• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Firm behind dubious Trump-Russia dossier paid multiple journalists for work

yankintx said:
It must really burn you Adorables up knowing that if your Dear Leader had not fired Comey, there would be no Mueller.:lamo Karma is a what?
Click to expand...

Seeing Karma lost Hillary the election, I would call it a bitch.

Seeing as Comey got himself fired and Mueller hasn't got that good of a reputation either. I wouldn't hold out hope for him after this smear attempt ends.
 
joG said:
Investigation isn't in itself miscarriage of justice. As a matter if fact, it is actually heartening that the investigation is taking place. The screechy hysteria that the media and liberal rabble are carrying on with, is not the justice system.
Click to expand...
No it is not, though one could equate it to the death rattles of social order.
 
code1211 said:
What is the actual proof that Trump Colluded with the Russians?
Click to expand...

What is your explanation for all the clandestine contacts that were subsequently lied about? When Trump said he "loved Wikileaks" do you know that he knew he was really saying he loved Putin? The Trump campaign knew about Russia's "dirt on Clinton" long before our own intelligence services knew who was hacking.
 
iguanaman said:
What is your explanation for all the clandestine contacts that were subsequently lied about? When Trump said he "loved Wikileaks" do you know that he knew he was really saying he loved Putin? The Trump campaign knew about Russia's "dirt on Clinton" long before our own intelligence services knew who was hacking.
Click to expand...

Honi soit qui mal y pense, I should say.
 
lurchadams said:
Unlike the jerkoff Ken Starr team, Mueller is a professional and doesn't leak his information. You're just going to have to wait, like the rest of us.
Click to expand...

What is the proof that there was collusion with the Russians to issue advertising via our media outlets?

What is the statute that defines this as illegal?

Who, outside of the media outlets that carried the adds and entires committed this collusion?

Why isn't Zuckerman already in jail?
 
upsideguy said:
Its not the main case against Trump. The dossier could be completely bogus and it means nothing. The case against Trump will stand on its own, beginning with obstruction of justice which has NOTHING to do with the dossier.
Click to expand...

Since Comey admitted in court under oath that there was no obstruction that will be a hard case to prove but
You can ignore that as well.

Moreover, the fact that they commissioned many journalist to participate actually bodes well for its credibility. For example, Mueller currently has about two dozen attorney's and accountants with deep white-collar crimes prosecution experience.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. If I pay a bunch of shills to come up with something how is that credible? More so when they break the same laws that they are accusing trump of. Seems a bit hypocritical only we have evidence they broke the same laws.


My guess is that will lead to a more thorough, complete and likely damning report than if, say only one guy were on the case.
Click to expand...

Yes we should investigate why clinton and the dnc were paying Russians for evidence on trump.
You know the same thing they were accusing trump of doing. I would like to hear their
Excuses.
 
haymarket said:
They are investigating the Russian interference in our election and those who did it and helped make it possible..

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...bert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

WHAT IS THE CRIME?

I don't think you are understanding what I'm asking. If there is a body of a person who was formerly alive laying in the road cold and dead riddled with bullets, that is evidence of a crime.

In our legal system, there are a variety of actions that are mandated and variety that are prohibited. MOST actions are simply considered to be courteous or rude and they are regulated by community acceptance.

A CRIME is something that is well defined and previously determined to be illegal.

In the case of a murder in Indiana, that Crime is defined in IC 35-41-1-1.

WHAT WAS THE CRIME that is being investigated.


http://www.in.gov/ctb/files/appendix1.pdf
<snip>
App. 101.9.1
Criminal Jurisdiction of the State of Indiana
IC 35-41-1-1. (a) As used in this section, "Indiana" includes:
(1) The area within the boundaries of the state of Indiana, as set forth in Article 14, Section 1 of the Constitution of
the State of Indiana;
(2) The portion of the Ohio River on which Indiana possesses concurrent jurisdiction with the state of Kentucky under
Article 14, Section 2 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana; and
(3) The portion of the Wabash River on which Indiana possesses concurrent jurisdiction with the state of Illinois
under Article 14, Section 2 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana.
(b) A person may be convicted under Indiana law of an offense if:
(1) Either the conduct that is an element of the offense, the result that is an element, or both, occur in Indiana;
(2) Conduct occurring outside Indiana is sufficient under Indiana law to constitute an attempt to commit an offense
in Indiana;
(3) Conduct occurring outside Indiana is sufficient under Indiana law to constitute a conspiracy to commit an offense
in Indiana, and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurs in Indiana;
(4) Conduct occurring in Indiana establishes complicity in the commission of, or an attempt or conspiracy to commit,
an offense in another jurisdiction that also is an offense under Indiana law; or
(5) The offense consists of the omission to perform a duty imposed by Indiana law with respect to domicile,
residence, or a relationship to a person, thing, or transaction in Indiana.
(c) When the offense is homicide, either the death of the victim or bodily impact causing death constitutes a result under
subsection (b)(1). If the body of a homicide victim is found in Indiana, it is presumed that the result occurred in Indiana.
<snip>
 
ludin said:
Since Comey admitted in court under oath that there was no obstruction that will be a hard case to prove but
You can ignore that as well.


No it doesn't. If I pay a bunch of shills to come up with something how is that credible? More so when they break the same laws that they are accusing trump of. Seems a bit hypocritical only we have evidence they broke the same laws.




Yes we should investigate why clinton and the dnc were paying Russians for evidence on trump.
You know the same thing they were accusing trump of doing. I would like to hear their
Excuses.
Click to expand...

Did he do that?? Let's see your source on that, and then provide clips, in context.
 
Deuce said:
If your only news sources are Breitbart and Fox News, I can see how your "as far as I can tell" situation would happen,
Click to expand...



By your post, I assume you have no idea.

As with most of your posts, makes me wonder why you bothered to waste your time.

At least we've now heard from the mob.
 
RAMOSS said:
Did he do that?? Let's see your source on that, and then provide clips, in context.
Click to expand...

Mr. Comey said Mr. Trump’s exact statement to him was that he “hoped” the FBI would drop its probe into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. The FBI director said that while Mr. Trump did not order him to drop the investigation, “I took it as a direction.”
“You may take it as a direction, but that’s not what he said,” countered Sen. James E. Risch, Idaho Republican.
“Correct,” Mr. Comey concurred.
“Do you know of anyone that’s ever been charged for hoping something?” Mr. Risch said.
“I don’t, as I sit here,” Mr. Comey said.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/8/james-comey-admits-trump-not-explicit-on-ending-fl/

He evidently didn't take it as a directive as the investigation continued and still continues.
 
joG said:
Investigation isn't in itself miscarriage of justice. As a matter if fact, it is actually heartening that the investigation is taking place. The screechy hysteria that the media and liberal rabble are carrying on with, is not the justice system.
Click to expand...

You need some WINE with that WHINE? If you don't like the screechy media turn it off, that is actually something YOU have control over. Hit the off button, then we won't have to here your daily rants about those evil libruls.
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
That's an interesting concession. I thought Trump was never under investigation at anytime for anything. That's what he says anyway.

The investigation is about how and to what extent Russia influenced the 2016 election. Anyone crying "witch hunt" is irrationally opposing a legitimate and important inquiry.

The current president has nothing to do with any of this - unless he was involved.
Click to expand...

WHO is being investigated?

Has Hillary been called to testify? Hillary's aides?

This IS a witch hunt conducted by the political establishment that is upset because all of their own were defeated by an outsider.

Lancelot defeats in turn all of the knights of the Table Round. The cryer in the town square announces that skulduggery is afoot in each and every defeat.

In the meantime, the general public has started to grasp the fact that the town cryer is on the take and disregards the announcements.

In reviewing the world, all we need do is view the real world and ask this question: "If this is true, what else must be true?"
 
Simon W. Moon said:
It's not necessary for a crime to have been committed for an investigation to take place.
Investigations sometimes reveal that no crime has been committed.
What is necessary is sufficient reason to believe that a crime or crimes may have occurred.

e.g.
You start off investigating a dead body. The crime may be 1st degree murder, it may be manslaughter, it maybe negligent homicide, the crime may not exist at all.
You discover the crime (or lack thereof) via investigation.

Mueller's investigation has already discovered multiple serious crimes.
Additionally, American intelligence agencies concur that Russia meddled in the US election.
Friendly foreign intelligence services also concur that Russia meddled in our American election.

You may not find serious crimes and foreigners ****ing with our election to be worthy of investigation, but that's not the same as these things not existing.
Click to expand...

In your example, the investigation starts with a dead body. THAT in itself indicates the crime. Homicide.

WHAT IS THE CRIME THAT STARTED THIS INVESTIGATION?

If them gol dang furners bought ads on Facebook, it seems like Zuckerberg was more complicit than Trump.

Is he in jail yet? Is he under indictment? The folks that sold the ad space?

C'mon, man!

This is a witch hunt and it is underway because the establishment is outraged that Trump has still another address to receive mail.
 
Angelus said:
Only Mueller, his lawyer, and a grand jury now that. once the grand jury has decided whether of not to indict then the suspects will go to trial or not.
Click to expand...

Ah-ha!

So the reason to investigate anyone is only the need to convict that person of anything.

No crime need be committed. The subject of the investigation only need be reviled.

Sounds like the Jim Crow Laws come back to life.

What you did is legal unless we say it's not.

Sheesh!
 
danarhea said:
No proof that Trump himself colluded with the Russians. But there is already a guilty plea from his campaign that they did indeed collude. Let's see how far up this goes, and it's my bet it goes far up.
Click to expand...

Can you link to that plea?
 
iguanaman said:
What is your explanation for all the clandestine contacts that were subsequently lied about? When Trump said he "loved Wikileaks" do you know that he knew he was really saying he loved Putin? The Trump campaign knew about Russia's "dirt on Clinton" long before our own intelligence services knew who was hacking.
Click to expand...

You have interesting fantasies. My explanation for anything during a political campaign is that the interested parties are trying to win.

IN THE EVENT that Trump knew about "Russia's "dirt on Clinton" long before our own intelligence services knew", says far more stuff about our "Get Smart" spies than it says about Trump.

What is your view on the refusal of the DNC to allow the FBI to examine their "hacked" servers?

This sounds a little shady to me. They first report that a crime was committed then they stand in the way of the investigation into the crime that they say was committed.

Shall we say they "obstructed" the investigation or is that just too accurate? Wouldja believe destroyed evidence?


 
Last edited:
code1211 said:
WHAT IS THE CRIME?
Click to expand...

Is your problem not being able to read simple English when it is written to you or your refusal to comprehend what is written to you?

I told you the purpose of the Mueller investigation and even provided the order in post 36 which established it which provides the letter from
Rod Rosenstein’s appointing Mueller Special Counsel in which it explains this in detail.



APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS
By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian govemmenfs efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:
(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed t() serve as Specia] Counsel for the United States
Department of Justice.
(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is
authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters. (d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are
applicable to the Special Counsel.
Click to expand...

What problem do you seem to cling to causing you to refuse to comprehend somethings simple?
 
Last edited:
Hillary campaign / DNC paid a foreign national (Steele) for Oppo research on a US presidential candidate, whether directly or indirectly, I don't think it matter.

I do believe this is against election laws.
 
code1211 said:
You have interesting fantasies.

IN THE EVENT that trump knew about "Russia's "dirt on Clinton" long before our own intelligence services knew", that says far more stuff about our "Get Smart" spies than it says about
Trump.

What is your view on the refusal of the DNC to allow the FBI to examine their "hacked" servers?

This sounds a little shady to me. They first report that a crime was committed then they stand in the way of the investigation into the crime that they say was committed.

Shall we say they "obstructed" the investigation or is that just too accurate?

Click to expand...

You don't suppose that the servers would have shown that Imran Awan (Wasserman Schultz IT Aide) was draining away emails and documents selling them to the highest bidder, do you?

I wonder if his access (DWS's access) included the DNC servers, would seem reasonable as she was DNC chair at the time.
 
haymarket said:
Is your problem not being able to read simple English when it is written to you or your refusal to comprehend what is written to you?

I told you the purpose of the Mueller investigation and even provided the order in post 36 which established it which provides the letter from
Rod Rosenstein’s appointing Mueller Special Counsel in which it explains this in detail.





What problem do you seem to cling to causing you to refuse to comprehend somethings simple?
Click to expand...

This is the testimony, then, that included that Trump was not being investigated AND that Hillary had committed so many violations? The statutes cited in your post only support the right of the government to conduct a witch hunt.

Again, what was the crime that the special counsel is investigating?

Is there a legal statute that is being pursued?

The FACT that a political witch hunt was put into motion by politicians does not seem to me to indicate that any particular law was broken.

Please cite the statue that was violated. I suspect that you cannot since there is none.

IF you can, then please do so and dispense with this deception you are pursuing.
 
code1211 said:
The lesson we learn from this is NOT that they made an honest mistake.
The lesson to we learned from this is that CBS abandoned normal and usual editorial practices to intentionally publish lies to mislead and deceive the weak minded.
This was corporately sponsored propaganda intentionally published to mislead for political purposes. IE: Propaganda There is no other description that is accurate.
Click to expand...

That CBS occasionally slips, and corrects their mistake compared to Fox news that literally coordinates message with the White House as a matter of standard practice?

I do not believe you are serious about lessons learned.
 
eohrnberger said:
You don't suppose that the servers would have shown that Imran Awan (Wasserman Schultz IT Aide) was draining away emails and documents selling them to the highest bidder, do you?

I wonder if his access (DWS's access) included the DNC servers, would seem reasonable as she was DNC chair at the time.
Click to expand...

I guess we'll never know.

I think it's interesting that after a crime is reported, the FBI was obedient enough to follow their orders from the DNC to just drop the investigation.

This would make the skeptics among us question the loyalties of some that have sworn to defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

Now it's only a matter of how many skeptics there are in the US. They seem to reside in majorities in 2623 US counties out of 3112 total US counties, 84% of the nation's counties...

Mike Pence says Donald Trump won most counties by a Republican since Ronald Reagan | PolitiFact


XOhwW48KRAkxHx8zvh6XjE2LfcqXveTY1nfNTOhSJVSHwHruQBe2PeVDh5L4W03Ci74dt5SS7OwOK0bWnFOgzBOMMSAmvxmwuGaI-vQMxes3_fnR_hsVTuIrxKAp9RWXm5biDX4j
 
Mach said:
That CBS occasionally slips, and corrects their mistake compared to Fox news that literally coordinates message with the White House as a matter of standard practice?

I do not believe you are serious about lessons learned.
Click to expand...

The FACT that the CBS News Division lied in this way involving their entire process is not disputable. It is a matter of record.

What you have posted is not only disputable, it is false.

Disagree? Post the evidence.
 
code1211 said:
This is the testimony, then, that included that Trump was not being investigated AND that Hillary had committed so many violations? The statutes cited in your post only support the right of the government to conduct a witch hunt.

Again, what was the crime that the special counsel is investigating?

Is there a legal statute that is being pursued?

The FACT that a political witch hunt was put into motion by politicians does not seem to me to indicate that any particular law was broken.

Please cite the statue that was violated. I suspect that you cannot since there is none.

IF you can, then please do so and dispense with this deception you are pursuing.
Click to expand...

Apparently, you falsely believe you have stumbled onto a right wing meme that appears to make you and other Trump apologists clever. You cling to this false premise that one must identify a specific crime complete with legal citation and language and then we pursue the person who committed that crime for this entire investigation to be legit.

That is absurd and ridiculous. It is merely the desperation of a hopeless Trump partisan trying to cast aspersions and doubts on the investigation which threatens to bring down his administration and that is what the right wing is deathly afraid of. So they oppose the investigation and bring up absolutely senseless premises like you continue to do here with the ridiculous "but what is the crime" childish nonsense that appears over and over and over and over in your argument.

There was an offense against the USA and its people and that offense was a foreign power interfering with our election on the behalf of one candidate. Not only did it happen here, but that interference has happened in other nations as well. And we are told it will happen again unless something is done about it.

So the office of the Attorney General of the Unites States has used their legal powers to order a complete and thorough investigation into this interference by Russia. And in carrying out that investigation they may well uncover specific crimes and bring charges against those accused of committing them.

What part of this do you fail to comprehend?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom