Russians indicted -- Second attempt at intelligent discussion

[nevergaveitathought]

and that’s the multi-million dollar special prosecutor button bustin’
proud of himself work product?

the house committee looking into this already had this in their report

Not to mention any junior g man and a rookie doj attorney can indict just about any Chinese or Russian or Iranian or any number of ner-do-wells just about any time they want for about the same thing

[I B Hankering]

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

you forgot Clapperski!

[dilbert firestorm]

where are you Moo????



MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Another of Junior’s unwritten rules of ECCIE etiquette.

What the fuck do you know about RULES or etiquette, oinkboy?

Oh wait, I forgot... you're with hildebitch!

[gfejunkie]

The REAL reason the dimbulbocrats don't want the Trump/Putin meeting...

#FUSIONGPSFAKEDOSSIER

[Muy Largo]

In my estimation, a witch hunt means that there is no substance to an investigation.
So, if this really is a witch hunt, and our president keeps referring to this investigation as a witch hunt, how many indictments will it take before we acknowledge that this isn't a witch hunt?

When the president blatantly lied about the Trump Tower meeting it should have opened everyone's eyes. When the president declared that Manafort played a minor role in the campaign, that should have also opened our eyes. I am betting we will soon learn lots more about Steve Bannon's analytics company, and its role in the campaign.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by Muy Largo

In my estimation, a witch hunt means that there is no substance to an investigation.
So, if this really is a witch hunt, and our president keeps referring to this investigation as a witch hunt, how many indictments will it take before we acknowledge that this isn't a witch hunt?

When the president blatantly lied about the Trump Tower meeting it should have opened everyone's eyes. When the president declared that Manafort played a minor role in the campaign, that should have also opened our eyes. I am betting we will soon learn lots more about Steve Bannon's analytics company, and its role in the campaign.

The entire premis of this Investigation was to overturn the 2016 Prsidential Election. The DNC, in collusion with a willing Main Stream Media, concocted this false notion that President Trump must have done something illegal. After all, it was Hillary's turn.

The problem was President Trump did nothing but carry on a skilled campaign aimed at one thing, winning the Electorial College.

I have no idea how much longer this sham will continue. But in the meantime, President Trump just keeps on doing what he does best. Making America Great.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Muy Largo

how many indictments will it take

You dim-retards repeat this mantra like Pavlov's dogs drooled, Muy Loco. How many "extra votes" did Californians waste on hildebeest, Muy Loco? Your lib-retard talking points, the wasted votes in California, and $5.00 will get you a coffee at Starbucks, Muy Loco.

[slim deez]

Originally Posted by Muy Largo

In my estimation, a witch hunt means that there is no substance to an investigation.
So, if this really is a witch hunt, and our president keeps referring to this investigation as a witch hunt, how many indictments will it take before we acknowledge that this isn't a witch hunt?

When the president blatantly lied about the Trump Tower meeting it should have opened everyone's eyes. When the president declared that Manafort played a minor role in the campaign, that should have also opened our eyes. I am betting we will soon learn lots more about Steve Bannon's analytics company, and its role in the campaign.

Read post #11.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Muy Largo

In my estimation, a witch hunt means that there is no substance to an investigation.
So, if this really is a witch hunt, and our president keeps referring to this investigation as a witch hunt, how many indictments will it take before we acknowledge that this isn't a witch hunt?

When the president blatantly lied about the Trump Tower meeting it should have opened everyone's eyes. When the president declared that Manafort played a minor role in the campaign, that should have also opened our eyes. I am betting we will soon learn lots more about Steve Bannon's analytics company, and its role in the campaign.

which one of Mueller's indictments has anything to do with active collusion by Trump's campaign and Russia? None? well let us know when Mueller actually does charge someone.

Manafort wasn't involved with Trump campaign for long. he was only chairman briefly. about 3 months. So you could say Manafort had a major but brief role. would you disagree with that?

and while we are discussing Manafort. all of his issues have to do with work he did long before Trump even decided to run. Manafort is a longtime politico. i bet you could charge 90% of the "operatives" in D.C. with the same charges. on both sides of the fence.

charging a bunch of Russkis for posting comments and some ad's on Facebook? don't those Russki's have the right to free speech? bahhaa. see how that works?

Bannon and Robert Mercer co-founded Cambridge Analytica. Bannon was never actually the CEO. that was Alexander Nix. so was it really Bannon's company? only partly.

companies sell data to the devil every day. without consent, or better still .. by "auto opt in" policies rather than opt out. that of course is changing after virtually every major player from Facebook to Google has had some sort of bad press for their data collection tactics.

both parties gather copious amounts of data and have been for decades, the modern internet world just makes it easier for everyone.

the Obama administration was responsible for allowing that Russki lawyer into the US as a pretext to let her do an "op" with Trump's campaign. as in, it was a staged event. and it was nothing compared to what Clinton attempted to do with the Steele dossier, which reads like a 4th rate pulp fiction spy novel, at best. they could have gotten better material by plagiarizing Ian Fleming's Bond novels.

[I B Hankering]

.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

which one of Mueller's indictments has anything to do with active collusion by Trump's campaign and Russia? None? well let us know when Mueller actually does charge someone.

Manafort wasn't involved with Trump campaign for long. he was only chairman briefly. about 3 months. So you could say Manafort had a major but brief role. would you disagree with that?

and while we are discussing Manafort. all of his issues have to do with work he did long before Trump even decided to run. Manafort is a longtime politico. i bet you could charge 90% of the "operatives" in D.C. with the same charges. on both sides of the fence.

charging a bunch of Russkis for posting comments and some ad's on Facebook? don't those Russki's have the right to free speech? bahhaa. see how that works?

Bannon and Robert Mercer co-founded Cambridge Analytica. Bannon was never actually the CEO. that was Alexander Nix. so was it really Bannon's company? only partly.

companies sell data to the devil every day. without consent, or better still .. by "auto opt in" policies rather than opt out. that of course is changing after virtually every major player from Facebook to Google has had some sort of bad press for their data collection tactics.

both parties gather copious amounts of data and have been for decades, the modern internet world just makes it easier for everyone.

the Obama administration was responsible for allowing that Russki lawyer into the US as a pretext to let her do an "op" with Trump's campaign. as in, it was a staged event. and it was nothing compared to what Clinton attempted to do with the Steele dossier, which reads like a 4th rate pulp fiction spy novel, at best. they could have gotten better material by plagiarizing Ian Fleming's Bond novels.

Manafort filing unmasks DOJ meeting with AP reporters, questions if 'grand jury secrecy' violated

Manafort’s defense also is seeking a hearing on the April 2017 meeting involving FBI and Justice Department officials and four AP reporters – after his team for months has argued that improper leaks to the media have put him at a disadvantage.

The recent filing contains two newly disclosed FBI memos documenting the April 2017 meeting. It included three FBI agents; a Justice Department trial attorney; an assistant U.S. attorney and Andrew Weissmann, then chief of the DOJ’s fraud division before he moved on to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe. The meeting also included four AP reporters: Chad Day, Jack Gillum, Ted Bridis and Eric Tucker.

"The meeting raises serious concerns about whether a violation of grand jury secrecy occurred,” Manafort’s lawyers wrote in the filing.

(FOX)

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Muy Largo

In my estimation, a witch hunt means that there is no substance to an investigation.

Agreed.

So, muy loco... if this isn't a witch hunt... and if the FBI had plenty of substance from the get-go... then you should be able to answer a few simple questions:

Exactly when did the FBI open a counter-intel investigation of the Trump campaign? When did it start and exactly what was the SUBSTANTIVE basis for it? When was the Trump campaign put under surveillance? How many "informants" did the FBI enlist to spy on the campaign? What were their names, who did they communicate with and when, and how much were they paid?

I trust there is enough SPECIFICITY in those questions for you.

[Dude Ruggs]

The cold war is over. And if you disagree with Obama, then you're racist! Suck it liberals!

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?...ia+debate+2012

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by slim deez

Read post #11.

LOL!

I'll even reprint part of it below so everyone can see (again) that muy loco is too chickenshit to answer any intelligent, pertinent questions we pose to him.

He is particularly afraid of INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION and SPECIFICITY!

Originally Posted by lustylad

Hillary Clinton deleted over 30,000 emails from her private server and other devices - while said emails were the subject of an active FBI investigation, and in defiance of FOIA requests and Congressional subpoenas. Did that constitute obstruction of justice? Why or why not?