Prosecutor to Investigate Origins of FBI Trump-Russia Probe

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Russian government and its surrogates helped Trump and his campaign illegally and Trump and his campaign knew about it, welcomed it, and built it into their campaign strategy. Everyone knows this is true.

Liar.

Well everyone else knows it to be true. The first part is extensively documented in the Mueller Report.

Poster, to be clear, you are claiming Chuck Ross' reporting is false? Please send me the page number in the report where Mueller addresses which players were was assets and to whom. These blanket proclamations - without citations or links - come across as propaganda.

This cake is baked, IMHO. I could be wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Russian government and its surrogates helped Trump and his campaign illegally and Trump and his campaign knew about it, welcomed it, and built it into their campaign strategy. Everyone knows this is true.

Liar.

Well everyone else knows it to be true. The first part is extensively documented in the Mueller Report.

Stop reading through a magnifier. Even if you take the Mueller report seriously, what’s credited to the Russians is a joke, bordering on a nothingburger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Russian government and its surrogates helped Trump and his campaign illegally and Trump and his campaign knew about it, welcomed it, and built it into their campaign strategy. Everyone knows this is true.

Liar.

Well everyone else knows it to be true. The first part is extensively documented in the Mueller Report.

Stop reading through a magnifier. Even if you take the Mueller report seriously, what’s credited to the Russians is a joke, bordering on a nothingburger.

This is how far our country has fallen. Sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

What foreign "power" did they pay for help from?

Ultimately - Russia.

Meanwhile, the Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross reports that Steele identified two of his sources for Kavalec: Russia’s former spy chief Vyacheslav Trubnikov and top Kremlin adviser Vladislav Surkov.

https://news.yahoo.com/steele-dossier-verified-application-wasn-090026334.html

Are they the men who were taken out of a meeting with bags over their head?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Russian government and its surrogates helped Trump and his campaign illegally and Trump and his campaign knew about it, welcomed it, and built it into their campaign strategy. Everyone knows this is true.

Liar.

Well everyone else knows it to be true. The first part is extensively documented in the Mueller Report.

Stop reading through a magnifier. Even if you take the Mueller report seriously, what’s credited to the Russians is a joke, bordering on a nothingburger.

And yet AG Barr had to go out of his way to misrepresent its findings and conclusions, and to argue that it was not illegal for Wikileaks to distribute or for the Trump campaign to amplify the hacked emails if they were not involved in the hacking itself.

[Anonymous]

And the GOP is willfully rebuffing measures to prevent a repeat in 2020

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/lisa-murkowski-mcconnell-oppose-election-security-proposals/index.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And the GOP is willfully rebuffing measures to prevent a repeat in 2020

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/lisa-murkowski-mcconnell-oppose-election-security-proposals/index.html

The bill the Dems are pushing is ridiculous and has no hope of passing.
If Dems were REALLY interested in election security, they would propose actual legislation that would have a chance of passing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the GOP is willfully rebuffing measures to prevent a repeat in 2020

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/lisa-murkowski-mcconnell-oppose-election-security-proposals/index.html

The bill the Dems are pushing is ridiculous and has no hope of passing.
If Dems were REALLY interested in election security, they would propose actual legislation that would have a chance of passing.

So giving states money for ballot box security and requiring people to report illegal foreign solicitaitions have no chance of passing the GOP senate.

Hmmmm, I wonder why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the GOP is willfully rebuffing measures to prevent a repeat in 2020

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/lisa-murkowski-mcconnell-oppose-election-security-proposals/index.html

The bill the Dems are pushing is ridiculous and has no hope of passing.
If Dems were REALLY interested in election security, they would propose actual legislation that would have a chance of passing.

Please go on. Which parts do you find "ridiculous"?

A requirement that states maintain paper ballots?
A requirement that campaigns inform the FEC/DOJ when foreign governments offer information/services to the campaign?
A requirement that internet companies like Facebook disclose who purchased political ads?
A proposal to send money to the states so they tighten and upgrade their election infrastructure?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the GOP is willfully rebuffing measures to prevent a repeat in 2020

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/lisa-murkowski-mcconnell-oppose-election-security-proposals/index.html

The bill the Dems are pushing is ridiculous and has no hope of passing.
If Dems were REALLY interested in election security, they would propose actual legislation that would have a chance of passing.

So giving states money for ballot box security and requiring people to report illegal foreign solicitaitions have no chance of passing the GOP senate.

Hmmmm, I wonder why?

Don't rely on CNN to provide the truth. Look into the bill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the GOP is willfully rebuffing measures to prevent a repeat in 2020

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/lisa-murkowski-mcconnell-oppose-election-security-proposals/index.html

The bill the Dems are pushing is ridiculous and has no hope of passing.
If Dems were REALLY interested in election security, they would propose actual legislation that would have a chance of passing.

So giving states money for ballot box security and requiring people to report illegal foreign solicitaitions have no chance of passing the GOP senate.

Hmmmm, I wonder why?

Don't rely on CNN to provide the truth. Look into the bill.

I see nothing wrong with it. Please tell me what parts you object to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the GOP is willfully rebuffing measures to prevent a repeat in 2020

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/lisa-murkowski-mcconnell-oppose-election-security-proposals/index.html

The bill the Dems are pushing is ridiculous and has no hope of passing.
If Dems were REALLY interested in election security, they would propose actual legislation that would have a chance of passing.

So giving states money for ballot box security and requiring people to report illegal foreign solicitaitions have no chance of passing the GOP senate.

Hmmmm, I wonder why?

Don't rely on CNN to provide the truth. Look into the bill.

I see nothing wrong with it. Please tell me what parts you object to.

We won't get an answer with specifics. Ironically, the PP who objects to this legislation is just parroting Fox News.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the GOP is willfully rebuffing measures to prevent a repeat in 2020

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/lisa-murkowski-mcconnell-oppose-election-security-proposals/index.html

The bill the Dems are pushing is ridiculous and has no hope of passing.
If Dems were REALLY interested in election security, they would propose actual legislation that would have a chance of passing.

So giving states money for ballot box security and requiring people to report illegal foreign solicitaitions have no chance of passing the GOP senate.

Hmmmm, I wonder why?

Don't rely on CNN to provide the truth. Look into the bill.

I see nothing wrong with it. Please tell me what parts you object to.

REQUIRING paper ballot AND outlining early voting standards is directly interfering with local decisions surrounding elections. It's as if the Democrats are putting elections under federal control.
And, requiring the president and VP to release their tax returns has no place in this bill.
These things have nothing to do with election security. There are other issues as well.

[Anonymous]

And, in other news, the State Dept. has identified violations regarding Clinton's email.......

The State Department revealed Monday that it has identified "multiple security incidents" involving current or former employees' handling of Hillary Clinton's emails, and that 23 "violations" and seven "infractions" have been issued as part of the department's ongoing investigation.

The information came in a letter to Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who is responsible for overseeing the security review.

"To this point, the Department has assessed culpability to 15 individuals, some of whom were culpable in multiple security incidents," Mary Elizabeth Taylor, the State Department's Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Legislative Affairs, wrote to Grassley. "DS has issued 23 violations and 7 infractions incidents. ... This number will likely change as the review progresses."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-state-department-violations-security-incidents

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And, in other news, the State Dept. has identified violations regarding Clinton's email.......

The State Department revealed Monday that it has identified "multiple security incidents" involving current or former employees' handling of Hillary Clinton's emails, and that 23 "violations" and seven "infractions" have been issued as part of the department's ongoing investigation.

The information came in a letter to Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who is responsible for overseeing the security review.

"To this point, the Department has assessed culpability to 15 individuals, some of whom were culpable in multiple security incidents," Mary Elizabeth Taylor, the State Department's Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Legislative Affairs, wrote to Grassley. "DS has issued 23 violations and 7 infractions incidents. ... This number will likely change as the review progresses."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-state-department-violations-security-incidents

And when will the State Department investigate the open emails and unsecure phones being used by Donald and Ivanka Trump as well as Jared Kushner and others? What about Colin Powell and GW Bush?