Trump Redeemed - No Russia Collusion and 2 Warrants

a reply to: burntheships

Maybe he will in the future, how do you know?

I didn't ask about what he will do. I asked about what he has (not) done, in spite of what he has said.

However, we all had to change health plans,
costing twelve to twenty times as much as
a cell phone bill,

I didn't. But what's up with comparing health care with a phone bill?

originally posted by: Phage
I didn't.

Can you prove you still have the same health care plan
that you had before the ACA?

But what's up with comparing health care with a phone bill?

Preposterous, yeah....but someone did.

But still...... Russians?

*rolls eyes*

a reply to: burntheships

Can you prove you still have the same health care plan
that you had before the ACA?

The coverage is identical. For myself and my daughter. You will get no more personal information from me.

But still...... Russians.

*rolls eyes*

Russians? Who said anything about Russians? We don't need no steenkin Russians to take advantage of our Office!

a reply to: Sillyolme

All I can do is lol at these types of posts. They're so wrong it's just funny. Lest you think I'm just poking fun without substance, here's why they're wrong:

First, even if the probable cause standard was high (it's not), that does not equate to guilt. It is quite possible to have probable cause and be incorrect.

Second, the probable cause standard for FISA warrants is extremely low. There have been 12 denials in the history of FISA courts. Usually denials are due to paperwork being incorrectly filed or filled out.

Third, FISA warrants are only allowed to investigate foreign persons, therefore Trump cannot have been the target. This also means that probable cause could not have been pertaining to Trump.

a reply to: Phage

If you were really worried, as you say....about Russians and
"motivations" you might be interested that someone did
indeed get a big payoff for intervention on Russia's behalf.

Russia, Rosneft, Oil and Money

Only that someone wasn't Trump, it was the Obama Administraion,
and Podesta's

Enjoy your "worried mind" as you so choose to look
in all of the wrong places in this manufactured "Red Scare".

a reply to: elouina

Seems the Director of the FBI and the Director of National Security Agency disagree with you.

a reply to: Leonidas

How do you figure? Before you answer let me quote Comey just about five minutes ago:
"I'm trying to uphold the integrity of investigations so please don't take my no comment to confirm investigations are ongoing."

Where can we see a copy of the warrants? That is the only thing that will shut up the Obama apologists...

a reply to: daveinats

You'll have to hope for leaks.

Run? No...probably with his boy friend though...

Is it true that American officials believe that Donald Trump has been supplying Russian authorities with information about the activities of Russian oligarchs in the United States for eight years?!?

This was (roughly) a question from Rep. Devin Nunes, and answered affirmatively during the House Intelligence Committee hearing a short time ago, by some naval officer whose name I didn't catch.

Note: ( Michael S. "Mike" Rogers (born October 31, 1959) is a United States Navy Admiral who serves as Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), Commander of the U.S. Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) and Chief of the Central Security Service (CSS) since April 3, 2014.)

Am I wrong in thinking that the shorthand for this is that Donald Trump was an asset of the FSB?

If this is true, it begs the question, "Why were Republican Party higher ups not informed of this?"

Why was Trump allowed to run for president? To me it shows that the intelligence agencies do not operate on the behalf of the American people, but work for elite interests who don't care if Trump is an FSB asset and who would be happy that he was helping the Russians work against the interests of their own oligarchs within the United States, or at least keep tabs on them.

This is ugly stuff.

a reply to: ipsedixit

Do you have a link or a point in the video? That's pretty explosive.


EDIT: Turns out that's a complete misunderstanding of the question by ipsedixit, see the video and other post by ipsedixit.

a reply to: Dfairlite

It's very explosive. It comes during the questioning of Mike Rogers by Rep. Nunes. I was watching the live feed on the Washington Post website, and don't have a point of reference. Nunes was asking several questions in point form and this was one of them. It wasn't expanded upon at the time. Then Comey came up to bat and Rogers was gone.

There may be YouTube clips or at some point a transcript will be published.

I found the sequence of questions. They start at around 2:58:00 of the following video of the hearings. Note: If you are watching here, embedded, the relevant time is 03:08:00.

Am I the only one that is a little disturbed by the number of people that have more allegiance to the POTUS than their country?

Partisan lines should not extend beyond the national boundaries.

a reply to: Leonidas

AMERICA FIRST!

a reply to: ipsedixit

Is it true that American officials believe that Donald Trump has been supplying Russian authorities with information about the activities of Russian oligarchs in the United States for eight years?!?

This was (roughly) a question from Rep. Devin Nunes, and answered affirmatively during the House Intelligence Committee hearing a short time ago, by some naval officer whose name I didn't catch.

Holy crap! That means that Trump was lying every time he said he had nothing to do with the Russians, except selling them real estate! He was selling information!

originally posted by: daveinats
Run? No...probably with his boy friend though...

Is that meant to be some sort of gay joke?

1. Are you 12?
2. How would it be an insult given that:
a) he's not gay
b) there is literally nothing insulting about calling a gay man gay. And he's not. So I can only conclude that you actually are 12.

Christ it really is like play school in here at times. Pathetic.

a reply to: ipsedixit

Yeah, that's not explosive, nor what you made it out to be. He basically asked if a russian tactic described in the discredited dossier was indeed a legitimate tactic used by russian intelligence. The answer was yes. You're reading way too far into it if you think that was a tacit admission that trump was an FSB asset (which is what you asserted).

a reply to: windword

Hold the phone!

Nunes is asking Admiral Rogers and Director Comey questions related to the plausibility of allegations contained in the dossier compiled by Christopher Steele, which was initially compiled at the request of Republican political opponents of Donald Trump.

They are being very noncommittal. They seem to be accepting the general paradigm of Russian behavior described by Steele, but not acknowledging relevance to the particular situation being looked into by the committee.

Here's a quote from the embedded video:

Nunes (referring to allegations in the Steele dossier): A quid pro quo relationship seems to exist between the Trump campaign and Putin's Russia. A July 19, 2016 entry, for example, asserts that Russians were receiving intel from Trump's team, on Russian oligarchs and their families in the United States.

An entry from June 20th, 2016 states, quote, "Trump and his inner circle have accepted regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals, unquote, which is "something for something".

A July 30th entry likewise states that, quote, a source close to the Trump campaign confirms regular exchange with the Kremlin has existed for at least eight years, including intelligence he fed back to Russia on oligarch's activities in the United States.

Is it generally true that Moscow actively seeks and supports, whether through the oligarchs, overt Russian officials or undeclared intelligence officers, sympathetic or cooperative foreign figures abroad, whether throuh business dealings or political backing or a combination of the two?

Rogers: Generally it's a tactic we have seen over time, but again I would caution us, we're talking about very specific cases theoretically here and I'm not prepared to give, (get) any of the specifics.

My original post on this subject was overstated. If the US authorities agree with Steele, they are not acknowledging that and may never do so. Steele might be wrong in his allegations.

When I caught the feed on the WAPO site, I didn't realize that the dossier being discussed originated with Steele. I thought it was an American intelligence assessment. I do apologize for jumping the gun. It isn't certain at this point whether the gun will even go off.