• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary Clinton APPROVED sharing debunked 'covert' communications between Trump and Kremlin-backed bank with press - even though she wasn't 'totally c

Athanasius68

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
21,477
Reaction score
3,950
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There has been no further investigation. Trump insured that.

Mueller did say that he had come up with no evidence of a conspiracy, so he sent the report to Justice (as per his instructions).

I wound up being up to Barr whether to forward any of material to the grand jury.

And since Barr had been installed specifically to cover up for Trump, that wasn’t going to happen.

The evidence of collusion is undeniable, very well documented, but hardly complete.

But, since you continue that nothing happened and all the facts don’t exist.

Please explain the Trump tower meeting.

What were Russian intelligence officials doing in the campaign headquarters of a presidential candidate during an election?????

There is no scenario under which that could be passed off as normal, or acceptable.

A real patriot would have called the FBI right then.

(frankly, I thought Paul Manafort’s appointment as Campaign manager should have been enough to initiate an investigation. His Moscow ties were common knowledge even then).

Its not 2017 anymore.
We already there was no basis for thinking he conspired with Russia.

Heck, we just had a trial where the defendant was acquitted because he was able to show that FBI didn't care there was no evidence of a conspiracy they were going to investigate anyways.
 

post

Lady of the house wonderin' where it's gonna stop
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
7,908
Reaction score
2,512
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Its not 2017 anymore.
We already there was no basis for thinking he conspired with Russia.

Heck, we just had a trial where the defendant was acquitted because he was able to show that FBI didn't care there was no evidence of a conspiracy they were going to investigate anyways.

By Jack Goldsmith, Nathaniel Sobel
Thursday, July 9, 2020
"..Durham’s Review Becomes Public

On May 13, (2019).. The Times later confirmed that Barr had appointed Durham “several weeks” earlier. (The official Order initiating the investigation, if any, has never been disclosed. Nor has the official date of the appointment.) The Wall Street Journal additionally reported that, according to a “person familiar with the decision,” Durham was charged with helping to evaluate “whether the government’s intelligence-gathering efforts in the early stages of the probe were legal and appropriate..”

June 2, 2022
"Deep in a NYT piece that suggests but does not conclude that John Durham’s purpose is to feed conspiracy theories, Charlie Savage writes,

Mr. Barr’s mandate to Mr. Durham appears to have been to investigate a series of conspiracy theories.
That’s as close as any traditional media outlet has come to looking at the flimsy predication for Durham’s initial appointment.

Billy Barr, however, has never hidden his goal. In his memoir, he describes returning to government — with an understanding about the Russian investigation gleaned from the propaganda bubble of Fox News, not any firsthand access to the evidence — with a primary purpose of undermining the Russian investigation. He describes having to appoint Durham to investigate what he believed, again based off Fox propaganda, to be a bogus scandal..."
 
Last edited:

Athanasius68

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
21,477
Reaction score
3,950
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
By Jack Goldsmith, Nathaniel Sobel
Thursday, July 9, 2020
"..Durham’s Review Becomes Public

On May 13, (2019).. The Times later confirmed that Barr had appointed Durham “several weeks” earlier. (The official Order initiating the investigation, if any, has never been disclosed. Nor has the official date of the appointment.) The Wall Street Journal additionally reported that, according to a “person familiar with the decision,” Durham was charged with helping to evaluate “whether the government’s intelligence-gathering efforts in the early stages of the probe were legal and appropriate..”

June 2, 2022
"Deep in a NYT piece that suggests but does not conclude that John Durham’s purpose is to feed conspiracy theories, Charlie Savage writes,


That’s as close as any traditional media outlet has come to looking at the flimsy predication for Durham’s initial appointment.

Billy Barr, however, has never hidden his goal. In his memoir, he describes returning to government — with an understanding about the Russian investigation gleaned from the propaganda bubble of Fox News, not any firsthand access to the evidence — with a primary purpose of undermining the Russian investigation. He describes having to appoint Durham to investigate what he believed, again based off Fox propaganda, to be a bogus scandal..."

Hello-- its not as if Mueller was able to find a conspiracy.

It didn't happen. There was NO TRUMP/RUSSIA conspiracy in 2016.
Its all together proper for the AG to investigate why the FBI thought there was.
And as we learned in the trial, the FBI LIED to their own agents about from where they received their tip.
 

post

Lady of the house wonderin' where it's gonna stop
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
7,908
Reaction score
2,512
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hello-- its not as if Mueller was able to find a conspiracy.

It didn't happen. There was NO TRUMP/RUSSIA conspiracy in 2016.
Its all together proper for the AG to investigate why the FBI thought there was.
And as we learned in the trial, the FBI LIED to their own agents about from where they received their tip.
Friday, August 21, 2020
"Whether one describes this activity as collusion or not, there’s a lot of it: The report describes hundreds of actions by Trump, his campaign, and his associates in the run-up to the 2016 election that involve some degree of participation by Trump or his associates in Russian activity. In this post—which we are generating serially as we read through the document—we attempt to summarize, precisely and comprehensively, what the eight Republicans on the committee, along with their seven Democratic colleagues, report that the president, members of his campaign and his associates actually did.

..This volume is an attempt to describe comprehensively the counterintelligence threats and vulnerabilities associated with Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. So it’s inherently a little more free-wheeling and speculative.
As we read, we summarized each section of the report in the order in which it appears. As of Sept. 3, the summary is now complete.

A. Paul Manafort

B. Hack and Leak

C. The Agalarovs and the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower Meeting

D. Trump Tower Moscow

E. George Papadopoulos

F. Carter Page

G. Trump's Foreign Policy Speech at the Mayflower Hotel

H. Maria Butina and Alexander Torshin

I. Allegations, and Potential Misinformation, About Compromising Information

J. Influence for Hire

K. Transition

L. Other Incidents and Persons of Interest

Conclusion


A. Paul Manafort (pp. 27-169)

The first section of the report concerns Paul Manafort, Trump’s one-time campaign chairman who resigned from the campaign in August 2016 following news reports of his previous work for a pro-Russian Ukrainian political party. Manafort was indicted in October 2017 in the course of the Mueller investigation and was eventually convicted of, and pleaded guilty to, charges including bank and tax fraud. Manafort’s business associate Rick Gates, who served on the Trump transition team, also pleaded guilty to fraud charges. Much of the Senate report’s information on Manafort echoes the Mueller report’s conclusions, but the Intelligence Committee is far more aggressive in its description of the counterintelligence threats posed by Manafort’s involvement with the campaign.

“Manafort had direct access to Trump and his Campaign’s senior officials, strategies, and information,” the committee notes, as did Gates—and “Manafort, often with the assistance of Gates, engaged with individuals inside Russia and Ukraine on matters pertaining both to his personal business prospects and the 2016 U.S. election.”.."
 

CaughtInThe

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2017
Messages
67,315
Reaction score
47,083
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What must it be to go through life and be conned by Donald Trump, our oldest and most famous con man, and Fox News, our most popular propaganda channel.
 

j brown's body

Cheese eating surrender monkey
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
31,237
Reaction score
23,191
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
You are missing the point here-- there was a righteous investigation occurring by the DOJ into H Biden at the time Trump spoke with Zelensky.
That is not the case with Alfa Bank, where its clear that Clinton campaign succeeded in getting the FBI to investigate that baseless yarn.

That isn't true.
 

Athanasius68

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
21,477
Reaction score
3,950
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That isn't true.

We have had an investigation into H Biden since 2018.

Meanwhile four reports have said there was nothing to this alfa bank story.
The FBI agents who investigated it just testified in support it was baseless.
And Mr. Sussman was just acquitted-- legally he must have told them he working for the Clinton campaign when he went there.
 

post

Lady of the house wonderin' where it's gonna stop
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
7,908
Reaction score
2,512
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We have had an investigation into H Biden since 2018.

Meanwhile four reports have said there was nothing to this alfa bank story.
The FBI agents who investigated it just testified in support it was baseless.
And Mr. Sussman was just acquitted-- legally he must have told them he working for the Clinton campaign when he went there.
The opposite of everything you posted concerning Alfa Bank, except the last part of your last sentence, is all supported by the official record, by MSM reporting, and in Alfa's now dismissed lawsuits.

May 25, 2022
"A key part of that story Durham wants to tell — needs to tell, given all the evidence that the FBI perceived this to be a DNC-related tip — is that some of his key villains were attempting to hide the perceived political nature of the tip, rather than ensuring the integrity of the investigation itself (or possibly, but I’m still working on this, protecting the identity of a CHS).

Central to that narrative is the changing testimony of FBI Agent Ryan Gaynor — his stated reasons for refusing to let the case agents in Chicago interview either Sussmann or Georgia Tech professor David Dagon. In an interview on October 30, 2020 (a week after Durham had been granted Special Counsel status), Gaynor explained that he had intervened to make sure agents couldn’t conduct interviews that would have led to a more robust investigation to ensure the integrity of the investigation.

Q. Okay. So you remember telling the government that you believed that the agents in Chicago would have been biased by Mr. Sussmann’s perception of the issue — the source’s perception of the issue if they had interviewed him before they got all of the data and analyzed it?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And that’s because, at the time, you believed the DNC was the source of the information itself. Right?
A. That’s because, at the time, I believed that he was a DNC attorney associated with the Democratic party and it would be potentially highly-biasing information.
Q. And you told the government, if you had provided the identity of the DNC as the source of the information, they would have known there was possible political motivation. rignt?
A. I recall that exact statement.
Shortly after he gave this testimony, prosecutors took a break, and told his lawyer they were moving towards treating Gaynor as a subject of, rather than just a witness in, the investigation..."






 
Last edited:
Top Bottom