Firm behind dubious Trump-Russia dossier paid multiple journalists for work

[code1211]

No - it started with probable cause, just like every investigation does. But you already know that. The FBI was investigating - and after Trump decided to screw with the investigation his own Justice Dept had to put Mueller on the job.

Probable cause? Probable cause is related to the commission of a CRIME.

WHAT IS THE CRIME?

Probably cause is not a crime. Do you have a particular citation of the criminal code that can be posted?

I'd like to know what crime is being investigated.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

I did read the letter and that letter specifically mentions Trump.

For what are the aides being indicted?

Non-specificity seems to be the prerequisite of all culpability in this witch hunt.

Conspiracy against the United States, money laundering, tax fraud, and failure to register as lobbyists for the former government of Ukraine.

 

[Absentglare]

Goebbels would be proud.

Perhaps you can explain why you think this is a problem.

 

[Absentglare]

Probable cause? Probable cause is related to the commission of a CRIME.

WHAT IS THE CRIME?

Probably cause is not a crime. Do you have a particular citation of the criminal code that can be posted?

I'd like to know what crime is being investigated.

He encouraged a foreign adversary to commit computer fraud against his political opponents for his benefit. Do you not understand that computer fraud is a crime?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Probable cause? Probable cause is related to the commission of a CRIME.
WHAT IS THE CRIME?
Probably cause is not a crime. Do you have a particular citation of the criminal code that can be posted?
I'd like to know what crime is being investigated.

Repeatedly, your argument consists of, "I don't know something. Therefore this investigation's ****."

To those of us who ain't you, this argument would only be persuasive if we first believed that you were in fact in possession of all relevant knowledge.
Then, the fact that you were unaware of something would mean that the something did not exist or was not true.

However, since it's unlikely that those of us who ain't you believe that you are in possession of all relevant knowledge, it's highly unlikely that your persistent appeal to your own ignorance is persuasive.

ymmv

 

[trouble13]

I was not aware the DNC colluded with the Russians by paying them. Can you provide the evidence to support that charge?

I wasnt aware that trump paid the russians, van you provide the evidence?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

The DNC probably should be investigated, but the DNC did not directly pay Russians nor is there any evidence that it intended to pay Russians indirectly. You left out Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS, and Christopher Steele.

What your describing is called laundering and how can we determine intent without a mueller like investigation?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Tanngrisnir]

What your describing is called laundering and how can we determine intent without a mueller like investigation?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

No, that's not what money laundering is.

Word have meanings. Film at 11.

 

[haymarket]

I wasnt aware that trump paid the russians, van you provide the evidence?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

I see you FAILED to provide what was demanded.

As to your question.... Who is making the claim that "Trump paid the Russians"?

 

[upsideguy]

It comes from the fact that Comey himself said that no one told him to drop or that anyone interfered with the investigation.
That was under oath.

Yes you are grasping at straws since so far there is nothing. So far everything that was fake from the start continues to be fake.

Comey is not the determinant in whether or not there was obstruction of justice. The act of firing Comey will not be the only thing the obstruction of justice case rests upon. The case will be larger and far more multi-faceted.

While I appreciate the fact that you (nor I) have seen the case or the evidence, it does not mean that it does not exist. Lacking knowledge of something does not make it not true. While you can have the opinion that in the end nothing will be there, that is all you have: your ill-informed opinion.

You and I both know there a good chance that members of the Trump administration will face indictment or censure for actions that were taken (or not taken). Suggesting that you know otherwise is fake knowledge.

 

[ludin]

Comey is not the determinant in whether or not there was obstruction of justice. The act of firing Comey will not be the only thing the obstruction of justice case rests upon. The case will be larger and far more multi-faceted.

While I appreciate the fact that you (nor I) have seen the case or the evidence, it does not mean that it does not exist. Lacking knowledge of something does not make it not true. While you can have the opinion that in the end nothing will be there, that is all you have: your ill-informed opinion.

You and I both know there a good chance that members of the Trump administration will face indictment or censure for actions that were taken (or not taken). Suggesting that you know otherwise is fake knowledge.

actually he is. you see that is declared evidence that no one was obstructing the investigation. it will be hard to prove otherwise when the previous FBI director said openly that there wasn't.
Yes all you have is your ill-informed opinion.

and now we have moving the goal posts. we are talking about trump himself not anyone else.

 

[Moderate Right]

The investigation isn't finished yet.

At this point it's obvious one of two things is true:
1) Trump was aware of the numerous Russian connections in his campaign, and chose to remain silent and do nothing, or
2) Trump was somehow unaware of this, proving he is utterly incompetent.

If you're choosing the second option, well, that's your decision to make.

There's nothing wrong with having Russian connections. International businessmen are international businessmen. The left wanted to prove that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians in order to influence the election. There is no proof of that. Never has been and isn't to this day.

 

[Somerville]

There's nothing wrong with having Russian connections. International businessmen are international businessmen. The left wanted to prove that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians in order to influence the election. There is no proof of that. Never has been and isn't to this day.

You don't KNOW there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives but you and others certainly appear to BELIEVE what you have written here.

It seems also to be a BELIEF among some groups of Americans that the Mueller investigation is nothing more than a "Democrat" operation intended for nothing more than the overthrow of a legitimately-elected president. Sad.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Only to the minds of the far right wing who reject the report from our own intelligence agencies in favor of delusional and willful denial of reality so they can still support the Russian supported ***** grabber.

I'll just address the first half of that rant and ignore the last half as it is off the deep end. I would love to trust our intelligence agencies all the time, no matter which party is in power......and to be honest, I did, until Obama. And I still have the greatest respect for the rank and file members of the intelligence agencies. However during Obama's second term and the time period until Trump's nominees to lead those agencies were confirmed, three things occurred that blew up my trust in the intelligence agencies and the FBI. One the FISA Courts were seriously abused, two, the long ago discredited Trump Dossier that was financed by the Clinton campaign and to a point, the FBI, and three, FBI Director Comey's running interference for Hillary in the email scandal. My problem is not with the rank and file, it is the agencies getting policized by political appointees that run them.

 

[MAGAnificent]

I was not aware the DNC colluded with the Russians by paying them. Can you provide the evidence to support that charge?

Study the Trump Dossier. There is tons more evidence in how that came about that equals DNC/Hillary collusion with Russia then anything you think Mueller has on Trump.

 

[ataraxia]

With this being the main case against trump this could end up with egg all over the DNC and democrats face.
More so when they are trying to use this to oust an elected president.

This sham document should be exactly what it is.

The fact that clinton and the dnc paid for an ex spy to hunt down information from Russia they should be investigated for the same charges.

Spying on a hostile foreign power is different than colluding with them. Just sayin’.

 

[MAGAnificent]

So you dishonestly have three different dots on three different pages in three different books and you connect them with a line and pretend that it is all from the same picture.

WOW!!!!! The Trump apologists sure are incredibly desperate when they have to resort to nonsense like that to try and distract America with their latest shiny object. And just like the previous ones, it will NOT work.

You see....this is why no objective poster takes you seriously. The DNC/FusionGPS/Steel/Russia scandal is bigger then anything you can possibly dream of the Trump campaign doing. But then, Hillary is not a republican so you do not want to hear it much less consider it, huh?

 

[ataraxia]

Study the Trump Dossier. There is tons more evidence in how that came about that equals DNC/Hillary collusion with Russia then anything you think Mueller has on Trump.

So Hillary worked with Russia to make sure Trump gets elected?

 

[Moderate Right]

You don't KNOW there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives but you and others certainly appear to BELIEVE what you have written here.

It seems also to be a BELIEF among some groups of Americans that the Mueller investigation is nothing more than a "Democrat" operation intended for nothing more than the overthrow of a legitimately-elected president. Sad.

There are several charges leveled against a small handful of Trump aides such as Manafort. Not one has anything to do with colluding with the Russians in order to influence the election.

 

[MAGAnificent]

So Hillary worked with Russia to make sure Trump gets elected?

No. Do pay attention. The Hillary camp worked with Russia attempting to prevent Trump from getting elected.

 

[haymarket]

You see....this is why no objective poster takes you seriously. The DNC/FusionGPS/Steel/Russia scandal is bigger then anything you can possibly dream of the Trump campaign doing. But then, Hillary is not a republican so you do not want to hear it much less consider it, huh?

Its not working. Go distract somebody who is not onto your hyper partisan Trump sucking up.

 

[code1211]

Conspiracy against the United States, money laundering, tax fraud, and failure to register as lobbyists for the former government of Ukraine.

And WHEN did the actions that fostered these charges occur?

I realize that half a truth is better than none, but this meandering investigation is moving beyond ridiculous.

In what way did these actions impact the election?

 

[code1211]

He encouraged a foreign adversary to commit computer fraud against his political opponents for his benefit. Do you not understand that computer fraud is a crime?

Omigod!

We're back to an off hand joke he told during a campaign rally!

C'mon, man! Is that REALLY all you got? This is beyond ridiculous.

Out of curiosity, WHEN did the "hack" of the DNC computer occur and WHEN did Trump laughingly say that the Russians should look for Hillary's emails? You know, the ones that she entered into a conspiracy to illegally destroy AFTER they had been subpoenaed.

Like so many things, the fewer facts you provide, the greater the issues appear to be.

In fairness, he also encouraged the FBI to go after the emails. Also the NSA. Also Hillary herself. Are you saying he was also colluding with these people and agencies?

What CRIME can we suspect Hillary of committing? Regarding the Computers and emails there are 4 or 5 actual written laws that she broke over the course of her tenure as SOS. These are actual, real world crimes that don't require back flips to get to.

Are you filled with equal fervor to prosecute Crooked Hillary?

I feel that a witch hunt is what you prefer. As such, which witch would you prefer to hunt?

 

[code1211]

Repeatedly, your argument consists of, "I don't know something. Therefore this investigation's ****."

To those of us who ain't you, this argument would only be persuasive if we first believed that you were in fact in possession of all relevant knowledge.
Then, the fact that you were unaware of something would mean that the something did not exist or was not true.

However, since it's unlikely that those of us who ain't you believe that you are in possession of all relevant knowledge, it's highly unlikely that your persistent appeal to your own ignorance is persuasive.

ymmv

So, then, you are also not aware of the actual crime that is being investigated.

My ignorance leads me to declare that a person is innocent until proven guilty and that a crime must be proven to have occurred before a person can be charged with having committed that crime.

YOUR ignorance says that we need to form a mob and hang the bastard.

Our legal system is intended to lean in the direction of my ignorance over yours.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

So, then, you are also not aware of the actual crime that is being investigated.

I and others have offered meaningful replies to your complaints of ignorance.
I doubt that restating them would change things.
So, I decline to.

The info is out there and has been made explicitly available to you.

My ignorance leads me to declare that a person is innocent until proven guilty and that a crime must be proven to have occurred before a person can be charged with having committed that crime.
YOUR ignorance says that we need to form a mob and hang the bastard.
Our legal system is intended to lean in the direction of my ignorance over yours.

That's how you see things, huh?
Those conclusions are not supported by the evidence at hand.

Good luck!
Keep trying.