Russian Probe - Indictments Imminent

[shockfan89_]

It's also interesting that Manafort's alleged illegal activity is all Ukrainian based. Curious to see if both Podestas and the Clintons engaged in the same alleged activities as Manafort.

I truly believe Russia was trying to gain influence over both candidates (not the election per se). They already knew they could buy the Clintons from the Uranium One deal so it only makes sense they were trying to get something on Trump too. I believe the real collusion during the election was with the Ukrainian government.

[shockfan89_]

Why would they? Employers are responsible for doing their own background checks.

You know what would happen if the FBI always revealed who it was investigating? It'd get sued every single time the investigation turned up nothing.

Um maybe because that's the FBI's job! They are responsible for national security and making sure foreign governments don't influence elections.

Excerpt from the FBI website regarding their priorities: Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage, Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes.

I wasn't suggesting the FBI always reveal who they are investigating, but in matters of national security, when they have a subject under active investigation that is being considered as campaign chairman for a Presidential candidate, you would think it would be common sense for the FBI to meet with Trump and a top advisor or two and discreetly let them know they have concerns or that person is under active investigation. Remember the FBI is SUPPOSED to be non-partisan and be looking out for the best interests of the country. Not trying to protect one candidate or make one look bad.

[CBB_Fan]

How, exactly, have you proven a negative (the FBI did not contact the Trump campaign)? How do we know that the FBI didn't contact Trump, didn't contact his campaign? You act as if that is a proven fact, when the only possible source could simply be covering their asses (the Trump campaign itself).

But regardless, the issue isn't that Manafort was sneakily conspiring with Russia and the Trump campaign was just suckered in. The Papa plea thoroughly dismisses that notion. The campaign was actively looking to use Russian dirt on Hillary.

Did the campaign go to the FBI went they learned one of their aide's had spoken to what he called "Putin's niece" and found dirt on Clinton? No. Did they contact the FBI when he said he could arrange a meeting between Russia leadership and the campaign? No, they said "Great work." Did they consider the legality of contacting the MFA over Skype? Were any national intelligence agencies given warning that the campaign had an open invitation to meet Putin in London?

The FBI didn't do anything illegal in telling or not telling the campaign about Manafort. That is something they have the authority to use discretion on. But either way, the campaign shouldn't have been hiding correspondence with Russian government officials. Heck, just that is a crime.

[shockfan89_]

Trumps campaign manager at the time, Corey Lewandowsky, is on record saying he was never contacted or warned about concerns with Manafort. He would have known if the FBI would have contacted Trump or the campaign. So either Corey is lying, or the FBI didn't contact him. Come on, at least be realistic. The FBI leaks everything anti-Trump so there is a very limited chance that the FBI wouldn't leak information that they had warned Trump about Manafort. Especially since this would have happened under Comey and we know for a FACT he will leak information to CYA.

The campaign didn't hide ANYTHING. Papa never spoke with Putin's niece. He spoke with a professor in the UK that may have known Putin's niece but the professor is on record saying Papa's story is a "laughing stock". Papa also has a long history of exaggerating his importance, this appears to be just another instance of that. Far from any wrongdoing. All campaigns actively look for dirt on their opponents. We have proven fact that the Clinton campaign, the DNC, and possibly Obama paid foreign officials for dirt (crime) but we only have limited evidence the Trump campaign was interested and took a meeting, which turned out to be nothing. Now we have a low-level, volunteer working to make a name for himself that claimed he could setup a meeting and the Trump campaign denied to look into it.

Who cares if the campaign had an open invitation to meet Putin in London. They didn't take any action to meet Putin which actually proves there was no collusion. Even if you believe Papa's far-fetched account that he could setup a meeting with Russian officials, this proves the Trump team wasn't interested and didn't pursue it.

Nobody said the FBI did anything illegal, it's just very strange the FBI had all of this information back in 2012 when Mueller was leading the FBI and he chose not to file charges then, but now Mueller indicts Manafort as part of a Russian collusion probe when it has NOTHING to do with the election, and actually doesn't appear that it has anything even to do with Russia.

[Aargh]

During his campaign trump said something to the effect that he could shoot a man dead on 5th Avenue in New York City in broad daylight and his followers would still support him. shockfan89_ is pretty much proof that that was a factual statement.

I listened to several hours of Fox's coverage of the indictments and I didn't hear 1/10th of what shockfan90_ is reporting as "facts". I didn't listen to Limbaugh or go to Breitbart's site.

Where is all this coming from. The "fact" that Papadopolous has a long history of exaggeration? I know the uranium deal is everywhere. I even found it on Snopes where they establish that Hillary had no involvement or approval or disapproval of the deal.

There's some huge spin coming from somewhere and being reported here. What is the source?

[shockfan89_]

I've actually become a bigger supporter of Trump since the media attacks him for everything and twists the truth and lies. Actually more of an opponent of the corrupt news media which was proven to collude with the DNC and Clinton campaign than I am a supporter of Trump.

[boltforge]

Where is all this coming from. The "fact" that Papadopolous has a long history of exaggeration? I know the uranium deal is everywhere. I even found it on Snopes where they establish that Hillary had no involvement or approval or disapproval of the deal.

This is a good example of "fact checkers" like Snopes being a joke. They are just a source of information. Information that may or may not be complete garbage. Nothing more.

And on Uranium One Snopes is a joke. Look up the full NYT reporting on Hillary and Uranium One. And it is even worse now that we know how much information the FBI and DOJ hid.

[shockfan89_]

During his campaign trump said something to the effect that he could shoot a man dead on 5th Avenue in New York City in broad daylight and his followers would still support him. shockfan89_ is pretty much proof that that was a factual statement.

I listened to several hours of Fox's coverage of the indictments and I didn't hear 1/10th of what shockfan90_ is reporting as "facts". I didn't listen to Limbaugh or go to Breitbart's site.

Where is all this coming from. The "fact" that Papadopolous has a long history of exaggeration? I know the uranium deal is everywhere. I even found it on Snopes where they establish that Hillary had no involvement or approval or disapproval of the deal.

There's some huge spin coming from somewhere and being reported here. What is the source?

The Washington Post reported that Papa has exaggerated his resume on multiple occasions. I also saw this on CBS News. Neither are the right wing publications you "claim" I get my news from.

- Papa said he was a fellow at the Washington-based Hudson Institute, but a Hudson senior fellow disputed that saying Papa was an unpaid intern & research assistant.
- Papa claimed he attended the 2012 Geneva International UN as a U.S. Rep in 2012 but the neither of the two member delegate recalled him being there.
- Papa claimed to be a keynote speaker at the 2008 American Hellenic Institute Foundation Conference but the agenda lists Michael Dukakis as the keynote speaker.

This coupled with the current information that the e-mails were one-sided and the Trump campaign declined his requests for a meeting. Is pretty decent evidence this is a Trumped up charge like the Manafort indictment to make it look like there is something there. If Trump colluded with the Russians, I say good riddance. But the media is constantly trying to make it seem like there is more to it. The Manafort indictment appears to be nothing more than political grandstanding to see if he will turn on Trump when faced with charges. That is pretty lame if that is the "Russian Collusion" the MSM has been talking about non-stop since the election.

If I am missing something in the Manafort indictment, please let me know, but it doesn't appear to have anything to do with Trump, the Trump Campaign, the 2016 Presidential election, or even Russia. Despite this the MSM headlines have been "Trump Russian Collusion Special Counsel Indicts Trump's Former Campaign Chairman". Misleading at best, closer to an outright lie.

[Aargh]

I'll buy what you've got on Papa. Thanks for the info and insight. I can't help but make the observation that you trust MSM when what they report supports your position, but you reject MSM when it does not support your position. It's difficult to have confidence in the reporting of "facts" when those "facts" are cherry picked snippets coupled with rejection of everything but those cherry picked "facts" from your cited source.

When you say, "If Trump colluded with the Russians, I say good riddance." I find that deeply disturbing. That's incredibly illegal and violates the principles of an independent Democracy.

The way I read some of the evidence against Manafort, he was buying high-dollar properties with cash. One of those high-dollar properties was a property inside trump Tower in 2006. If that is true, then Trump's group assisted in laundering that money as they accepted a large amount of cash.

As I have stated in previous posts, there is nothing linking directly to Trump at this point, but the fact that so many of his campaign team had sometimes shady, sometimes illegal contacts with Russia isn't a good look. There se3ems to be an ongoing pattern, which raiseas the spectre of collusion. That validifies an investigation into whether that did or did not occur. If Trump is innocent, he should welcome the investigation with open arms. The sooner he's cleared,m the sooner he can get on with his Presidency. His strenuous objection to the investigation and comments he has made don't make it look loike he's not trying to hide something.

An innocent man wants a speedy trial.

[shockfan89_]

I understand your point on rejecting MSM at times and using MSM to support my position at others. The reason I use them at all is because if they are reporting something pro-Trump there is a high likelihood it is fact. And you kind of just proved this, you didn't believe any of it when you thought it was from Fox News or Brietbart, but you are willing to buy it when it is reported by the Washington Post and CBS News.

By good riddance, I mean Trump should be impeached and indicted for those crimes. The same that I think Hillary should be investigated and indicted. Just because you can't get someone at the DNC or the Hillary campaign to admit to spending $9 million for WHAT COULD BE illegal activity doesn't mean it shouldn't be investigated just because she lost the election.

I understand your point on the Trump property, but Manafort purchased several other properties that have nothing to do with Trump. When you sell a property it is not your responsibility to make sure it was purchased with legally obtained funds. If you know the funds are illegal you have a duty to report it, but that is quite a stretch to say that Trump assisted in money laundering.

I think Trump would welcome an unbiased look into the collusion. I hardly believe that is what Mueller is doing. By last count he had hired 16 attorneys and all were liberal attorneys that supported Obama, or the Clintons. Not really an unbiased view.

[shockfan89_]

As I have stated in previous posts, there is nothing linking directly to Trump at this point, but the fact that so many of his campaign team had sometimes shady, sometimes illegal contacts with Russia isn't a good look. There se3ems to be an ongoing pattern, which raiseas the spectre of collusion. That validifies an investigation into whether that did or did not occur. If Trump is innocent, he should welcome the investigation with open arms. The sooner he's cleared,m the sooner he can get on with his Presidency. His strenuous objection to the investigation and comments he has made don't make it look loike he's not trying to hide something.

You know what concerns me about the entire 2016 election? The number of foreign contacts both campaigns had to try to get dirt on each other. The media is a huge cause of this. If you can get something negative on your opponent the media will run with it. The majority of the establishment on BOTH sides is dirty, despicable, and likely guilty of many similar things to what Manafort has been indicted on.

The real reason I defend Trump is because everyone in the establishment hates him, both Democrat and Republican, and the establishment has been proven over and over to be concerned about themselves, not the American people. Trump on the other hand is at least trying a different approach. It may seem crazy, he may be a loud mouth, thin-skinned, crybaby, but look where following the establishment's rules have gotten us. I'm ready to try something else, anything else!

[Guest]

If it's MSM and it's pro Trump, then it's true
If it's MSM and it's against Trump, then it's "fake news"
Papa can't be trusted because he exaggerates his resume, all while doubling down on Trump, who doesn't exaggerate I guess?
Just want to make sure I'm following correctly. It's confusing at times.

[shockfan89_]

It's only confusing if you can't follow logic.

MSM is so anti-Trump that the only pro Trump statements they report are undisputed facts.
MSM anti-Trump statements could be true, but more than likely there is one little piece of truth and the rest is misleading or opinion.
Papa has repeatedly exaggerated to make himself seem more important than he is. That would be similar to Trump exaggerating over and over and then expecting you to believe him the one time he doesn't exaggerate. Highly unlikely for a liberal like you huh? You kind of proved my point. Someone that exaggerates repeatedly to make themselves look important likely exaggerated his importance to the FBI as well.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

During his campaign trump said something to the effect that he could shoot a man dead on 5th Avenue in New York City in broad daylight and his followers would still support him. shockfan89_ is pretty much proof that that was a factual statement.

I listened to several hours of Fox's coverage of the indictments and I didn't hear 1/10th of what shockfan90_ is reporting as "facts". I didn't listen to Limbaugh or go to Breitbart's site.

Where is all this coming from. The "fact" that Papadopolous has a long history of exaggeration? I know the uranium deal is everywhere. I even found it on Snopes where they establish that Hillary had no involvement or approval or disapproval of the deal.

There's some huge spin coming from somewhere and being reported here. What is the source?

For a year now I continue to ask myself at what point does one stop supporting Trump or his agenda? When does one finally admit the whole "anti-establishment" nonsense is a con game? Washington is a cess pool of greed and corruption, and you can't clean it up by sending in one guy who says he's "different" but is just as slimy as anyone else. Perhaps the only way he is different is he has an astounding amount of incompetence and ignorance compared to his predecessors.

I voted for Clinton--reluctantly. I think she is a slimy politician who tells people what they want to hear and has questionable ethics at best. But I honestly don't believe she would have threatened or damaged our systems and our institutions. When you want change, you have to be careful what you wish for and you have to exercise prudence in selecting your change agent.

I am well beyond incredulity when it comes to how anyone can justify Trump's words, actions, and behaviors both before and after the election. It has shaken to its core my confidence in our electorate and in our system's ability to select not only a capable leader, but an appropriate one.

I honestly just don't know where this country goes from here. These are unsettling times.

[Guest]

It's only confusing if you can't follow logic.

MSM is so anti-Trump that the only pro Trump statements they report are undisputed facts.
MSM anti-Trump statements could be true, but more than likely there is one little piece of truth and the rest is misleading or opinion.
Papa has repeatedly exaggerated to make himself seem more important than he is. That would be similar to Trump exaggerating over and over and then expecting you to believe him the one time he doesn't exaggerate. Highly unlikely for a liberal like you huh? You kind of proved my point. Someone that exaggerates repeatedly to make themselves look important likely exaggerated his importance to the FBI as well.

It's only confusing because I can't follow YOUR logic.