What if it's found that Trump did help the Russians

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

So everyone agrees this is a dead issue?

I think even the most ardent Trump haters realize they got bamboozled by the HRC/DNC/FBI/DOJ/Obama Russian Collusion narrative.

 

It's certaimly not dead but we're now seeing the supposed bad guy (Trump) is actually the good guy who threatened the establishment so much they risked it all to stop him from doing exactly what he's been doing; cleaning up America and putting our interests first.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

So everyone agrees this is a dead issue?

 

Seems important.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

Seems important.

 

Only a hack would think Trump criticizing the FBI for ginning up this false investigation is akin to Sanders earlier criticism. This investigation wouldn't exist without the FBI/DOJ colluding with the Clinton Campaign and Russia via Fusion GPS/Christopher Steele.

 

 

Explain away the use of Dossier by the FBI/DOJ for FISA warrant(s).

 

Explain away the wife of DOJ Ohr getting hundreds of thousands of dollars from Hillary/DNC via Fusion GPS to work on Dossier.

 

Explain away Strzok's insurance plan where the FBI/DOJ uses Dossier to launch probe into Trump/Russia should whatever plan he, McCabe and Page not work. What that plan Page laid out still isn't public knowledge.

[drobeski 3,061]

 

Only a hack would think Trump criticizing the FBI for ginning up this false investigation is akin to Sanders earlier criticism. This investigation wouldn't exist without the FBI/DOJ colluding with the Clinton Campaign and Russia via Fusion GPS/Christopher Steele.

 

 

Explain away the use of Dossier by the FBI/DOJ for FISA warrant(s).

 

Explain away the wife of DOJ Ohr getting hundreds of thousands of dollars from Hillary/DNC via Fusion GPS to work on Dossier.

 

Explain away Strzok's insurance plan where the FBI/DOJ uses Dossier to launch probe into Trump/Russia should whatever plan he, McCabe and Page not work. What that plan Page laid out still isn't public knowledge.

this

[Reality 2,710]

 

Seems important.

 

Pathetic, especially considering what we now know about the FBI...

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

 

Pathetic, especially considering what we now know about the FBI...

 

Which you only know because Democrats asked the DOJ IG to investigate anti-Hillary bias at the FBI.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

 

Only a hack would think Trump criticizing the FBI for ginning up this false investigation is akin to Sanders earlier criticism. This investigation wouldn't exist without the FBI/DOJ colluding with the Clinton Campaign and Russia via Fusion GPS/Christopher Steele.

...

 

Yaknow, FF, we've talked to each other a few times about this and I've never said anything negative personally about you or to you. I've always thought you were a great poster on the FFT board and there's nothing special about this topic that would make me think otherwise. I certainly respect your opinion on this, I'm just genuinely curious why you think what you think.

 

But to your point, what do you think Sanders was responding to back then? Hillary supporters who thought the FBI was being unfair to her. Why'd they think that?

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

 

...

 

Explain away the use of Dossier by the FBI/DOJ for FISA warrant(s).

 

Explain away the wife of DOJ Ohr getting hundreds of thousands of dollars from Hillary/DNC via Fusion GPS to work on Dossier.

 

******************

 

Explain away Strzok's insurance plan where the FBI/DOJ uses Dossier to launch probe into Trump/Russia should whatever plan he, McCabe and Page not work. What that plan Page laid out still isn't public knowledge.

On the first two things - for the thousandth time - you don't have reports on those things. You don't have links or findings of anything of the kind. I accept that you think it's reasonable speculation, fine. But please don't ask me to implicitly acknowledge things that haven't been reported to exist.

 

I'll also point out that while some Dems may indeed over-rely on the dossier the reality remains that it did not form part of the body of the January IC report. It was appended as part of the kitchen sink of intelligence without any assignment of confidence. It could go 'poof' and the investigation would still be underway and would have still existed.

 

************

 

On the third point -

 

- I wish you would read your own point. If the FBI wanted to damage Trump they would have made it public knowledge. They didn't.

 

As for the real context of what Strzok was saying, the point that Page apparently made was that Trump was not expected to win, thus the FBI should not rush its investigation or be aggressive with sources and thereby burn them. Strzok's point was that the FBI's investigation should continue apace because there was no guarantee that Trump would lose. No matter what the investigation would proceed, either way, it was a debate about how fast to do so.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

Which you only know because Democrats asked the DOJ IG to investigate anti-Hillary bias at the FBI.

 

Which Democrats asked the IG to investigate anti-Hillary bias at the FBI? There was a Democratic request recently (in December 2017) but the IG started looking into this back before July 2017 (hence why Strzok was removed back then). And why did Mueller NOT disclose why Strzok/Page were removed for months?

 

 

Yaknow, FF, we've talked to each other a few times about this and I've never said anything negative personally about you or to you. I've always thought you were a great poster on the FFT board and there's nothing special about this topic that would make me think otherwise. I certainly respect your opinion on this, I'm just genuinely curious why you think what you think.

 

But to your point, what do you think Sanders was responding to back then? Hillary supporters who thought the FBI was being unfair to her. Why'd they think that?

 

I'm sorry if you took that as me calling you a hack specifically which was not my intent. There are those throwing that Sanders quote out there about criticizing the FBI while under investigation and comparing it to Trump's statements recently. Totally different situations given all that's been revealed.

 

 

On the first two things - for the thousandth time - you don't have reports on those things. You don't have links or findings of anything of the kind. I accept that you think it's reasonable speculation, fine. But please don't ask me to implicitly acknowledge things that haven't been reported to exist.

 

I'll also point out that while some Dems may indeed over-rely on the dossier the reality remains that it did not form part of the body of the January IC report. It was appended as part of the kitchen sink of intelligence without any assignment of confidence. It could go 'poof' and the investigation would still be underway and would have still existed.

 

************

 

On the third point -

 

- I wish you would read your own point. If the FBI wanted to damage Trump they would have made it public knowledge. They didn't. Why not?

 

As for the real context of what Strzok was saying, the point that Page apparently made was that Trump was not expected to win, thus the FBI should not rush its investigation or be aggressive with sources and thereby burn them. Strzok's point was that the FBI's investigation should continue apace because there was no guarantee that Trump would lose. No matter what the investigation would proceed, either way, it was a debate about how fast to do so.

 

The reason we can only assume the Dossier was used for a FISA warrant is because the FBI/DOJ won't divulge that information (Rosenstein won't say yes or no). It's a reasonable assumption.

 

And the January IC report is a farce. 3 agencies (not 17) bought into it and a few handpicked people drafted it up. Go read about their assertions in there and how credible experts not involved dispute the IC's findings on the certainty of it. It's a focking joke given what we now know about the FBI/DOJ colluding with the Clinton Campaign. They were in serious double down mode because of the sh!tstorm they knew would come if they were exposed.

 

On the third point; I was referring to what plan was hatched/laid out by Lisa Page in the office of McCabe. The Dossier appears to be Strzok's insurance policy if Trump won (hence the current investigation) to try and get him removed from Office. I want to know what plan Lisa Page laid out in McCabe's office. Apparently the FBI took steps outside of the Dossier and Strzok felt it might not be enough.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

>>Which Democrats asked the IG to investigate anti-Hillary bias at the FBI? There was a Democratic request recently (in December 2017) but the IG started looking into this back before July 2017 (hence why Strzok was removed back then). And why did Mueller NOT disclose why Strzok/Page were removed for months?<<

 

- FF it started in January.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/01/12/justice-department-inspector-general-to-investigate-pre-election-actions-by-department-and-fbi/?utm_term=.9108f111bc8c

 

You can see in the article Brian Fallon praised it and Dem lawmakers had called for it.

 

The reason it came up in June and recently this year is the HSCI learned of the recovered texts from 10 agents and then asked for them, or at least some of them.

 

The IG still hasn't finished his report.

 

ETA - I think the first report on the firing was in August, and apparently happened around July 20th or so. And I don't think Mueller has said anything about the investigation to anyone, the one exception being responding to reports about getting the transition team emails from GAO. Everything else has been 'no comment'.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

>>I'm sorry if you took that as me calling you a hack specifically which was not my intent.<<

 

- You're right, my bad. I stink at Internet frankly, and I'll blame it on the coffee. Sorry about that.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

>>There are those throwing that Sanders quote out there about criticizing the FBI while under investigation and comparing it to Trump's statements recently. Totally different situations given all that's been revealed.<<

 

- I guess I don't understand this. The Dems were pissed in 2016 and blamed the FBI. 2017 looks very similar, just different folks. You know what they say about refs, if both teams are angry they must be doing a good job.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

>>And the January IC report is a farce. 3 agencies (not 17) bought into it and a few handpicked people drafted it up. Go read about their assertions in there and how credible experts not involved dispute the IC's findings on the certainty of it. It's a focking joke given what we now know about the FBI/DOJ colluding with the Clinton Campaign. They were in serious double down mode because of the sh!tstorm they knew would come if they were exposed.<<

 

- Ok fine, then don't get ticked about the dossier, because it was never a serious part of the report to Obama & Trump in the first place. It's politically damaging, yes, but Buzzfeed did that, not the IC or FBI.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

>>On the third point; I was referring to what plan was hatched/laid out by Lisa Page in the office of McCabe. The Dossier appears to be Strzok's insurance policy if Trump won (hence the current investigation) to try and get him removed from Office. I want to know what plan Lisa Page laid out in McCabe's office. Apparently the FBI took steps outside of the Dossier and Strzok felt it might not be enough.<<

 

And my point was that if they wanted to damage Trump they would have just told the public they were investigating Trump.

 

I do think the public is entitled to the answers to your questions - after the investigation is over. - However McCabe did testify about this before the HSCI. And as I understand it he said the investigation was proceeding regardless of Trump's election or non-election. Conaway & Gowdy both said they were satisfied with his answers and didn't think he should step down.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

>>Which Democrats asked the IG to investigate anti-Hillary bias at the FBI? There was a Democratic request recently (in December 2017) but the IG started looking into this back before July 2017 (hence why Strzok was removed back then). And why did Mueller NOT disclose why Strzok/Page were removed for months?<<

 

- FF it started in January.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/01/12/justice-department-inspector-general-to-investigate-pre-election-actions-by-department-and-fbi/?utm_term=.9108f111bc8c

 

You can see in the article Brian Fallon praised it and Dem lawmakers had called for it.

 

The reason it came up in June and recently this year is the HSCI learned of the recovered texts from 10 agents and then asked for them, or at least some of them.

 

The IG still hasn't finished his report.

 

ETA - I think the first report on the firing was in August, and apparently happened around July 20th or so. And I don't think Mueller has said anything about the investigation to anyone, the one exception being responding to reports about getting the transition team emails from GAO. Everything else has been 'no comment'.

 

I read the article and couldn't see where it said Democrats asked for it but rather 'lawmakers called for it'. And Fallon may have welcomed it THEN but certainly not now given all that we've learned about Clinton's involvement with Fusion GPS, Russians, FBI/DOJ officials.

 

There needs to be a reckoning within the DOJ/FBI for their criminal activity (yes, it's criminal) as well as a thorough investigation of Comey, Lynch, Holder, McCabe, Rosenstein, Mueller, etc........... The later two for their roles in the Uranium One cover up and what if any culpability they bear with trying to rig the election against Trump.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

>>On the third point; I was referring to what plan was hatched/laid out by Lisa Page in the office of McCabe. The Dossier appears to be Strzok's insurance policy if Trump won (hence the current investigation) to try and get him removed from Office. I want to know what plan Lisa Page laid out in McCabe's office. Apparently the FBI took steps outside of the Dossier and Strzok felt it might not be enough.<<

 

And my point was that if they wanted to damage Trump they would have just told the public they were investigating Trump.

 

I do think the public is entitled to the answers to your questions - after the investigation is over. - However McCabe did testify about this before the HSCI. And as I understand it he said the investigation was proceeding regardless of Trump's election or non-election. Conaway & Gowdy both said they were satisfied with his answers and didn't think he should step down.

 

You're not getting what I'm saying. They didn't have anything to damage Trump at that point. The 'investigation' you reference was Strzok's (and Comey?) insurance plan if Trump got elected. They were spying on Trump Campaign to aid Hillary and announced the investigation only AFTER Trump had won to cover up the illegal surveillance.

 

There was some other action Lisa Page outlined in McCabe's office referenced by Strzok's text "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I'm afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40."

 

Seems reasonable to believe there was at the very least a conspiracy involving several members of the FBI for some action(s) prior to election and Strzok replied we couldn't take that chance.

 

Add to that an earlier exchange by those two:

 

Page – And maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace. To that end comma, read this:

Page – Trump Enablers Will Finally Have to Take A Stand http://nyti.ms/2aFakry

Strzok – Thanks. It’s absolutely true that we’re both very fortunate. And of course I’ll try and approach it that way. I just know it will be tough at times. I can protect our country at many levels, not sure if that helps

 

 

The whole investigation is a farce man.

[SenatorRock 708]

 

Yaknow, FF, we've talked to each other a few times about this and I've never said anything negative personally about you or to you. I've always thought you were a great poster on the FFT board and there's nothing special about this topic that would make me think otherwise. I certainly respect your opinion on this, I'm just genuinely curious why you think what you think.

 

But to your point, what do you think Sanders was responding to back then? Hillary supporters who thought the FBI was being unfair to her. Why'd they think that?

 

 

Hillary lied about keeping classified material on her private servers. The FBI/DOJ colluded to prevent her from prosecution to affect the outcome of a Presidential Election.

 

Anyone who supports Hillary after this just proves they have zero integrity, zero intelligence. They should not be allowed to vote or reproduce.

 

No surprise anyone corrupt/stupid enough to vote for Hillary would think the FBI was being unfair because they decided to investigate (even if it was corrupt) Her.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

>>There are those throwing that Sanders quote out there about criticizing the FBI while under investigation and comparing it to Trump's statements recently. Totally different situations given all that's been revealed.<<

 

- I guess I don't understand this. The Dems were pissed in 2016 and blamed the FBI. 2017 looks very similar, just different folks. You know what they say about refs, if both teams are angry they must be doing a good job.

 

We all know Hillary was guilty and the FBI couldn't just cover it up. Instead they half a$$ed an investigation, cleared her (wrote the exoneration memo MONTHS before interviews) despite most people saying she acted illegally. Slam dunk case of Obstruction and mishandling classified material. NOTHING like what the FBI/DOJ did/tried to do to Trump. Apples and focking Watermelons.

 

>>And the January IC report is a farce. 3 agencies (not 17) bought into it and a few handpicked people drafted it up. Go read about their assertions in there and how credible experts not involved dispute the IC's findings on the certainty of it. It's a focking joke given what we now know about the FBI/DOJ colluding with the Clinton Campaign. They were in serious double down mode because of the sh!tstorm they knew would come if they were exposed.<<

 

- Ok fine, then don't get ticked about the dossier, because it was never a serious part of the report to Obama & Trump in the first place. It's politically damaging, yes, but Buzzfeed did that, not the IC or FBI.

 

The Dossier was used to get the FISA DESPITE the FBI/DOJ knowing Hillary and the DNC paid Russians (through Fusion GPS) for it. That alone is collusion on the part of Hillary/DNC as well as a case for the DOJ/FBI. We still can't get the FBI to answer the question whether or not they paid funds into the creation of the Dossier. That can't be understated.

 

The Dossier was the very basis for all of the investigation. The IC's report was merely created as window dressing to bolster the Russian Narrative. The Collusion Investigation which has produced ZERO evidence on the Trump side (save for two process crimes which wouldn't exist without the Dossier) but plenty on the Clinton side. Add to that Fusion GPS paying journalists to push the Russian angle..............lock them all up.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

 

I read the article and couldn't see where it said Democrats asked for it but rather 'lawmakers called for it'. And Fallon may have welcomed it THEN but certainly not now given all that we've learned about Clinton's involvement with Fusion GPS, Russians, FBI/DOJ officials.

 

There needs to be a reckoning within the DOJ/FBI for their criminal activity (yes, it's criminal) as well as a thorough investigation of Comey, Lynch, Holder, McCabe, Rosenstein, Mueller, etc........... The later two for their roles in the Uranium One cover up and what if any culpability they bear with trying to rig the election against Trump.

 

 

 

Brian Fallon, a former Clinton campaign spokesman, praised the investigation Thursday.

“This is highly encouraging and to be expected given Director Comey’s drastic deviation from Justice Department protocol,” Fallon said. “A probe of this sort, however long it takes to conduct, is utterly necessary in order to take the first step to restore the FBI’s reputation as a non-partisan institution.”

Lawmakers and others had called previously for the inspector general to investigate the FBI’s actions regarding the Clinton probe ahead of the election, alleging that Comey violated long-standing policies with his communications about the case and that information seemed to have leaked inappropriately — perhaps to former New York City mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, a Trump supporter.

 

- I could dig a little deeper, but you think, up front before I do that, that Republicans asked for this?

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

 

You're not getting what I'm saying. They didn't have anything to damage Trump at that point. The 'investigation' you reference was Strzok's (and Comey?) insurance plan if Trump got elected. They were spying on Trump Campaign to aid Hillary and announced the investigation only AFTER Trump had won to cover up the illegal surveillance.

 

...

 

What do they have now? If there was nothing then and nothing now what do you think the difference was? They had the dossier then they could have released that and Comey could have just responded to requests that yes there was an investigation underway. Or heck he could have just announced it.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,584]

I have notice almost all the liberal talking heads, have stopped using collusion and moved on the meddling

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

...

 

On the third point; I was referring to what plan was hatched/laid out by Lisa Page in the office of McCabe. The Dossier appears to be Strzok's insurance policy if Trump won (hence the current investigation) to try and get him removed from Office. I want to know what plan Lisa Page laid out in McCabe's office. Apparently the FBI took steps outside of the Dossier and Strzok felt it might not be enough.

 

McCabe testified to this... for 13 hours:

 

 

An FBI agent’s reference to “an insurance policy” in a much-debated text message was meant to convey that the bureau needed to aggressively investigate allegations of collusion between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia, according to people familiar with his account.

The agent didn’t intend to suggest a secret plan to harm the candidate but rather address a colleague who believed the Federal Bureau of Investigation could take its time because Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton was certain to win the election, the people said.

...he text came after a meeting involving Ms. Page, Mr. Strzok and FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, according to people close to the pair and familiar with their version of events. At the meeting, Ms. Page suggested they could take their time investigating the alleged collusion because Mrs. Clinton was likely to win, the people said.

If they move more deliberately, she argued, they could reduce the risk of burning sensitive sources.

Mr. Strzok felt otherwise, according to these people.

His text was meant to convey his belief that the investigation couldn't afford to take a more measured approach because Mr. Trump could very well win the election, they said. It would be better to be aggressive and gather evidence quickly, he believed, because some of Mr. Trump’s associates could land administration jobs and it was important to know if they had colluded with Russia.

Mr. Strzok emphasized the seriousness with which he viewed the allegations in a message to Ms. Page on Aug. 11, just a few days before the “insurance” text. “OMG I CANNOT BELIEVE WE ARE SERIOUSLY LOOKING AT THESE ALLEGATIONS AND THE PERVASIVE CONNECTIONS,” he texted.

...

 

- Page actually suggested taking it easy on Trump.

[drobeski 3,061]

 

McCabe testified to this... for 13 hours:

 

 

- Page actually suggested taking it easy on Trump.

you seem open minded, take the time to read this, then get back to us.

 

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/12/28/the-mistresses-of-mirrored-halls-looking-at-the-corrupt-doj-side-of-operation-trump/

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

 

- I could dig a little deeper, but you think, up front before I do that, that Republicans asked for this?

 

In part, YES. To all but a few (you included?) it was clear there was a need to review how Comey handled the email investigation. People were shocked he didn't recommend charges for her for either mishandling classified info or obstruction by destroying evidence. Fast forward to now when we know Strzok changed the wording of exoneration statement to drafting the exoneration memo MONTHS before interviews took place. The Lynch interference with calling it a matter then meeting Bill on the tarmac. Comey reopening the investigation ONLY because the NY FBI Office had Weiner's laptop a full two weeks before notifying Comey. He reopened the investigation then immediately closed it before examining all the new evidence.

 

Yeah; why would a Republican want to open that Pandora's box.

 

 

What do they have now? If there was nothing then and nothing now what do you think the difference was? They had the dossier then they could have released that and Comey could have just responded to requests that yes there was an investigation underway. Or heck he could have just announced it.

 

The Dossier can't be verified (millions spend trying to) so how can they release it? That rag Buzzfeed was the only one that would touch it and shocker................did Fusion GPS pay them to do it?

 

 

McCabe testified to this... for 13 hours:

 

 

McCabe is tapping out (trying to retire) for what reason? His memory got fuzzy in that testimony and the HIC knows a hellavu lot more than is being revealed. There was a conspiracy and people (FBI/DOJ) may very well go to jail over it.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,646]

you seem open minded, take the time to read this, then get back to us.

 

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/12/28/the-mistresses-of-mirrored-halls-looking-at-the-corrupt-doj-side-of-operation-trump/

That's a good read. Rank amateurs. But they may get away with it.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

you seem open minded, take the time to read this, then get back to us.

 

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/12/28/the-mistresses-of-mirrored-halls-looking-at-the-corrupt-doj-side-of-operation-trump/

 

Outlined and chronicled very well. Thanks for posting that drobs. Crushed it.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

- Ok fine, then don't get ticked about the dossier, because it was never a serious part of the report to Obama & Trump in the first place. It's politically damaging, yes, but Buzzfeed did that, not the IC or FBI.

 

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/11/11/the-actual-2016-fbi-report-on-russian-hacking-does-not-show-what-media-claim-it-does/

 

[drobeski 3,061]

That's a good read. Rank amateurs. But they may get away with it.

nobody does a better job at real investigative journalism than Sundance at CTH.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

you seem open minded, take the time to read this, then get back to us.

 

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/12/28/the-mistresses-of-mirrored-halls-looking-at-the-corrupt-doj-side-of-operation-trump/

Thanks. I always try to be. I will give it a read and get back to you.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

I have notice almost all the liberal talking heads, have stopped using collusion and moved on the meddling

If Mueller & the FBI come back with nothing else and exhonerate Trump I'll be fine with that because I've defended the FBI and our processes throughout.

 

But what happens if Flynn implicates Trump? What will the approach from Trump supporters be?

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

 

In part, YES. To all but a few (you included?) it was clear there was a need to review how Comey handled the email investigation. People were shocked he didn't recommend charges for her for either mishandling classified info or obstruction by destroying evidence. Fast forward to now when we know Strzok changed the wording of exoneration statement to drafting the exoneration memo MONTHS before interviews took place. The Lynch interference with calling it a matter then meeting Bill on the tarmac. Comey reopening the investigation ONLY because the NY FBI Office had Weiner's laptop a full two weeks before notifying Comey. He reopened the investigation then immediately closed it before examining all the new evidence.

 

Yeah; why would a Republican want to open that Pandora's box.

 

 

The Dossier can't be verified (millions spend trying to) so how can they release it? That rag Buzzfeed was the only one that would touch it and shocker................did Fusion GPS pay them to do it?

 

 

McCabe is tapping out (trying to retire) for what reason? His memory got fuzzy in that testimony and the HIC knows a hellavu lot more than is being revealed. There was a conspiracy and people (FBI/DOJ) may very well go to jail over it.

I don't want to back/forth all day on this. I originally just posted a link to a statement from Sarah Sanders from 2016. The point was that the Dems felt unfairly treated then and Sanders' answer was - rightly - that they were simply upset about Hillary being investigated.

 

I could find some middle ground with you - on the Lynch tarmac meeting for one. And also Elias handling the dossier for both Hillary's campaign and the DNC at the same time is another. Frankly Hillary's campaign shouldn't have been near it.

 

I'll catch up on the other points later. Thanks for the convo.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,584]

If Mueller & the FBI come back with nothing else and exhonerate Trump I'll be fine with that because I've defended the FBI and our processes throughout.

 

But what happens if Flynn implicates Trump? What will the approach from Trump supporters be?

 

dunno you should ask a Trump supporter

[Hardcore troubadour 12,646]

If Mueller & the FBI come back with nothing else and exhonerate Trump I'll be fine with that because I've defended the FBI and our processes throughout.

 

But what happens if Flynn implicates Trump? What will the approach from Trump supporters be?

Impeach him. But it better not stop there. The whole joint is full of crooks and criminals, especially the Anti- Trumpers.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

If Mueller & the FBI come back with nothing else and exhonerate Trump I'll be fine with that because I've defended the FBI and our processes throughout.

 

But what happens if Flynn implicates Trump? What will the approach from Trump supporters be?

 

What do they have on Flynn other than lying to FBI within an investigation that was based on the Dossier? Those charges wouldn't exist without the phony investigation. The cherry on top was Strzok interviewing Flynn with Priestap overseeing (same guy who didn't report there was an ongoing investigation to Congress per James Comey).

 

Flynn should know by now that the whole thing is being exposed and to just sit back while remaining silent.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Impeach him. But it better not stop there. The whole joint is full of crooks and criminals, especially the Anti- Trumpers.

 

Fock that. This whole investigation was a setup from the get go; the meeting with the Russian Lawyer and Trump Jr., the Dossier, blindsiding Flynn without his attorney, all of it.

[lickin_starfish 1,480]

The investigators need to be investigated.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

I'd forgotten all about NSA Director Mike Roger's refusal to express confidence in the IC's Russia Meddling Report. Remember he had that unscheduled visit to Trump Tower on Nov 17th, 2016 without telling anyone he was going. Next day Trump moved his transition team out of Trump Tower to his golf course. DNI James Clapper was furious for some reason.

 

At least there remains one Patriot in Washington's swamp.

 

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/03/14/more-evidence-surfaces-nsa-director-mike-rogers-did-not-aid-obamas-surveillance-scheme/

[wiffleball 4,640]

Among many other things, still have never gotten an intelligent answer as to why it is literally everybody in Trump's Inner Circle has lied repeatedly under penalties of perjury about their contacts with some pretty shady damn Russians. Once is a mistake? Not so much. If you're doing nothing wrong then why the fuc U lying about it?

 

And a kids? We already have felony admissions of guilt.

 

We have Trump himself saying on video nobody on my staff to my knowledge has ever met with any Russians! Then when it became painfully obvious that they have, Trump was active in forging a response to that trying to say that it was all about adoptions. Because yeah, that was a central tenet of his platform. Even that got proven as a lie.

 

Like I said, doesn't really matter at this point. Trump was right that his idiot followers would bend over backwards to justify literally anything he does including shooting somebody to death in the middle of the street. That's Trump's assessment guys not mine.

 

But, all he has to do is keep throwing shiny objects that you guys and voila mission accomplished.

[drobeski 3,061]

Did you read the real news dumbo hack wiff. Try it, get yourself educated of real facts, about real corruption and collusion. It's there, it's over. Your boy and girl Barry and Hillary and the agencies the weaponized are toast. Done, kaput.

Sort of like you've been since Enron.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

This goes all the way back to Benghazi and the coverup there. Deep ties to the muslim brotherhood that was still ongoing thanks to the Awan brothers. Simply too much dirt on too many folks in all the high places to hide it all. Nearly the entire Obama Establishment should go to jail.

 

Thank God some folks stood bravely against the corruption. Seth Rich, NSA Director Rogers, Nunes, etc.....they appear to have saved the country from evil.