Prosecutor to Investigate Origins of FBI Trump-Russia Probe

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our tax dollars at work.........

Bruce Ohr, the Justice Department official whose connection to the opposition research firm responsible for the anti-Trump “dossier” led to his eventual demotion, was awarded a $28,000 performance bonus while the Russia probe was ongoing, according to newly released DOJ documents.

The records do not indicate why Ohr was given the bonus in November 2016, though they show he also received a $14,520 bonus a year earlier, totaling $42,520 over a two-year period.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-official-bruce-ohr-awarded-28k-bonus-amid-russia-probe-records-indicate

And, this.....
"Judicial Watch is questioning why Ohr, who was later demoted at DOJ, was given a bonus."

Yep.

And his wife, Nellie Ohr?

...doesn’t work for the Justice Department?

[Anonymous]

This won't be an honest investigation, but according to Seth Abramson - I will need to see his underlying documentation, Mueller was researching the Papadopolous relationship to Israel and Netanyahu. From his standpoint, there is a lot more to the Papadopolous story than just the Russia/Mifsud piece.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This won't be an honest investigation, but according to Seth Abramson - I will need to see his underlying documentation, Mueller was researching the Papadopolous relationship to Israel and Netanyahu. From his standpoint, there is a lot more to the Papadopolous story than just the Russia/Mifsud piece.

Your first mistake is listening to anything Seth Abramson says.......

For a certain group of commentators who built massive online audiences by making bold, unsubstantiated claims about the Mueller investigation, that’s direct disconfirmation of some dearly held speculation about the investigation’s ultimate findings and consequences. They may react to this news in weird ways. There is already evidence that the frustration of dashed expectations will lead at least some of them down a strange road, one that might find them sharing more with the adherents of conspiracy theories such as QAnon than with the prosecutor whose rigor and discipline they supposedly admired.

...Recent news also disconfirms the already legally confused 2017 proclamation from Seth Abramson, author of the book “Proof of Collusion,” that “Bob Mueller will hunt both Trump and Pence to the ends of the Earth to secure impeachment and conviction.”

....Abramson, meanwhile, seemed to insist Sunday that Mueller’s conclusions about “collusion” are irrelevant because, confusingly, “Mueller never investigated the collusion allegation Trump was facing.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/03/26/mueller-report-is-get-ready-conspiracy-theories/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1d0b3bba1498

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This won't be an honest investigation, but according to Seth Abramson - I will need to see his underlying documentation, Mueller was researching the Papadopolous relationship to Israel and Netanyahu. From his standpoint, there is a lot more to the Papadopolous story than just the Russia/Mifsud piece.

More on Seth Abramson.......and this was published long before the Mueller Report came out and Abramson had egg on his face.

Abramson’s Twitter page lists him as “Attorney. Professor [at University of New Hampshire] (journalism, law).” He is an assistant professor of English, according to his page on his university website, and the majority of his publications have been in creative writing and poetry. When he joined the English department in 2015, the university described him as a “poet, teacher, and public intellectual”. He also calls himself a “curatorial journalist”.

Before he joined The Resistance, Abramson’s most notable work was a poem he wrote about Eliot Rodgers. Titled ‘The Last Words of Mass Murderer Elliot Rodger Remixed Into Poetry’, and published on the Huffington Post, the poem was apparently intended as a gesture of solidarity with Rodgers’ victims but consisted entirely of the violent, misogynist words he recorded before killing 22 people.

Abramson works against Trump by posting long threads. And lots of them.

Some of his tweets have also contained calls to action against Trump, to oppose the President by retweeting Abramson himself.

Abramson’s tweet thread about the former Trump aide George Papadopoulos “almost certainly” wearing a wire has so far been retweeted 22,000 times. Some commentators have speculated on this too, although none with the same level of certainty as Abramson, as no solid evidence has yet been presented.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/resistance-trump-louise-mensch-seth-abramson-eric-gardland-amy-siskind-conspiracy-theories-lists-a8043076.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Listening to McCabe discuss how it is okay for Clinton campaign to fund the dossier because they paid the law firm who hired the oppo research firm who hired the Bristish spy who worked with the Russians is laughable, if it weren't so serious.

That's the same McCabe whose wife accepted almost a million dollars in funding for her own campaign from Terry McAuliffe who is tied so tightly with the Clintons. She was recruited by McAuliffe through Northam, as I recall. That never did smell right--especially, since we already knew that Clinton was going to run and, I'm confident that McAuliffe knew she was under investigation and was aware of McCabe's position at the FBI.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to believe you are all Russian trolls because no way DC residents are this stupid about how government and politics work.

Dc residents have zero understanding of irony.
They think they are so smart but are dumb as two boxes of rocks.

LOL. I read that last comment with a Russian accent. The syntax is off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to believe you are all Russian trolls because no way DC residents are this stupid about how government and politics work.

Dc residents have zero understanding of irony.
They think they are so smart but are dumb as two boxes of rocks.

LOL. I read that last comment with a Russian accent. The syntax is off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listening to McCabe discuss how it is okay for Clinton campaign to fund the dossier because they paid the law firm who hired the oppo research firm who hired the Bristish spy who worked with the Russians is laughable, if it weren't so serious.

That's the same McCabe whose wife accepted almost a million dollars in funding for her own campaign from Terry McAuliffe who is tied so tightly with the Clintons. She was recruited by McAuliffe through Northam, as I recall. That never did smell right--especially, since we already knew that Clinton was going to run and, I'm confident that McAuliffe knew she was under investigation and was aware of McCabe's position at the FBI.

This.

There is a difference between paying an American company for opposition research and taking free help from the Russians.

If you cannot see that, then there simply is no hope for your understanding the truth.

Also, what happened with that research? It was given to the FBI. It was not used during the 2016 cycle even though it could have been used as such.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to believe you are all Russian trolls because no way DC residents are this stupid about how government and politics work.

Dc residents have zero understanding of irony.
They think they are so smart but are dumb as two boxes of rocks.

LOL. I read that last comment with a Russian accent. The syntax is off.

Are two boxes of rocks smarter or dumber than one box of rocks? I'm curious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listening to McCabe discuss how it is okay for Clinton campaign to fund the dossier because they paid the law firm who hired the oppo research firm who hired the Bristish spy who worked with the Russians is laughable, if it weren't so serious.

That's the same McCabe whose wife accepted almost a million dollars in funding for her own campaign from Terry McAuliffe who is tied so tightly with the Clintons. She was recruited by McAuliffe through Northam, as I recall. That never did smell right--especially, since we already knew that Clinton was going to run and, I'm confident that McAuliffe knew she was under investigation and was aware of McCabe's position at the FBI.

This.

There is a difference between paying an American company for opposition research and taking free help from the Russians.

If you cannot see that, then there simply is no hope for your understanding the truth.

Also, what happened with that research? It was given to the FBI. It was not used during the 2016 cycle even though it could have been used as such.

So, it is A-OK to take help from a foreign power as long as you pay for it. Good to know.
Research? You call what the Russians gave Steele was research? Ha ha ha ha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listening to McCabe discuss how it is okay for Clinton campaign to fund the dossier because they paid the law firm who hired the oppo research firm who hired the Bristish spy who worked with the Russians is laughable, if it weren't so serious.

That's the same McCabe whose wife accepted almost a million dollars in funding for her own campaign from Terry McAuliffe who is tied so tightly with the Clintons. She was recruited by McAuliffe through Northam, as I recall. That never did smell right--especially, since we already knew that Clinton was going to run and, I'm confident that McAuliffe knew she was under investigation and was aware of McCabe's position at the FBI.

This.

There is a difference between paying an American company for opposition research and taking free help from the Russians.

If you cannot see that, then there simply is no hope for your understanding the truth.

Also, what happened with that research? It was given to the FBI. It was not used during the 2016 cycle even though it could have been used as such.

So, it is A-OK to take help from a foreign power as long as you pay for it. Good to know.
Research? You call what the Russians gave Steele was research? Ha ha ha ha.

They didn't pay for help from a foreign "power".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listening to McCabe discuss how it is okay for Clinton campaign to fund the dossier because they paid the law firm who hired the oppo research firm who hired the Bristish spy who worked with the Russians is laughable, if it weren't so serious.

That's the same McCabe whose wife accepted almost a million dollars in funding for her own campaign from Terry McAuliffe who is tied so tightly with the Clintons. She was recruited by McAuliffe through Northam, as I recall. That never did smell right--especially, since we already knew that Clinton was going to run and, I'm confident that McAuliffe knew she was under investigation and was aware of McCabe's position at the FBI.

This.

There is a difference between paying an American company for opposition research and taking free help from the Russians.

If you cannot see that, then there simply is no hope for your understanding the truth.

Also, what happened with that research? It was given to the FBI. It was not used during the 2016 cycle even though it could have been used as such.

So, it is A-OK to take help from a foreign power as long as you pay for it. Good to know.
Research? You call what the Russians gave Steele was research? Ha ha ha ha.

They didn't pay for help from a foreign "power".

Ultimately, yes, they did. And, why did they try to hide it for a year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This won't be an honest investigation, but according to Seth Abramson - I will need to see his underlying documentation, Mueller was researching the Papadopolous relationship to Israel and Netanyahu. From his standpoint, there is a lot more to the Papadopolous story than just the Russia/Mifsud piece.

More on Seth Abramson.......and this was published long before the Mueller Report came out and Abramson had egg on his face.

Abramson’s Twitter page lists him as “Attorney. Professor [at University of New Hampshire] (journalism, law).” He is an assistant professor of English, according to his page on his university website, and the majority of his publications have been in creative writing and poetry. When he joined the English department in 2015, the university described him as a “poet, teacher, and public intellectual”. He also calls himself a “curatorial journalist”.

Before he joined The Resistance, Abramson’s most notable work was a poem he wrote about Eliot Rodgers. Titled ‘The Last Words of Mass Murderer Elliot Rodger Remixed Into Poetry’, and published on the Huffington Post, the poem was apparently intended as a gesture of solidarity with Rodgers’ victims but consisted entirely of the violent, misogynist words he recorded before killing 22 people.

Abramson works against Trump by posting long threads. And lots of them.

Some of his tweets have also contained calls to action against Trump, to oppose the President by retweeting Abramson himself.

Abramson’s tweet thread about the former Trump aide George Papadopoulos “almost certainly” wearing a wire has so far been retweeted 22,000 times. Some commentators have speculated on this too, although none with the same level of certainty as Abramson, as no solid evidence has yet been presented.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/resistance-trump-louise-mensch-seth-abramson-eric-gardland-amy-siskind-conspiracy-theories-lists-a8043076.html

Your previous post was not an editorial by the Washington Post; it was a commentary by someone I’ve never heard of (and I read the Post daily). Your current reference is to a hit piece by a UK publication - and it’s misleading. The implication is that Abramson is not really a lawyer, when in fact he was a trial lawyer for a number of years. Check your sources before you post this crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listening to McCabe discuss how it is okay for Clinton campaign to fund the dossier because they paid the law firm who hired the oppo research firm who hired the Bristish spy who worked with the Russians is laughable, if it weren't so serious.

That's the same McCabe whose wife accepted almost a million dollars in funding for her own campaign from Terry McAuliffe who is tied so tightly with the Clintons. She was recruited by McAuliffe through Northam, as I recall. That never did smell right--especially, since we already knew that Clinton was going to run and, I'm confident that McAuliffe knew she was under investigation and was aware of McCabe's position at the FBI.

This.

There is a difference between paying an American company for opposition research and taking free help from the Russians.

If you cannot see that, then there simply is no hope for your understanding the truth.

Also, what happened with that research? It was given to the FBI. It was not used during the 2016 cycle even though it could have been used as such.

So, it is A-OK to take help from a foreign power as long as you pay for it. Good to know.
Research? You call what the Russians gave Steele was research? Ha ha ha ha.

I didn't make the law. Change it, but abide by it too. At the moment, Trump didn't and isn't planning on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listening to McCabe discuss how it is okay for Clinton campaign to fund the dossier because they paid the law firm who hired the oppo research firm who hired the Bristish spy who worked with the Russians is laughable, if it weren't so serious.

That's the same McCabe whose wife accepted almost a million dollars in funding for her own campaign from Terry McAuliffe who is tied so tightly with the Clintons. She was recruited by McAuliffe through Northam, as I recall. That never did smell right--especially, since we already knew that Clinton was going to run and, I'm confident that McAuliffe knew she was under investigation and was aware of McCabe's position at the FBI.

This.

There is a difference between paying an American company for opposition research and taking free help from the Russians.

If you cannot see that, then there simply is no hope for your understanding the truth.

Also, what happened with that research? It was given to the FBI. It was not used during the 2016 cycle even though it could have been used as such.

So, it is A-OK to take help from a foreign power as long as you pay for it. Good to know.
Research? You call what the Russians gave Steele was research? Ha ha ha ha.

They didn't pay for help from a foreign "power".

Ultimately, yes, they did. And, why did they try to hide it for a year?

Please explain. Who was the foreign power that the Clinton campaign paid?