Mueller may have a conflict — and it leads directly to a Russian oligarch

[JackA]

I read the article but I still don't have any idea as to why this would be a conflict. Because the FBI worked with the guy on a particular objective while Mueller ran it a decade ago? I don't get it.

Right, you don't get it because it's not a conflict. Even if Mueller ran it two weeks ago it wouldn't be a conflict, because Mueller was not personally benefited. He was and is doing his job. Nor is it unusual for informants to turn out to be problems in later cases.

 

[roughdraft274]

Right, you don't get it because it's not a conflict. Even if Mueller ran it two weeks ago it wouldn't be a conflict, because Mueller was not personally benefited. He was and is doing his job. Nor is it unusual for informants to turn out to be problems in later cases.

I agree 100%. If he has had substantial personal business with the guy in the past then I'd understand being concerned, but this is literally nothing as far as I can see.

 

[truthatallcost]

You said maybe it was a trillion dollars. Well if it was maybe a million, maybe a trillion then that means that we really don't know. If that's not what you intended then my apologies, but it's mostly your fault for being inarticulate if that's the case.

I was treating your comment in a facetious manner, because that's what it deserved. If you don't understand sarcasm, that's mostly your fault for not understanding that when you invent your own narrative to replace facts, others are going to do the same.

He doesn't owe a debt. He did the FBI a favor, the FBI returned a favor. Him and mueller aren't buddies and the idea that because the FBI worked with him a long time ago and Mueller ran it that somehow that means he can't run an investigation is downright retarded.

You probably think Stzrok and Page weren't compromised either. Think what you want

 

[roughdraft274]

I was treating your comment in a facetious manner, because that's what it deserved. If you don't understand sarcasm, that's mostly your fault for not understanding that when you invent your own narrative to replace facts, others are going to do the same.




You probably think Stzrok and Page weren't compromised either. Think what you want

1. Bad sarcasm doesn't come across the internet very well.

2. Stzrok and Page is an attempt to change topic. A move that some would call cowardly.

 

[Moot]

Lol, try to keep up. Deripaska's entry visa was canceled in 2006, due to his ties to organized crime. After funding Mueller's failed Iranian adventure, he was miraculously granted a diplomatic passport in 2009, AND ALLOWED TO LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES.

Hello?

He has received several diplomatic visas over the years...and owns several properties in the US...including the Haft Mansion in DC (Kelly Anne Conway lives next door).


I suspect the neocon, Victoria (F the EU) Nuland had something to do with revoking his visa. And my, what a mess she made of the Ukraine. After you read about her it starts to make sense why Putin invaded Crimea and armed ethnic Russians in Ukraine....

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/13/the-mess-that-nuland-made/


Interestingly enough, she was in Kiev at the start of the revolution and handing out cookies to protesters against Russian backed, Viktor Yanukovych...at the same time that Manafort was in Ukraine working as his adviser.


It's such a small world.

 

[bubbabgone]

1. No one "laundered money". Thats bull****. You need to look up the definition of "laundering money" if you think that's what was done here.

2. It doesn't matter if the oppo research contains allegations or claims from foreign sources. It literally doesn't matter at all. They hired a firm to do research on Trumps ties to Russia, the firm did the work and discovered some incredibly shady ****. Nothing illegal or even slightly wrong in any way. They didn't collude with a government, they didn't accept contributions or gifts from foreigners etc. Please prove otherwise if you want to make silly claims.

3. Speculation? Why did they lie about the meetings with Russians? After the meeting was discovered why did they lie and say it was supposed to be about Russian adoption? Why did they refuse to correct the record and admit that even more russians were there than initially reported? Why did the RNC change the platform at the last minute to soften it's stance on Russia? Why did the Trump campaign immediately try to find ways to soften Russian regulations after taking office? Why does Don Jr. not remember if his dad ever uses restricted numbers for making calls when it's well known that he does? Why can he not remember if he talked to his dad about the meeting? Why did the emails setting up the meeting mention that the Russian Government is supporting Trump and no one seemed to find that surprising int he Trump campaign? Why did Manafort offer to head the trump campaign for free even though he was in serious debt to Russian oligarchs? Why did Cohen lie about continuing to pursue a trump tower in Russia after they denied doing so? How did Papadopoulos find out that Russia had dirt on Hillary before anyone else in the world? Why did he lie about meeting with a Russian about dirt on Clinton to the FBI? Why did Trump tweet about having a major speech about some new dirt on Hillary Clinton immediately after Don Jr set up the Trump meeting and then called a private number yet Trump had never been told of the meeting and still denies that ne ever knew about it? Why did his buddy Roger Stone continually brag about how he's in touch with Assange and the Clinton emails but then turn around to say he never met with him or really ever talked to him about the emails? Why did Flynn deny talking about Russian sanctions to the ambassador to the FBI? Why did Trump not fire Flynn for lying about Russian contacts until it became public?

And this is just the stuff that I can come up with off the top of my head.

So if you're argument is that:
-They received Russian offers to help the trump campaign out
-Met with them but nothing turned up of the innumerable attempts at collusion even though...
-The meetings were set up through emails saying "the russians support you and have dirt on Hillary and would like to help" and...
-Then Russians hacked and distributed Hillary Clintons emails and released them at times that suggest they really wanted to help the trump campaign...
-But even though nothing came of the meetings, they still lied about them countless times...

That would be the equivalent of you producing me an email from Bill Clinton to Loretta Lynch's assistant that said "I'd like to meet with Loretta in order to discuss getting rid of the Hillary investigation at the tarmac in a few days" and then when confronted about it, they all say "well yea those are the emails but really we just talked about the weather" and expecting you to believe that. Seriously. That's your argument. Get real.

You make a lot of claims but don't offer evidence. Still waiting for some. But you do make lots of mistakes.

 

[truthatallcost]

He has received several diplomatic visas over the years...and owns several properties in the US...including the Haft Mansion in DC (Kelly Anne Conway lives next door).


I suspect the neocon, Victoria (F the EU) Nuland had something to do with revoking his visa. And my, what a mess she made of the Ukraine. After you read about her it starts to make sense why Putin invaded Crimea and armed ethnic Russians in Ukraine....

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/13/the-mess-that-nuland-made/


Interestingly enough, she was in Kiev at the start of the revolution and handing out cookies to protesters against Russian backed, Viktor Yanukovych...at the same time that Manafort was in Ukraine working as his adviser.


It's such a small world.

It is possible to buy American citizenship, or in Deripaska's case, to buy a diplomatic passport and residency in the US. The government doesn't admit to allowing these transactions to occur, but we know they do.
---------------------

From your article, "Any mention of that sordid reality was deemed “Russian propaganda” and anyone who spoke this inconvenient truth was a “stooge of Moscow.”

Lol, gee...where have I heard that before? It's comforting to know that WaPo and NYT were practicing their brand of McCarthyism against Americans as far back as 2015.

Something else I found interesting about this- during the Ukraine crisis, Nuland was in the unique position of being a Jewish person working either directly or indirectly with Ukrainian neo-Nazis!

But Nuland played no part in revoking Deripaska's visa- that whole episode happened before Nuland worked at State.

 

[truthatallcost]

1. Bad sarcasm doesn't come across the internet very well.

2. Stzrok and Page is an attempt to change topic. A move that some would call cowardly.

Reading your posts is what i call a waste of time.

 

[roughdraft274]

You make a lot of claims but don't offer evidence. Still waiting for some. But you do make lots of mistakes.

You make alot of posts that don't address what I said. Still waiting for an actual response.

 

[bubbabgone]

You make alot of posts that don't address what I said. Still waiting for an actual response.

Why don't we rely on something other than volume. That can get very tiresome. You said ...

1. No one "laundered money". Thats bull****. You need to look up the definition of "laundering money" if you think that's what was done here.​

When your law firm takes your campaign funds and doesn't disclose where it went in order to avoid transparency. Having it change hands several times doesn't inoculate the original perp
And that's just for the dossier portion of the violation of campaign laws program.
Along the same straw man lines there's also ...

As Fox News reported, we documented the Democratic establishment "us[ing] state chapters as straw men to circumvent campaign donation limits and launder(ing) the money back to her campaign." The 101-page complaint focused on the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) — the $500 million joint fundraising committee between the Clinton campaign, DNC, and dozens of state parties — which did exactly that the Supreme Court declared would still be illegal.
HVF solicited six-figure donations from major donors, including Calvin Klein and "Family Guy" creator Seth MacFarlane, and routed them through state parties en route to the Clinton campaign. Roughly $84 million may have been laundered in what might be the single largest campaign finance scandal in U.S. history.​

https://www.investors.com/politics/...-clintons-84-million-money-laundering-scheme/


What else ya got?

 

[roughdraft274]

Why don't we rely on something other than volume. That can get very tiresome. You said ...

1. No one "laundered money". Thats bull****. You need to look up the definition of "laundering money" if you think that's what was done here.​

When your law firm takes your campaign funds and doesn't disclose where it went in order to avoid transparency. Having it change hands several times doesn't inoculate the original perp
And that's just for the dossier portion of the violation of campaign laws program.
Along the same straw man lines there's also ...

As Fox News reported, we documented the Democratic establishment "us[ing] state chapters as straw men to circumvent campaign donation limits and launder(ing) the money back to her campaign." The 101-page complaint focused on the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) — the $500 million joint fundraising committee between the Clinton campaign, DNC, and dozens of state parties — which did exactly that the Supreme Court declared would still be illegal.
HVF solicited six-figure donations from major donors, including Calvin Klein and "Family Guy" creator Seth MacFarlane, and routed them through state parties en route to the Clinton campaign. Roughly $84 million may have been laundered in what might be the single largest campaign finance scandal in U.S. history.​

https://www.investors.com/politics/...-clintons-84-million-money-laundering-scheme/


What else ya got?

No one laundered money.

Money laundering is the process of making illegally-gained proceeds (i.e., "dirty money") appear legal (i.e., "clean"). Typically, it involves three steps: placement, layering, and integration. First, the illegitimate funds are furtively introduced into the legitimate financial system.

Passing completely legally obtained campaign funds through a law firm to hire a firm for OPPO is NOT laundering money. In any way shape or form.

When you acknowledge that no one here (other than perhaps all of the people working for Trump) laundered money then we can get on to the rest of my post that you have still completely ignored.

 

[bubbabgone]

No one laundered money.



Passing completely legally obtained campaign funds through a law firm to hire a firm for OPPO is NOT laundering money. In any way shape or form.

When you acknowledge that no one here (other than perhaps all of the people working for Trump) laundered money then we can get on to the rest of my post that you have still completely ignored.

I already showed you 2 examples. I suspect you think the term can only apply to the world of business. Sorry, but no. Political campaigns can launder their contributions as I showed you and Hillary's campaign did it.
What else ya got?

 

[roughdraft274]

I already showed you 2 examples. I suspect you think the term can only apply to the world of business. Sorry, but no. Political campaigns can launder their contributions as I showed you and Hillary's campaign did it.
What else ya got?

I understand it doesn't apply only to business. But you haven't shown any money laundering. At all. You claimed that they laundered money through a law firm to create the dossier.

In order to make that claim you need to show the following:
That the money given to the law firm were "illegally obtained funds".

Please prove that claim. And a silly opinion piece with no evidence isn't proof.

After that you can go through and answer the second half of my post about the Russian scandal that you are still running and hiding from. Best of luck.

 

[veritas1]

Comey has reportedly lawyered up already. Probably McCabe, too. Clapper and Brennan are probably soon to do so. The plan to either 1) elect Hillary or, if that failed 2) to remove Trump, is now out in the open. It has failed. Now we have to see if these people will be held accountable for their abuses of power. Of course, Obama was knee deep in it, too.

 

[bubbabgone]

I understand it doesn't apply only to business. But you haven't shown any money laundering. At all. You claimed that they laundered money through a law firm to create the dossier.

In order to make that claim you need to show the following:
That the money given to the law firm were "illegally obtained funds".

Please prove that claim. And a silly opinion piece with no evidence isn't proof.

After that you can go through and answer the second half of my post about the Russian scandal that you are still running and hiding from. Best of luck.

That "opinion piece" was about an actual FEC complaint that was filed charging the Hillary campaign. Money Laundering. Using straw men to skirt campaign laws.
You'll never accept that fact so we can move on.
Pick something else you think is conclusive and not your own "opinion piece" and we can get into it.
Like it or not, you're 0 for 1 so far.

 

[roughdraft274]

That "opinion piece" was about an actual FEC complaint that was filed charging the Hillary campaign. Money Laundering. Using straw men to skirt campaign laws.
You'll never accept that fact so we can move on.

I can file an FEC complaint tomorrow if I choose to. Doesn't mean anything. So once again, prove that they laundered money. Or retract your statement. Or amend it to "I think they laundered money but can't prove it." Either one is fine with me.

Pick something else you think is conclusive and not your own "opinion piece" and we can get into it.
Like it or not, you're 0 for 1 so far.

Your claim is incorrect. Laundering money is the process of funnelling illegally obtained funds through some mechanism to where they appear as though they are completely legal and legitimate funds on the other side. Paying a lawyer to then hire a subcontractor so that your identity is shielded is extremely common practice and isn't "money laundering". Words matter. And you are using them incorrectly. I have a feeling you even 100% understand that they didn't launder money through a law firm as you claimed, but instead meant that they legally funnelled money and you are just being stubborn and refusing to admit that you chose the term "laundering" incorrectly. Life is much easier if you just admit a simple mistake and move on. Then at that point you can go back and address the latter half of my post to you, which you have been avoiding for four posts now.

 

[bubbabgone]

I can file an FEC complaint tomorrow if I choose to. Doesn't mean anything. So once again, prove that they laundered money. Or retract your statement. Or amend it to "I think they laundered money but can't prove it." Either one is fine with me.


Your claim is incorrect. Laundering money is the process of funnelling illegally obtained funds through some mechanism to where they appear as though they are completely legal and legitimate funds on the other side. Paying a lawyer to then hire a subcontractor so that your identity is shielded is extremely common practice and isn't "money laundering". Words matter. And you are using them incorrectly. I have a feeling you even 100% understand that they didn't launder money through a law firm as you claimed, but instead meant that they legally funnelled money and you are just being stubborn and refusing to admit that you chose the term "laundering" incorrectly. Life is much easier if you just admit a simple mistake and move on. Then at that point you can go back and address the latter half of my post to you, which you have been avoiding for four posts now.

Oh well. I tried. Two examples that used the term the way I did. I guess The Resistance has you by the cullions. That's on you.

If you want to go ahead and pick what you think is your most promising claim, state it along with your evidence.
I'll be here.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Oh well. I tried. Two examples that used the term the way I did. I guess The Resistance has you by the cullions. That's on you.

If you want to go ahead and pick what you think is your most promising claim, state it along with your evidence.
I'll be here.

You tried and you utterly failed. You have not demonstrated, not even remotely, that any money was laundered.

 

[roughdraft274]

Oh well. I tried.

Sorry, I don't give out trophies for participation. You have to actually prove your claim. Not just try.

 

[Objective Voice]

That's why there needs to be a special councel appointed to investigate the Muellerjahadeen, along with the upper management of the FBI.

An investigation to investigate the investigators? Isn't that what professionals call a case audit that usually comes after the investigation has been completed as part of a exercise in internal "Lessons Learned"?

 

[bubbabgone]

Sorry, I don't give out trophies for participation. You have to actually prove your claim. Not just try.

Your argument is not with me ... it's with the source you rejected without detailing why you rejected it.
It was explained in the link. You should have read it.

 

[apdst]

An investigation to investigate the investigators? Isn't that what professionals call a case audit that usually comes after the investigation has been completed as part of a exercise in internal "Lessons Learned"?

I call it an investigation into the probability that the investigators broke the law.

The FBI isn't aboce the law.

 

[roughdraft274]

Your argument is not with me ... it's with the source you rejected without detailing why you rejected it.
It was explained in the link. You should have read it.

I read the link. It doesn't say what you think it does. All it says is that someone filed an FEC complaint. That means precisely dick. So quit squirming, back track on your lie, then address all of the points regarding Russian collusion. If your next post doesn't contain at least a semblance of an attempt at that then this is my last response. Though I find it likely that you'll use your next response to just evade further.

 

[bubbabgone]

I read the link. It doesn't say what you think it does. All it says is that someone filed an FEC complaint. That means precisely dick. So quit squirming, back track on your lie, then address all of the points regarding Russian collusion. If your next post doesn't contain at least a semblance of an attempt at that then this is my last response. Though I find it likely that you'll use your next response to just evade further.

If you did read it, and if you understood it, you can explain in your next post the basis of the complaint to the FEC that was noted in the article you claim to have read.
If you understood what you claim to have read you can explain why what was done by the campaign was not money laundering as the article claimed.
Can you do that?
No more evasion.

 

[Objective Voice]

I call it an investigation into the probability that the investigators broke the law.

The FBI isn't aboce the law.

Neither is the President and his men. However, the FBI kinda IS the law. So...

In any case, now that we've established that both sides can be duly prosecuted for lawlessness why don't we let the Special Counsel do his job and wait until he submits his report on the Russia investigation to the Deputy AJ? What do you say? Deal?