The latest revelations show Team Obama invented the whole RussiaGate scandal

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by texassapper

Can you explain how Congress broke the law to prevent Obama from enacting his agenda? I can easily explain how Obama, Biden, Hillary, the FBI and elements of State and CIA broke the law to try to prevent Trump from enacting his.

Forgive wtf. Hes still in full unhinged rage bout his avatar!

bahahahahhahahahhahahahahhaha

[Munchmasterman]

You can easily explain?
The same way you explained this topic about the "Russia Hoax"?

Because your explanations is bullshit.

You guys will say anything to re-elect your douche-bag.

"Ratcliffe followed with an important caveat, writing that the U.S. intelligence community “does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.”

Y'all are desperate, oh so desperate.
The backlash will be brutal. You're going to lose the senate and the presidency both.

Bummer for you.

Partisan Claims of ‘Russia Hoax’ Revived Ahead of 2020 Election


"President Donald Trump and his supporters on social media are citing unverified “Russian intelligence” from 2016 as evidence that Hillary Clinton “was behind the entire Russian collusion hoax.” But that so-called intelligence is largely a reflection of publicly available information at the time. Federal investigations since then have documented multiple links between Trump associates and individuals tied to the Russian government."
Hillary Clinton ran for president four years ago, but dubious claims about her continue to churn as the Trump administration rekindles allegations that ties between the president’s 2016 campaign and Russia are part of a “hoax.”

One such claim arose shortly before the first presidential debate on Sept. 29. Clinton, of course, is not a candidate. But Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe wrote a one-page letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham on the day of the debate that said “Russian intelligence” in July 2016 had claimed that Clinton “approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee.”

Ratcliffe followed with an important caveat, writing that the U.S. intelligence community “does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication."

Despite that unverified and questionable provenance, partisan websites and social media pages seized on the claim as proof that Clinton was responsible for the appearance of links between the Trump campaign and Russia. President Donald Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., was among those who initially spread it on social media, saying, “The Russia hoax was Hillary’s plan.”

In reality, the connections between Trump campaign associates and individuals tied to the Russian government during the 2016 election have been well documented in reports from special counsel Robert S. Mueller and the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee. Both found evidence that justified the investigation into those ties, although neither report found evidence of a criminal conspiracy.

“In sum, the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russian offers of assistance to the Campaign. In some instances, the Campaign was receptive to the offer, while in other instances the Campaign officials shied away,” the Mueller report said. “Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.”

The Senate report, which was released Aug. 18, detailed former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort’s connections to Russia and Ukraine, and found “his high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services … represented a grave counterintelligence threat.”

Manafort was one of six men involved with Trump’s 2016 campaign who have either pleaded guilty or been found guilty of crimes uncovered during the Mueller probe

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/pa...2020-election/

Originally Posted by texassapper

Can you explain how Congress broke the law to prevent Obama from enacting his agenda? I can easily explain how Obama, Biden, Hillary, the FBI and elements of State and CIA broke the law to try to prevent Trump from enacting his.

[Yssup Rider]

Don’t let facts get in the way of Turd Reich propaganda

[the_real_Barleycorn]

Actually, this has zero to do with the election as Hillary and Obama are not on the ballot. This has to do with setting the record straight and bringing the rule of law back to the democrat party.

[sportfisherman]

The Democratic Party will be in control and bring back the rule of law to the republicans.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

You guys will say anything to re-elect your douche-bag.

We don't have to say anything... Robert Muellers report said it all. No evidence of collusion between Trumps campaign and ANYONE else. Thats what Comey told Obama in Jan 2017... the same time they were framing up people to arrest them and they were lying to the FISA courts about the Steel Dossier.

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by sportfisherman

The Democratic Party will be in control and bring back the rule of law to the republicans.

Ahhhh? dims are the ones excusing the rioters and looters as peaceful! dims are the ones condemning the Right when they try and control these socialism driven antifa folks!

[Munchmasterman]

You're half right.
Clinton and Obama are not on the ballot.

It doesn't set anything straight because the record is already straight.

The Mueller Report stands on its own.

The Ratcliffe memo clearly states there is no evidence to back up its conclusions.
This is about your lack of understanding what you read and your willingness to lie and spread false information

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Actually, this has zero to do with the election as Hillary and Obama are not on the ballot. This has to do with setting the record straight and bringing the rule of law back to the democrat party.

[Munchmasterman]

You didn't have to say anything. Instead you said too much.

The OP (you) presents a story that includes a statement by the author of the report, that you use as the basis of your thread, saying there is no evidence to support the memo.

Yes, there was no evidence of conspiracy ("collusion" is not a crime). That's called a "result" of one of the avenues of the investigation. You don't have a "result" before an investigation has occurred (thus proving you lied about Comey telling a result to Obama). There is a vast amount of evidence of contact between the Russians and the trump campaign. The report also stated that they didn't clear trump of obstruction.
But now you're lying your ass off again.
How would Comey know there was no evidence of any kind before the investigation? He wouldn't know, you lied again. Who would take the word of someone like you? Hence the investigation.
The Mueller Report said nothing about people being framed to be arrested. You just lied again.

And there is no point arguing the details of your misrepresentation of the facts on your last point.

No, you are basically a dishonest person.
Willing to say or do anything to return the great pretender to the white house. He is an extremely dishonest person. And he had his chance.

Originally Posted by texassapper

We don't have to say anything... Robert Muellers report said it all. No evidence of collusion between Trumps campaign and ANYONE else. Thats what Comey told Obama in Jan 2017... the same time they were framing up people to arrest them and they were lying to the FISA courts about the Steel Dossier.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

You didn't have to say anything. Instead you said too much.

The OP (you) presents a story that includes a statement by the author of the report, that you use as the basis of your thread, saying there is no evidence to support the memo.

Yes, there was no evidence of conspiracy ("collusion" is not a crime). That's called a "result" of one of the avenues of the investigation. You don't have a "result" before an investigation has occurred (thus proving you lied about Comey telling a result to Obama). There is a vast amount of evidence of contact between the Russians and the trump campaign. The report also stated that they didn't clear trump of obstruction.
But now you're lying your ass off again.
How would Comey know there was no evidence of any kind before the investigation? He wouldn't know, you lied again. Who would take the word of someone like you? Hence the investigation.
The Mueller Report said nothing about people being framed to be arrested. You just lied again.

And there is no point arguing the details of your misrepresentation of the facts on your last point.

No, you are basically a dishonest person.
Willing to say or do anything to return the great pretender to the white house. He is an extremely dishonest person. And he had his chance.

+1 Good post Munch. Well said.

There is a vast amount of evidence of contact between the Russians and the trump campaign. The report also stated that they didn't clear trump of obstruction.

Like the meeting Don Jr had with the Russians in Trump tower.

[WTF]

These Trump lovers do not understand that Obama's FBI probably won the election for Trump.

That Trump was impeached not mor the Muller investigation but for what he did or was trying to do in Ukraine. He already knew that Biden was polling ahead of him and was trying to get a foriegn country to tilt our election.

That backfired.

Trump is toast.

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by WTF

These Trump lovers do not understand that Obama's FBI probably won the election for Trump.

That Trump was impeached not mor the Muller investigation but for what he did or was trying to do in Ukraine. He already knew that Biden was polling ahead of him and was trying to get a foriegn country to tilt our election.

That backfired.

Trump is toast.

Barely resembles the actual truth! Trump has every right to investigate by any means what the bidens did! That was the whole purpose of the impeachment, was to cover up the biden family crimes!

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Barely resembles the actual truth! Trump has every right to investigate by any means what the bidens did! That was the whole purpose of the impeachment, was to cover up the biden family crimes!

Republican Mitt Romney did not think so and voted to convict on one of the charges. Romney is the only republican that the hillbilly who is running the senate right now does not have any control over.

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Republican Mitt Romney did not think so and voted to convict on one of the charges. Romney is the only republican that the hillbilly who is running the senate right now does not have any control over.

romney is in the anti- Trump campaign.

Try again! What else you got? Please do better!

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

No, that is exactly what Don Jr wanted to do when he met with the Russians at Trump tower. It's in the Mueller report.

You seem to be confused.

It is not a crime to smear a political opponent.

So did Don Jr. commit a crime or not and if he did why didn't Mueller charge him? If he didn't why bring it up at all?


It has always been my position that Don Jr. "technically" violated the law but Mueller found that he didn't intend to violate the law and would not be charged.


So yes, it is a crime to smear an opponent with information gained from a foreign source. Well, sometimes under certain conditions and depending on who the prosecutor is. Isn't the law grand?



I knew damn well Hillary violated the law and a blind, deaf and dumb person could figure out there was intent when a private server was set up, bleach bit used to hid evidence and e-mails hidden from investigators but Comey says he found no such intent even though he testified before Congress that she lied on at least 6 different occasions and then turned around and said she never lied "to me".


So, for those not paying attention, here is my ump-tenth time explaining this issue.


https://www.vox.com/2019/6/14/186776...ec-illegal-fbi


“I would not have thought I needed to say this,” Federal Election Commission head Ellen Weintraub tweeted regarding a statement she’d issued outlining why it’s illegal for US political candidates to accept contributions from foreign governments.



Weintraub tried to clarify: “Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.”


“This is not a novel concept,” she wrote. “Election intervention from foreign governments has been considered unacceptable since the founding of our nation.”
The US has laws that govern how political campaigns can and cannot operate. Many of these laws are meant to limit or in some cases just illuminate the amount of outside money that is trying to influence political candidates.


And when it comes to foreign influence, the law is clear: As Weintraub wrote, it is “illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.”


In most cases, what this means is pretty obvious: Foreign nationals can’t donate money to a presidential campaign. It’s also illegal for candidates themselves to solicit or receive monetary contributions from foreign nationals.


But while a “thing of value” is easy to define when it comes to money, or even services or in-kind contributions, it’s a lot more complicated when it comes to something like opposition research, or so-called campaign dirt.


“Campaign-relevant information from a foreign national definitely can be an illegal in-kind contribution, but it gets trickier when the information does not have obvious cash value and isn’t necessarily something that a campaign regularly needs to buy,” Michael Kang, a law professor at Northwestern University, told me in an email. “The policy concern is that any valuable advice or tip from a foreign national could, at least in theory, become an illegal in-kind contribution.”


Special counsel Robert Mueller grappled with this question as part of his investigation of the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting in which Donald Trump Jr. and other members of the Trump campaign met with a Russian national who’d promised to give them “dirt” on Hillary Clinton as part of Moscow’s effort to support Trump’s candidacy.


Mueller concluded in his report that “candidate-related opposition research given to a campaign for the purpose of influencing an election could constitute a contribution to which the foreign-source ban could apply,” but added that the issue hadn’t really been testedin court and could also have freedom of speech implications.
Ultimately, Mueller declined to prosecute Trump Jr. because he said he could not prove that the president’s son “knowingly” or “willfully” broke the law, and because it was extremely difficult to assess how much the opposition research would have been valued.


That statute that governs these campaign finance law requires a threshold of at least $2,000 for a misdemeanor and more than $25,000 for a felony. Those attending the Trump Tower meetings testified that they didn’t receive any dirt, so Mueller concluded that it would be very difficult to assess the value of the information, making it hard to prove a campaign finance violation beyond a reasonable doubt.


“Mueller most certainly did not say that accepting opposition research from a foreign government is very legal and very cool,” Vox’s Andrew Prokop explains. “He did, however, choose not to bring charges in this particular instance, for reasons relating to the specifics of the evidence and the situation.”


Experts are split on Mueller’s conclusion on Trump Jr. But experts I spoke to also pointed out that Mueller’s decision was about whether Trump Jr. should be criminally charged — and doesn’t address the question of whether he could be subject to civil penalties from the FEC, which has a much lower threshold. (For example, Common Cause, a good-government watchdog group, has filed complaints with the FEC and the Justice Department on the Trump Tower meeting.)


And while the value of opposition research might be hard to gauge, experts said it’s difficult to argue that it doesn’t have some worth, as campaigns regularly pay for it. Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School, told me that practical considerations would suggest that, yes, campaign dirt does have value.
“There’s a reason campaigns pay for opposition research: We literally value it,” Levinson said. “It can be much more useful and valuable than walking in with a check.”


Now if you want to read about Hillary's paying a foreign national for dirt, that is covered too in the article but that is separate and apart from Hillary setting up a private server to conceal what she was doing against federal guidelines and then tried to destroy those e-mails so that she wouldn't get caught, which she did, but with Comey at the helm of the investigation, it didn't matter