• 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!

Lisa Page testimony: Collusion still unproven by time of Mueller's special counsel appointment

Greenbeard said:


He was so secretive about it!
Click to expand...


Captain Adverse said:
You guys always pull this chestnut out. Despite the fact it is clear that he is asking IF they had hacked her old email server then to release those "missing/deleted" emails too and the media would reward them.

He never asked them to hack her. :doh
Click to expand...

Also, don't for get that when they trot this out, they also believe in time travel because Hillary's server had already been taken down and was in FBI custody when this statement was made.
 
Fishking said:
Also, don't for get that when they trot this out, they also believe in time travel because Hillary's server had already been taken down and was in FBI custody when this statement was made.
Click to expand...

...so?
 
Deuce said:
But but Hillary!!! :lamo
Click to expand...

I thought you cared about Russians colluding to influence our elections ? No ? Or are you just desperately clinging on to a fake narrative because you lack the emotional maturity to accept the results of a election that occurred almost 2 years ago ?
 
Fenton said:
Lisa Page testimony: Collusion still unproven by time of Mueller's special counsel appointment

Lisa Page testimony: Collusion still unproven by time of Mueller's special counsel appointment | Fox News


" More than nine months after the FBI opened its highly classified counterintelligence investigation into alleged coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, FBI lawyer Lisa Page said investigators still could not say whether there was collusion, according to a transcript of Page's recent closed-door deposition reviewed by Fox News.

"I think this represents that even as far as May 2017, we still couldn't answer the question," Page said.


I cannot provide the specifics of a confidential interview," Ratcliffe told Fox News when asked for comment. "But I can say that Lisa Page left me with the impression, based on her own words, that the lead investigator of the Russian collusion case, Peter Strzok, had found no evidence of collusion after nearly a year."


After a 9 month long FBI investigation that included covert surveillance and unmasking of the Trump campaign, and a coordinated leak campaign between the FBI, NSA and CIA and the media, the FBI found NO evidence of collusion. So obviously the next logical step was to appoint a SC.... :roll: Yes, the Mueller probe a partisan fueled witch hunt predicated on a fake conspiracy theory manufactured to justify the covert surveillance of a opposition candidate and camping prior to a election
Click to expand...

I hate to break it to you but the SC was not hired to find "collusion". He was hired to investigate Russian interference into the 2016 election, including investigating links and/or coordination between members of the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Russia interfered with the 2016 election AND there were numerous pre-existing and existing relationships between Russia and members of the Trump campaign. Moreover, Trump sought to impede this investigation by firing Comey.

It would have been national security mal-practice not to have continued the investigation by hiring a SC. If there is no collusion; that will be including in the report of the SC.

Its not clear why your panties are in a bunch here.
 
upsideguy said:
I hate to break it to you but the SC was not hired to find "collusion". He was hired to investigate Russian interference into the 2016 election, including investigating links and/or coordination between members of the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Russia interfered with the 2016 election AND there were numerous pre-existing and existing relationships between Russia and members of the Trump campaign. Moreover, Trump sought to impede this investigation by firing Comey.

It would have been national security mal-practice not to have continued the investigation by hiring a SC. If there is no collusion; that will be including in the report of the SC.

Its not clear why your panties are in a bunch here.
Click to expand...


Then why did Jeff Sessions recuse himself ??
 
Captain Adverse said:
Let me try to clear it up for you.

Trump's public statement was campaign rhetoric, openly made, and jokingly intended.

The Ohr/Strzok/Page et. al actions suggest a secret conspiracy to undermine a candidate who had a possible chance of winning an election, which was then allegedly activated in order to undermine that election result.

The first example is hyperbolic campaign rhetoric, the second example is a secret conspiracy to undermine/unseat a President.

Your side is claiming Russian's colluded to undermine the process in our election and seek to tie Trump with them for purposes of impeachment, yet your side refuses to see the comparison with an alleged cabal of American government agents trying to do the same thing.
Click to expand...

No, that Russian interfered, and Campaign members had contact with Russians that has has been proven. Who else if any worked with Russians, knowingly or not aware they were.
That is part of what we are waiting for.

Now pls carry on with your deep state theories
 
Captain Adverse said:
You guys always pull this chestnut out. Despite the fact it is clear that he is asking IF they had hacked her old email server then to release those "missing/deleted" emails too and the media would reward them.

He never asked them to hack her. :doh
Click to expand...

I see that you are unconcerned of selective leaking from an interview that was behind closed doors.
Whats about that you need proof you always cling to?
 
Fenton said:
I thought you cared about Russians colluding to influence our elections ? No ? Or are you just desperately clinging on to a fake narrative because you lack the emotional maturity to accept the results of a election that occurred almost 2 years ago ?
Click to expand...

Or are you just desperately trying to deflect any discussion of Trump's crimes? You didn't even respond to my point.
 
Fenton said:
Then why did Jeff Sessions recuse himself ??
Click to expand...

He recused himself because Sessions is one of several Trump campaign officials that had contact with members of the Russian government during the campaign. He had to recuse himself because he would be a subject of such an investigation.

Here is the Mueller charter, if you have not seen it.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

You will note that the concept of collusion is AN ASPECT of the investigation. It is not the whole investigation.

Here is a synopsis of relationships between Trump campaign officials and Russian. All of these parties would, in theory, have to recuse themselves.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...ies-chart-flynn-page-manafort-sessions-214868

That said, it seems recusal, though spelled out, in the end is a political matter.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/sessions-recuses-himself-trump-russia-214857
 
Last edited:
~ And now newly released text between Lisa Page & Peter Strzok show Strzok admitted there was no Russia/Trump conspiracy and joining the Mueller team was not worth the effort .
 
Deuce said:
...so?
Click to expand...

What a profound response. Yeah, you're right, who cares that the thing that is constantly trotted out as proof of Trump colluding with Russia was literally impossible and couldn't be interpreted in any other way than an off-the-cuff comment that was nothing more than campaigning.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I'm sorry, did I miss some news in the investigation? I thought it was "ongoing" much like the Mueller investigation. That there are more emails which seem to support the "insurance policy" text exchange referred to using the Dossier and other methods to blacken the Trump campaign and then start a witch-hunt investigation (ala Mueller).

It's been nearly 2 years since Mueller started his investigation and so far no evidence Trump's campaign colluded with Russia to affect the election. That "dirt digging" meeting notwithstanding as normal campaign skullduggery done by EVERY major campaign (apparently including that run by the DNC).

It's been significantly less time since Judicial Watch got some of the texts and eventually some of the emails, and more are still being "processed" for release. The original texts about an "insurance policy" were dismissed as "meaningless" by the left-leaning press, despite the IG's reluctant admission they showed deep bias. Yet now we see emails discussing leaking information to news organizations by those very same suspects. That some may have lied under oath themselves and stories are not jibing.

Hence my use of "alleged" rather than claiming "factual" when it comes to the issue so far. However, IMO there is significant evidence these agents who are tied to each other in the Hillary email investigation, the Page FISA application, and the initial stages of the Mueller investigation were engaging in some sort of internal conspiracy to undermine Trump.
Click to expand...

best-of-robert-mueller-memes-1508-best-trump-drumpf-meme-s-images-on-pinterest.jpg


1pqc2o.jpg


DVFbxZwU8AACnCi.jpg


8af4613e523fe3c4b63c96f220f22a40.png
 
Fishking said:
What a profound response. Yeah, you're right, who cares that the thing that is constantly trotted out as proof of Trump colluding with Russia was literally impossible and couldn't be interpreted in any other way than an off-the-cuff comment that was nothing more than campaigning.
Click to expand...

It's not literally impossible though.
 
Fenton said:
Lisa Page testimony: Collusion still unproven by time of Mueller's special counsel appointment

Lisa Page testimony: Collusion still unproven by time of Mueller's special counsel appointment | Fox News


" More than nine months after the FBI opened its highly classified counterintelligence investigation into alleged coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, FBI lawyer Lisa Page said investigators still could not say whether there was collusion, according to a transcript of Page's recent closed-door deposition reviewed by Fox News.

"I think this represents that even as far as May 2017, we still couldn't answer the question," Page said.


I cannot provide the specifics of a confidential interview," Ratcliffe told Fox News when asked for comment. "But I can say that Lisa Page left me with the impression, based on her own words, that the lead investigator of the Russian collusion case, Peter Strzok, had found no evidence of collusion after nearly a year."


After a 9 month long FBI investigation that included covert surveillance and unmasking of the Trump campaign, and a coordinated leak campaign between the FBI, NSA and CIA and the media, the FBI found NO evidence of collusion. So obviously the next logical step was to appoint a SC.... :roll: Yes, the Mueller probe a partisan fueled witch hunt predicated on a fake conspiracy theory manufactured to justify the covert surveillance of a opposition candidate and camping prior to a election
Click to expand...

Seems worse than all that.

Comey engineered a special counsel with nothing to back it up.

"Page had been answering a line of questioning by Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, who was pressing her on a May 2017 text exchange with former FBI agent Peter Strzok, with whom she was having an affair.

In a statement to Fox News, Ratcliffe said he "cannot provide the specifics of a confidential interview," before adding: "But I can say that Lisa Page left me with the impression, based on her own words, that the lead investigator of the Russian collusion case, Peter Strzok, had found no evidence of collusion after nearly a year."

In a text on May 18, one day after special counsel Robert Mueller was appointed, Strzok texted her: "[Y]ou and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely I'd be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there's no big there there."

Strzok was the lead investigator of the Russia collusion investigation. Texts between him and Page, such as the one on May 18, were described in a Justice Department inspector general report on the handling of the Clinton email probe by the FBI and DOJ. Strzok was fired last month; Page resigned in May."

More weaponizing of the apolitical institutions by corrupt officials....ugh.
 
Fenton said:
The allegations of a campaign paying for Russian dirt on a candidate to sway a election HAS been proven.
The dossier, funded by Hillary's campaign and the DNC was used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the opposition candidate and campaign and allegations were leaked to the media prior to the election to undermine Trump's candidacy and help Hillary.
Steele who was a foreign agent was paid by Fusion GPS AND the FBI got his information from Russian sources.
Click to expand...
Maybe if you stand on your tippy toes you can reach those elusive straws...
 
Captain Adverse said:
Let me try to clear it up for you.

Trump's public statement was campaign rhetoric, openly made, and jokingly intended.

The Ohr/Strzok/Page et. al actions suggest a secret conspiracy to undermine a candidate who had a possible chance of winning an election, which was then allegedly activated in order to undermine that election result.

The first example is hyperbolic campaign rhetoric, the second example is a secret conspiracy to undermine/unseat a President.

Your side is claiming Russian's colluded to undermine the process in our election and seek to tie Trump with them for purposes of impeachment, yet your side refuses to see the comparison with an alleged cabal of American government agents trying to do the same thing.
Click to expand...

Oh it was alllll just a joke. ooooohhh.... :roll:
 
Fenton said:
The allegations of a campaign paying for Russian dirt on a candidate to sway a election HAS been proven.
The dossier, funded by Hillary's campaign and the DNC was used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the opposition candidate and campaign and allegations were leaked to the media prior to the election to undermine Trump's candidacy and help Hillary.
Steele who was a foreign agent was paid by Fusion GPS AND the FBI got his information from Russian sources.
Click to expand...
So now we have to stop prosecuting drug cartels because the DEA got it's information from drug users and dealers.

Where the hell do you think the information should come from???
 
GDViking said:
So now we have to stop prosecuting drug cartels because the DEA got it's information from drug users and dealers.

Where the hell do you think the information should come from???
Click to expand...

God... Through Jim Baker.
 
Deuce said:
It's not literally impossible though.
Click to expand...

OK...fine. Russia has operatives embedded into the FBI, who had access to Hillary's confiscated servers. JUST HOW DEEP DOES RUSSA'S CONTROL OVER THE U.S. GO?!?!?!?! RUSSIA IS EVERYWHERE!!!!!
 
Fishking said:
OK...fine. Russia has operatives embedded into the FBI, who had access to Hillary's confiscated servers. JUST HOW DEEP DOES RUSSA'S CONTROL OVER THE U.S. GO?!?!?!?! RUSSIA IS EVERYWHERE!!!!!
Click to expand...

Or: The data was breached before the FBI took the servers.
Or: The data was not solely found on said server.
 
Deuce said:
Or: The data was breached before the FBI took the servers.
Or: The data was not solely found on said server.
Click to expand...

...Wut? I think you read words that you didn't understand. Trump's statement was AFTER Hillary's server was down.
 
Fishking said:
...Wut? I think you read words that you didn't understand. Trump's statement was AFTER Hillary's server was down.
Click to expand...

Again: So what? What part of my side of this argument do you perceive to hinge on this aspect of the timeline?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom