An interesting bit of conjecture considering that charges have already been laid and the investigation's ongoing.
Printable View
An interesting bit of conjecture considering that charges have already been laid and the investigation's ongoing.
Wait...what? Mueller's history of being an establishment tool is conjecture?
ant, you're citing an opinion piece from al hunt (bloomberg).
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...-to-get-uglierQuote:
Originally Posted by AntRobertson
so, rather than stating your own opinion, you post those of another?
:doglol:
hunt talks about context and blur and then in the following sentence says there are 19 meetings while not distinguishing between those before the election and those after the election.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntRobertson
the trump campaign said there was no contact between the campaign and the russians.
some people believed them.
but it turned out to be a lie.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.c979d5a656c8
the trump transition team said there was no contact between the transition team and the russians.
some people believed them.
but it turned out to be a lie.
https://nypost.com/2017/12/08/hope-h...mp-transition/
the trump administration said that there was no collusion between the trump campaign and transition and the russians.
some people believed them.
but it turned out to be a lie.
https://www.salon.com/2017/12/06/a-m...d-with-russia/
Donald Trump and son 'offered access' to hacked Wikileaks documents during 2016 campaign | The Independent
so, after reading all of these stories over the past year, ray: who on the campaign will be charged with an offence (for meeting with the russians) and what will the charge be?Quote:
Originally Posted by raycarey
if you just want to say "the investigation isn't finished, yet, so i don't know",
fair enough.
he was the director of the FBI.....of course he was a tool of the establishment....it's inherent to the position.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKkin
what's your point? that he is somehow compromised?
i haven't seen anything credible that proves mueller is not honest and forthright.
What's your opinion on that, FRT?Quote:
Originally Posted by Farangrakthai
https://www.axios.com/report-mueller...516559523.htmlQuote:
Robert Mueller and his team are focusing on the days after White House officials were told Michael Flynn was vulnerable to Russian blackmail, NBC News' Carol Lee and Julia Ainsley report, citing "two people familiar with Mueller's investigation".
This means Mueller's team could be working to determine if Trump obstructed justice and is likely seeking out what President Trump knew about Flynn's conversations with former Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak, and subsequently, when Trump learned Flynn lied about them.
That period: January 26 to February 13, 2017.
The focus reportedly includes interviews with White House Counsel Don McGahn, who briefed Trump and senior White House staff about Yates' report that Flynn had lied to White House officials on January 26 and that he was vulnerable to Russian blackmail, according to Sean Spicer. That included Flynn's lie to Vice President Pence, which is what Trump cited in his firing statements.
- Yates testified before Congress that McGahn asked about Flynn's FBI interview but that she refused to answer questions about that.
- McGahn briefed Trump and senior White House staff about Yates' report that Flynn had lied to White House officials on January 26, according to Sean Spicer including Vice President Pence, and that he was vulnerable to Russian blackmail.
- The effort reportedly includes interviews with other White House officials as well.
:chitown:
glad you asked, topper.Quote:
Originally Posted by CSFFanWhat's your opinion on that, FRT?Quote:
Originally Posted by Farangrakthai
:wiggle:
well, IMO, it's not going to be mannafort or flynn; otherwise, mueller would have already indicted them on those charges after looking at all the evidence.
anyways, collusion isn't a crime (as has already been discussed on this thread); but, colluding to do something illegal like hack hillary's e-mail is illegal.
that's why many anti-trumpers were ecstatic when the news came out about trump jr. getting wikileaks info before it hit the newspapers (suggesting they were conspiring together):
Quote:
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...kileaks-288628
On Friday, in a story billed as an “exclusive,” CNN originally reported that Trump Jr., President Trump and other top Trump campaign officials received an email offer from a man named Michael J. Erickson of a website and decryption key for hacked DNC documents.
The timing of the message is crucial as CNN reported Erickson sent the email Sept. 4, 2016, which would have been before WikiLeaks begin releasing another batch of stolen emails on Sept. 13. After The Washington Post reported the correct date was Sept. 14, meaning the email was referencing a batch of already-released documents, CNN and other outlets corrected their reports.
Tell me young man, have you ever heard of the phrase "plea deal"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Farangrakthai
:rolleyes:
yes, i've heard that theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
though, flynn's pleaded guilty for lying and then he'll be used to testify against trump as a believable witness?
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2018/02/135.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by raycarey
And some people have forgotten that Kislyak was recalled home very suddenly. Having very strong diplomatic immunity, it must have been a very serious thing indeed for them to not even risk having Kislyak in the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by raycarey
No, the part about him being compromised and/or tanking the investigation is.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKkin
Yeah, cool story bro.Quote:
Originally Posted by Farangrakthai
Meanwhile...
"Trump and his operatives have lied repeatedly, denying that they had any contacts with Russians..."
what's your takeaway from that, ant?Quote:
Originally Posted by AntRobertson
That Trump and his operatives have lied about contacts with Russians.
Repeatedly.
so then, you haven't' yet, obviously.
but, now you can state that: in your opinion, trump/the trump campaign conspired with the russians to defeat hillary?
or just the same as your other 285 posts (on this thread): "i don't know whether trump conspired with the russians and i'm not ready to have an opinion on this, thank you very much. i'll give you my opinion of the trump/russian conspiracy theory after mueller finishes his investigation.
after mueller finishes his investigation and if mueller says there was a conspiracy or brings any additional charges against the trump team, then at that time I'll stand on my soap box in the speakers' corner and give you my opinion on the russian/trump conspiracy theory.
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...tid=5322&stc=1
:doglol:
Yet again you completely fail to grasp the breadth and scope of Mueller's investigation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Farangrakthai
yes, I know: if mueller doesn't find any evidence of colluding with russians, he'll go for obstruction or other charges.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntRobertson
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farangrakthai
Great, so why is it then that every time you come back to trying to limit the scope of discussion to: "the trump campaign conspired with the russians to defeat hillary".Quote:
Originally Posted by Farangrakthai
so you post the following, but are just posting it so that bsnub and the boys will give you greens? you don't really think anything will come of it?Quote:
Originally Posted by AntRobertson
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntRobertson
What on earth are you babbling about. That has nothing to do with what I asked you: why is it then that every time you come back to trying to limit the scope of discussion to: "the trump campaign conspired with the russians to defeat hillary".Quote:
Originally Posted by Farangrakthai
This thread is the "Trump Russian Ties Investigation", I posted it because the fact that Trump and his operatives have lied repeatedly about contacts with Russians is kinda relevant to the investigation and germane to the topic.
He is the most tedious moron on this forum make no doubt not to mention the endless strawmans.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntRobertson
i'm not trying to limit the discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntRobertson
though, ant: this is the speakers corner and you post something like this:
yet, don't have an opinion whether the trump campaign conspired with the russians?Quote:
Originally Posted by AntRobertson
:doglol:
is my above summary of your thinking right or wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by Farangrakthai
if wrong, please say how.