RussiaGate

[Elixir]

What you all seem to forget is that there were third-party people at that meeting.

No worries - five other meetings between Pootey and Shitgibbon had only translators. An hour-long meeting with only Pootey's translator. Shitgibbon confiscated the translator's notes on at least one occasion, to keep them secret - even from his own senior officials. Who does that?
(HINT: criminals and spies)

The interpreter for one. There's no doubt Mueller questioned them all

Anything else you want to tell us about who has been questioned, what was said in the questioning and -

why nobody was indicted for it.

So - why was that?

The meeting was innocuous.

Oh - so you were there. Got it.
Or maybe shit happened that was so very sensitive that even now we don't know about it. We (not you - you knew all along, since you know of all things done by the FBI) just learned yesterday that even before Mueller, Cheato was under investigation as a Russian agent.

Since you were there, and know all about everything the FBI has ever learned, can you please give us the "I'm not a trumpsucker" version of what occurred at THESE FIVE MEETINGS that Cheato tried to conceal?

 

[ZiprHead]

MSN - Reprinting from WaPo - Here are 18 reasons Trump could be a Russian asset

 

[Testy Calibrate]

It seems pretty clear that he is a Russian asset.

 

[JohnG]

It seems pretty clear that he is a Russian asset.

I always thought of him as an unwitting stooge. He seems too one dimensional in personality to be any kind of "secret agent". It seems crazy to think the US elected a Russian asset but I admit it does look that way when you think of all his pro-Russian words and actions, and of course the fact that they participated in his campaign.

The recent report from the NYT (that he was being investigated as a Russian asset) struck me as strange because I thought that was what this whole investigation was about from the beginning. The NYT has been an oddball in the whole Trump fiasco. Back in October 2016 they reported "No Clear Connection" and yes, the FBI wasn't publicly broadcasting the scope of the investigation at that time, the headline made it sound as if there was nothing to see here. There was, however, a lot of reason to believe at that time there was something rotten happening.

Now, in 2018, the NYT are reporting that something was going on? After all the indictments? Were they trying to appear unbiased but now they feel safe in reporting that Trump is going down?

 

[barbos]

MSN - Reprinting from WaPo - Here are 18 reasons Trump could be a Russian asset

17 agencies, 18 reasons.....
Here is one reason for you, Hillary Clinton was rabidly anti-russian, hence Trump and his gang had to be rabidly pro-russian.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

MSN - Reprinting from WaPo - Here are 18 reasons Trump could be a Russian asset

17 agencies, 18 reasons.....
Here is one reason for you, Hillary Clinton was rabidly anti-russian, hence Trump and his gang had to be rabidly pro-russian.

Clinton was status quo when it came to Russia. If you wish to argue that status quo is rabidly anti-russian, then in Trump the russians have one of their own, a person who has no regard for democratic institutions or the rule of law. Trump only wishes to be richer and richer, everything else is unimportant. The russians obviously perceive this to be the case and are using him.

 

[barbos]

MSN - Reprinting from WaPo - Here are 18 reasons Trump could be a Russian asset

17 agencies, 18 reasons.....
Here is one reason for you, Hillary Clinton was rabidly anti-russian, hence Trump and his gang had to be rabidly pro-russian.

Clinton was status quo when it came to Russia. If you wish to argue that status quo is rabidly anti-russian, then in Trump the russians have one of their own, a person who has no regard for democratic institutions or the rule of law. Trump only wishes to be richer and richer, everything else is unimportant. The russians obviously perceive this to be the case and are using him.

Yes, I believe status quo is rabidly anti-russian and Hillary has demonstrated that all she really wanted is to become a president, she did not care for any policies being right/wrong, Russia was merely a prop for her. As for russians, we have already talked about it. You are seeing things which are not there, they merely wanted to send future POTUS Clinton a signal that they really don't like her. Trump was expected to lose.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

MSN - Reprinting from WaPo - Here are 18 reasons Trump could be a Russian asset

17 agencies, 18 reasons.....
Here is one reason for you, Hillary Clinton was rabidly anti-russian, hence Trump and his gang had to be rabidly pro-russian.

Hillary Clinton was not rabidly anti-Russian. I am sure she was against the authoritarian regime because of its authoritarianism but not rabidly against the Russian people themselves. Besides that, there is nothing connecting Trump's position to Clinton's. He does NOT have to take an opposite position on every issue. Republicans and Democrats often have agreement on issues.

 

[barbos]

MSN - Reprinting from WaPo - Here are 18 reasons Trump could be a Russian asset

17 agencies, 18 reasons.....
Here is one reason for you, Hillary Clinton was rabidly anti-russian, hence Trump and his gang had to be rabidly pro-russian.

Hillary Clinton was not rabidly anti-Russian. I am sure she was against the authoritarian regime because of its authoritarianism but not rabidly against the Russian people themselves.

Of course she was not against russian people, that would be politically stupid. But the fact is, she is a neocon, and all this "authoritarianism" talks is just convenient excuse. And again she really thought that it would make her more popular.

Besides that, there is nothing connecting Trump's position to Clinton's. He does NOT have to take an opposite position on every issue. Republicans and Democrats often have agreement on issues.

He absolutely has to take opposite position on important issues, he is Trump.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

MSN - Reprinting from WaPo - Here are 18 reasons Trump could be a Russian asset

17 agencies, 18 reasons.....
Here is one reason for you, Hillary Clinton was rabidly anti-russian, hence Trump and his gang had to be rabidly pro-russian.

barbos is still unfamiliar with how proper democratic nations run things. So he is unfamiliar to the concept that when the FBI and CIA start seeing red flags regarding the Trump campaign and Russia, this is an unusual thing. In fact, it wasn't even the FBI or CIA that noticed it first, it was our western allies in Europe and Australia.

Since we started hearing about it in public, we know the names of the people who were at these meetings (including at Trump Tower!) and there are indictments and/or convictions on the books.

 

[poster]

But....

Former FBI attorney Lisa Page has reportedly told a joint committee of the House of Representatives that when FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok texted her on May 19, 2017 saying there was “no big there there,” he meant there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

It was clearly a bad-luck day for Strzok, when on Friday the 13th this month Page gave her explanation of the text to the House Judiciary and Oversight/Government Reform Committees and in effect threw her lover, Strzok, under the bus.

Strzok’s apparent admission to Page about there being “no big there there” was reported on Friday by John Solomon in the Opinion section of The Hill based on multiple sources who he said were present during Page’s closed door interview.

Strzok’s text did not come out of the blue. For the previous ten months he and his FBI subordinates had been trying every-which-way to ferret out some “there” — preferably a big “there” — but had failed miserably. If Solomon’s sources are accurate, it is appearing more and more likely that there was nothing left for them to do but to make it up out of whole cloth, with the baton then passed to special counsel Robert Mueller.

The “no there there” text came just two days after former FBI Director James Comey succeeded in getting his friend Mueller appointed to investigate the alleged collusion that Strzok was all but certain wasn’t there.

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/07/23/moon-strzok-no-more-lisa-page-spills-the-beans/

 

[barbos]

MSN - Reprinting from WaPo - Here are 18 reasons Trump could be a Russian asset

17 agencies, 18 reasons.....
Here is one reason for you, Hillary Clinton was rabidly anti-russian, hence Trump and his gang had to be rabidly pro-russian.

barbos is still unfamiliar with how proper democratic nations run things. So he is unfamiliar to the concept that when the FBI and CIA start seeing red flags regarding the Trump campaign and Russia, this is an unusual thing. In fact, it wasn't even the FBI or CIA that noticed it first, it was our western allies in Europe and Australia.
.

How would I know what is usual and what is unusual? I looked at the Yeltsin reelection campaign in the 90s and see that it was filled with americans. Then I look at the ~2012 Duma elections and see leaked video of a candidate bragging about her links to ....... Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not to mention being funded by...... big Russia lover John McCain.
So what is usual or usual?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But....

Former FBI attorney Lisa Page has reportedly told a joint committee of the House of Representatives that when FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok texted her on May 19, 2017 saying there was “no big there there,” he meant there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

And since then, Mueller uncovered Manafort conspiring with a Russian Intel guy, which would be the big there there.

 

[poster]

But....

Former FBI attorney Lisa Page has reportedly told a joint committee of the House of Representatives that when FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok texted her on May 19, 2017 saying there was “no big there there,” he meant there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

And since then, Mueller uncovered Manafort conspiring with a Russian Intel guy, which would be the big there there.

Keep dreaming.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And since then,

Kinda like a creationist quote-mining a 1948 biology textbook as having significant holes in the theory...

 

[JohnG]

But....

Former FBI attorney Lisa Page has reportedly told a joint committee of the House of Representatives that when FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok texted her on May 19, 2017 saying there was “no big there there,” he meant there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

It was clearly a bad-luck day for Strzok, when on Friday the 13th this month Page gave her explanation of the text to the House Judiciary and Oversight/Government Reform Committees and in effect threw her lover, Strzok, under the bus.

Strzok’s apparent admission to Page about there being “no big there there” was reported on Friday by John Solomon in the Opinion section of The Hill based on multiple sources who he said were present during Page’s closed door interview.

Strzok’s text did not come out of the blue. For the previous ten months he and his FBI subordinates had been trying every-which-way to ferret out some “there” — preferably a big “there” — but had failed miserably. If Solomon’s sources are accurate, it is appearing more and more likely that there was nothing left for them to do but to make it up out of whole cloth, with the baton then passed to special counsel Robert Mueller.

The “no there there” text came just two days after former FBI Director James Comey succeeded in getting his friend Mueller appointed to investigate the alleged collusion that Strzok was all but certain wasn’t there.

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/07/23/moon-strzok-no-more-lisa-page-spills-the-beans/

That doesn’t cancel out the indictments, and the recent revelation that Manafort gave polling data to the Russians, and a large amount of other evidence including motives.

You remind me of a 911 truther. Find an anomaly, and there’s always an anomaly in a complicated situation, and blow it out of proportion, ignoring mountains of evidence suggesting otherwise.

 

[poster]

But....

Former FBI attorney Lisa Page has reportedly told a joint committee of the House of Representatives that when FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok texted her on May 19, 2017 saying there was “no big there there,” he meant there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

It was clearly a bad-luck day for Strzok, when on Friday the 13th this month Page gave her explanation of the text to the House Judiciary and Oversight/Government Reform Committees and in effect threw her lover, Strzok, under the bus.

Strzok’s apparent admission to Page about there being “no big there there” was reported on Friday by John Solomon in the Opinion section of The Hill based on multiple sources who he said were present during Page’s closed door interview.

Strzok’s text did not come out of the blue. For the previous ten months he and his FBI subordinates had been trying every-which-way to ferret out some “there” — preferably a big “there” — but had failed miserably. If Solomon’s sources are accurate, it is appearing more and more likely that there was nothing left for them to do but to make it up out of whole cloth, with the baton then passed to special counsel Robert Mueller.

The “no there there” text came just two days after former FBI Director James Comey succeeded in getting his friend Mueller appointed to investigate the alleged collusion that Strzok was all but certain wasn’t there.

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/07/23/moon-strzok-no-more-lisa-page-spills-the-beans/

That doesn’t cancel out the indictments, and the recent revelation that Manafort gave polling data to the Russians, and a large amount of other evidence including motives.

You remind me of a 911 truther. Find an anomaly, and there’s always an anomaly in a complicated situation, and blow it out of proportion, ignoring mountains of evidence suggesting otherwise.

Right!

 

[barbos]

But....

Former FBI attorney Lisa Page has reportedly told a joint committee of the House of Representatives that when FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok texted her on May 19, 2017 saying there was “no big there there,” he meant there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

It was clearly a bad-luck day for Strzok, when on Friday the 13th this month Page gave her explanation of the text to the House Judiciary and Oversight/Government Reform Committees and in effect threw her lover, Strzok, under the bus.

Strzok’s apparent admission to Page about there being “no big there there” was reported on Friday by John Solomon in the Opinion section of The Hill based on multiple sources who he said were present during Page’s closed door interview.

Strzok’s text did not come out of the blue. For the previous ten months he and his FBI subordinates had been trying every-which-way to ferret out some “there” — preferably a big “there” — but had failed miserably. If Solomon’s sources are accurate, it is appearing more and more likely that there was nothing left for them to do but to make it up out of whole cloth, with the baton then passed to special counsel Robert Mueller.

The “no there there” text came just two days after former FBI Director James Comey succeeded in getting his friend Mueller appointed to investigate the alleged collusion that Strzok was all but certain wasn’t there.

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/07/23/moon-strzok-no-more-lisa-page-spills-the-beans/

Well, 2017 was a long time ago, it's possible Mueller found that "there". But judging from this last extension I conclude that there is no "smoking gun" just lots and lots of thin smoke they keep collecting. Latest leak about Manafort trying to sell polling info to his Ukrainian oligarch friend does not look like a collusion but an attempt to solve financial problems. Yes, Russians were snooping around but so was half of the world starting with Israel. for example Ukrainian president was trying to get to Hillary, where is investigation about that?
By the way, remember that ukrainian dirt on Manafort? Well, ukrainians now admit some/most was fake.

 

[Elixir]

Manafort trying to sell polling info to his Ukrainian oligarch friend does not look like a collusion but an attempt to solve financial problems.

Solving financial problems through collusion.
THAT is what it looks like.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And since then, Mueller uncovered Manafort conspiring with a Russian Intel guy, which would be the big there there.

Keep dreaming.

I love how your persona went from leftist to anti-Russian investigation poster with little thought.

Also, I sure the heck don't want Trump guilty of such a crime. The idea that we have a compromised President should frighten all Americans.