in opening the investigation had reason to believe that Russia may have been connected to the Wikileaks disclosures that occurred earlier in July 2016, and were aware of information regarding Russia's efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections. These officials, though, did not become aware of Steele's election reporting until weeks later and we therefore determined that Steele's reports played no role in the Crossfire Hurricane opening.

>. We concluded that the FFG information, provided by a government the United States Intelligence Community (USIC) deems trustworthy, and describing a first-hand account from an FFG employee of a conversation with Papadopoulos, was sufficient to predicate the investigation. This information provided the FBI with an articulable factual basis that, if true, reasonably indicated activity constituting either a federal crime or a threat to national security, or both, may have occurred or may be occurring. For similar reasons, as we detail in Chapter Three, we concluded that the quantum of information articulated by the FBI to open the individual investigations on Papadopoulos, Page, Flynn, and Manafort in August 2016 was sufficient to satisfy the low threshold established by the Department and the FBI.

>. The fact that the FBI believed Steele had been retained to conduct political opposition research did not require the FBI, under either DOJ or FBI policy, to ignore his reporting. The FBI regularly receives information from individuals with potentially significant biases and motivations, including drug traffickers, convicted felons, and even terrorists. The FBI is not required to set aside such information; rather, FBI policy requires that it critically assess the information. We found that after receiving Steele's reporting, the Crossfire Hurricane team began those efforts in earnest.

>. We found that, while Lisa Page attended some of the discussions regarding the opening of the investigations, she did not play a role in the decision to open Crossfire Hurricane or the four individual cases. We further found that while Strzok was directly involved in the decisions to open Crossfire Hurricane and the four individual cases, he was not the sole, or even the highest-level, decision maker as to any of those matters.

>. Steele explained that it was his firm's practice to faithfully report everything a reliable source provided and not to withhold information because it was controversial. He denied "tailoring" his reporting to meet the needs of his clients and explained that doing so ultimately was not a good business practice because it would result in loss of reputation. We also asked Steele whether his research was "opposition research" and biased. He provided a similar response and explained that his firm would not be in business if it provided biased information. 216 Steele called the allegation that he was biased against Trump from the start "ridiculous. "217 He stated that if anything he was "favorably disposed" toward the Trump family before he began his research because he had visited a Trump family member at Trump Tower and "been friendly" with [the family member] for some years. He described their relationship as "personal" and said that he once gifted a family tartan from Scotland to the family member.

And my dummy friend, this whole trash controversy is about discrediting the whole investigation by discrediting the wiretap warrant.

You are so gullible, you don't even realize that even if the warrant application was total bullshit and politically motivated, once they got the warrant, they heard Trump's team doing a bunch of crimes.

They were charged. They pleaded guilty or were convicted. They did do those crimes. It's undisputed.

Again, way unlike Durham's special minority select prosecution status, which is zero for two with juries.

2

beazneaz t1_iu13gep wrote

Wow man, like, it’s a work day. Is this what you do professionally? Whether or not any action is taken, Durham’s Danchenko trial showed, at best, gross negligence by the fbi and Mueller. How many emails between fusion GPS and reporters? How many FBI whistleblowers does it take for you to question things? You’re presenting an excerpt from the DOJ, whom I’m accusing of political malfeasance, so it holds no water. You’re telling me that the DOJ, a wing of the executive branch, is pure and A-political. Wake up dude. These are the guys gunning for Julian Assange. Nothing is sacred

0