Hey, that guy even looks like VPM or at least how I envisioned him.
What will happen to many of the Deep State Operatives if there is no evidence? Link
- Thread starter VanPastorMan
- Start date
Epic post. I mean this should go in the Hall of Fame.
The theory that Trump and Mueller are actually working together to drain the swamp does not get enough love on here, VPN. I feel you.
#QAnon.
My wife doesn't like beards. I grew one once and she told me to shave it off or the kissing stops. I told her I could do what I want. So I am in the bathroom shaving off the beard and I shave the sides first. I take a look and shape it up. I go to her and ask if a goatee is a compromise she can live with. She now loves the goatee and doesn't want me to shave it off.
Welcome back to the thread you started and scurried away from with your tail between your legs.
Aren't these mostly process crimes? You lie to the feds even if you didn't mean to do it then you are guilty right? Has anyone been found guilty of Russian collusion? Isn't this what the investigation was supposed to be about in the first place? You are not supposed to have an open investigation on a special counsel deal. It's supposed to be an investigation about a specific crime.
Listen I am no Russian fan. When I was a cook in the Air Force I used to tell people, "I am fighting the Russians by making gravy".
Nobody on here, not even the professional lawyers really commented anything substantive. Plus, I have a life and can't always be here. This is my lunch hour and thought I would pop on in. This deep state meddling in the Trump campaign by having a spy in the campaign is very troubling.
Where do you all get your information, there is no evidence there was a spy in the campaign. You and CO have both mentioned this, where do you find information that "there was a spy in the campaign"?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/15/michael-flynn-guilty-plea-stinks-high-heaven/
Did Flynn know that the FBI agents didn't think he lied? Would that have changed his guilty plea? What I see here is the FBI and the Feds strong arming people, threatening them, draining their bank accounts because they have to pay lawyers to defend them. This whole thing really stinks.
Well, the wording that I am hearing is that an informant was used as an outside source by the campaign. An informant is 1) not a spy and 2) he was not "employed" by the campaign. As I pointed out elsewhere, the FBI has long done this sort of thing. Remember ABSCAM? That involved FBI informants targeting Senators who were taking bribes. In fact it is almost impossible to get any government bribery conviction without an informant. Is the president immune to this sort of thing while everyone else is subject to it?
Are you saying the dossier that was paid for by Clinton is the evidence which says to the FBI that they can put a plant in the Trump Campaign? I tell you who needed a spy, it was Clinton. She paid Steele through certain channels to research the Trump Campaign and then this research is passed off as intelligence to get a fisa warrant. You can see why I think this stinks?
So you think Clinton put a spy in Trump's camp? I don't understand how Clinton never campaigns in PA, WI, MI if she knows from Trump's camp that Trump's polling shows they are winning those state. As we mention over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, the Aussies told us a campaign worked BRAGGED to them that Russia was helping Trump. In addition, Stone BRAGGED that he knew damaging emails were going to be leaked to the media before anyone seemed to know the emails were out there to be released. And since we believe it was the Russians that hacked them, it makes sense to suspect Stone was in contact with the Russians. The Steele dossier is just icing on the cake. You guys keep pointing to the icing and ignoring the cake.
Did Page tell the Australians that Russia was involved, yes or no? Did Stone release information that damaging emails would be released before they were, yes or no? There is the cake.
Yes, because you’re an ignorant, hypocritical fool with no critical thinking skills.
Only a moron could believe that the FBI was out to get Trump. There certainly are non-morons saying it, but only a moron could believe it. (Who knew the FBI was such a hotbed of liberal activism?)
As to Hillary, Comey held a press conference to scold her for behaving "extremely carelessly" -- which the FBI should never do -- then publicly announced he was reopening the email investigation two weeks before the election -- which the FBI should never do. Comey's "October surprise" probably cost Hillary the election.
Meanwhile, the FBI kept secret its investigation into the Trump campaign's many ties to the Russian operatives who were actively subverting our election. The FBI went so far as to plant a false story with the New York Times that it thought Trump's campaign had no Russian ties. One can only imagine how things might have gone if news of Trump's Russian ties had exploded before the election instead of after it.
So, the FBI improperly screwed Hillary while properly protecting Trump, but idiotic Trump supporters think the FBI screwed Trump while protecting Hillary. This requires not mere stupidity, but aggressive stupidity to ignore plain facts in favor of ludicrous conspiracy theories. It's as though we were living in a George Orwell novel where characters learn how not to think heretical thoughts.
I think some of our conservative friends subscribe to the "concede nothing" style of debate. We have seen it in AGW discussions were we have long threads on the accuracy of temperature readings which eventually leads to "I never said the earth isn't warming". Well, why did we have a five page discussion on temperatures than?
But you are right, if Comey wanted Clinton to win he did a damn poor job of it. He could easily have investigated that week and then just sent Nunes a memo saying that a laptop was discovered, investigated, and absolutely nothing new was discovered. Instead we had a week of people saying the FBI would not have asked for nor a court would have granted a supeonea unless there was solid evidence of wrong doing. Those same people now suggest the FBI and courts have gone rogue.
One would be hard-pressed to find anything more aggressive and virulent than self-serving stupidity.
It’s the feedback loop. Someone (without a shred of evidence) says the FBI put spies in Trump’s campaign. Someone else sees/hears this and says “son of a ... that damn FBI put spies in Trump’s campaign”. Pretty soon it’s been shared on Facebook and Twitter 9,643,738 times and been mentioned on Fox, Drudge, and/or Breitbart. Now, because so many people are talking about it, it’s suddenly true. It MUST be true.
Not to nitpick, but it was Papadopoulos that bragged to the Australians. Carter Page was the person who the FBI warned about Russian Intelligence trying to recruit him. Then Page apparently told Russian Intelligence that the FBI had warned him. I know, it's hard to keep all of the Trump associates with Russian contact straight.
This forum is absolutely filled to the brim with Trump supporters who know all these things, and insist that we all know them, even though no one actually knows them at all. I don't know how many of them are liars, and how many of them have simply abandoned reality, but there's no reason to deny the big picture: these posters are sharing nothing but nonsense right now.
This whole episode reminds me of the “release the memo” drama that Trump and the minions all shouted from the rooftops was bigger than Watergate, going to blow the whole Mueller operation out of the water. Went on for weeks, and then of course, nothing. I guess these people don’t ascribe to the “Fool me once” theory.
Au contraire. These people still think the memo was a big deal. CO.H, for example, has been mentally ejaculating over it ever since. The memo is how he knows the FBI abused its authority in acquiring FISA warrants. Never mind that every single other person and organization involved says that the Nunes memo was misleading and did not accurately describe the situation. CO.H ignores all of them, and latches on to Nunes, because only Nunes' version fills his visceral need to defend a man he totally doesn't support and never voted for, he swears, from the evil Deep State conspiracy.
If there was an embed into the campaign and information that person received made it to Clinton, then people should be going to jail or at least getting fired. I would have no tolerance for that. But the story as written is that someone who was asked to consult for the campaign would ask about Russia and report said info to the FBI. At that point I don't see how it is any different than thousands of other investigations that happen in this country. And the original story suggested the latter, it was Trump who took it to the former. Trump also said his campaign was wiretapped (and after a year no evidence has been produced that it was). Nunes spent a night at the White House and came away with some secret information that was going to shock the world, here we are a year later and no one has seen said secret information. Yet Nunes and Trump are believed implicitly.
Remember that if we are talking about bullshit allegations we are not talking about real allegations. We are not talking about the crap trump did we are talking about imagined injustices to trump instead. This is really pr propaganda 101 weaponized bullshit.
You're being extremely naive here,and falling for a pretty obvious red herring that Trump apologists are throwing out there.The issue of whether or not FBI agents "felt" that Flynn was consciously lying to them is irrelevant,since LYING to the FBI is simply the charge Mueller ALLOWED him to plead guilty to.Key words here are plea and ALLOWED...
Plead deals always involve a LESSER Charge-that's why it's a deal.The accused is allowed to plead guilty to a less serious charge,and the prosecutor is able to keep the more serious charge in reserve,to insure the accused follows thru on his end of the DEAL.Undoubtedly,Flynn agreed to plead guilty to LYING and agreed to cooperate to protect either himself or his son against far more serious charges they did not want Mueller to make public or prosecute them for...
This thread illustrates the point that a panel made on CNN the other night,the fact that Trump can use his PR Machine to deflect and grandstand while Mueller has to remain tight lipped and play his cards close to the vest.A blatant example is Rudy out there daily spreading total lies about what Mueller "said",in regards to ending the probe by a certain date or "admitting" they can't indict Trump.
While the concept of being unable to indict a sitting POTUS is basically in accordance with current DOJ policy,there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that Mueller assured Rudy he intended to abide by that current interpretation...
"On Sunday, The New York Times reported that special counsel Robert Mueller “hopes to finish by Sept. 1 the investigation into whether President Trump obstructed the Russia inquiry,” citing comments made to the publication by Rudy Giuliani.
Giuliani later clarified his comments saying Mueller would finish the obstruction portion of his inquiry by September 1 if Trump agreed to be interviewed, something he appears unlikely to do.
That report would still represent a significant development if true, as it would indicate a major piece of Mueller’s investigation is drawing to a close. There’s just one problem, however — Giuliani appears to have made it up.
On the heels of The Times’ report, Reuters reported that “a source familiar with the probe” told them that Giuliani’s comments were a fabrication.
A source familiar with the probe called the Sept. 1 deadline “entirely made-up” and “another apparent effort to pressure the special counsel to hasten the end of his work.”
“He’ll wrap it up when he thinks he’s turned over every rock, and when that is will depend on how cooperative witnesses, persons of interest and maybe even some targets are, if any of those emerge, and on what new evidence he finds, not on some arbitrary, first-of-the-month deadline one of the president’s attorneys cooks up,” said the source, a U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Giuliani’s comments to The Times weren’t the first time he’s pretended to be a spokesperson to Mueller, only to be later exposed for spreading dubious information."
The article goes on to discuss Rudy's claim that Mueller assured him Trump would not be indicted,and his subsequent backtracking and admission that Mueller didn't tell HIM anything about a possible indictment...
"Speaking to The Washington Post, Giuliani acknowledged that Mueller never told him Trump wouldn’t be indicted. Instead, he said his comments to CNN were based on a call one of Mueller’s investigators had after their meeting with another of Trump’s attorneys, Jaw Sekulow."
https://thinkprogress.org/giuliani-...but-pretends-to-be-anyway-trump-108048cd176d/
Peas in a pod,Rudy and Jay "Jaw" Sekulow.Unabashed Trump apologists,and members of the legal profession renowned for their ability to stretch the truth...
Just saw an interview with Leslie Stahl where she asked Trump why he constantly was dismissive and critical of the press. His response: So they won’t trust the press when they write negative stories about me.
It’s pathetic how many people fall for that tactic.
It’s pathetic how many people fall for that tactic.
Of course, the FBI also used informants successfully against the Klan, various motorcycle gangs, judges in Illinois and the mafia. Apparently, VPM wants to reverse all these convictions whining "it isn't fair." He keeps asking, without bothering to do even a modicum of his own research, whether it's true that most of Mueller's convictions to date are what he calls "process" convictions like lying to the FBI.
If VPM really cared whether any of Trump's political family were dirty, he would have already spent 20 minutes of his time to read some of the many articles about the nature of Mueller's successful prosecutions and the connection of these convicted persons to Trump. Instead, VPM repeatedly demands that everybody else describe what the convictions are all about and, when this isn't done to his satisfaction, he proclaims "there s no evidence of collusion."
Some people live in little protected worlds and don't have any clue how a criminal investigation works.
He's a parrot, that's evidenced by his use of the phrases, "fake dossier" and "deep state". Parrots don't have any knowledge or thought behind what they are saying, they only repeat the phrases and words they are taught to repeat.
The other thing is that (like many other online and broadcast sites) this place is infested with many Trump supporters who try to describe intricate fact patterns by using the same language.
C'mon Trumpies. Surely you must realize if all of you describe things with the same exact language, you sound like a robocaller telling me you're from the Microsoft Technical Support Center.
Wasn't it the Times and the Post who broke Halper's name? That's not just someone.
No, it wasn't. Both publications specifically avoided naming him, despite the fact that conservative press had already outed him. The Daily Caller broke his name. WSJ was first major outlet to do so.
