Breaking: First Charges Filed in Mueller Investigation

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: Gryphon66

"Cult 45" is right on schedule ! Discredit Mueller. In all fairness, they will be running out of options, and it's all they have left.

What an ingenious way to refer to idiotic cultists! Cult 45 indeed. Beyond the smoke of the U1 deal, a mysterious FBI contractor that was the one making bribes to Russians, etc.

This is about discrediting the investigation that is about to remind everyone in Washington what American justice actually looks like.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yep, it’s their spin-off narrative meant to compete with reality.

It’s been their formula from the beginning which also makes it their tell.

The more they invent these desperate alternative narratives, the guiltier Trump looks.

It's past time to stop the reality denial that has become the standard in the modern political discourse.

These indictments will remind everyone that there is truth that is sustained by evidence, and that all the political lies are smoke that can be blown away by just a little puff of truth and factual evidence.

That is why so many liars pile into every one of these threads, and they have a two word instruction set:

Create Doubt.

Those of us who care about the truth and rational debate must fight these liars at every turn not with more opinion but with cold hard facts.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
It's past time to stop the reality denial that has become the standard in the modern political discourse.

These indictments will remind everyone that there is truth that is sustained by evidence, and that all the political lies are smoke that can be blown away by just a little puff of truth and factual evidence.

That is why so many liars pile into every one of these threads, and they have a two word instruction set:

Create Doubt.

Those of us who care about the truth and rational debate must fight these liars at every turn not with more opinion but with cold hard facts.

You are not rational.

You refuse to look at any facts that show the other side is corrupt, and call anyone that wants to a traitor.

You are going off on these high and might monologues about how now is the time to stand up for justice and fight the traitors.

I am seriously worried for you; you sound like you have cracked.

If you need someone to talk to, PM me.

a reply to: Grambler

Lol, you’re so full of sh*t. Gryphon has consistently been one of the most rational people here.

You’re spinning in every direction, jumping all over the place, peddling your false little fantasy narrative.

It’s clear you don’t even believe it, you’re just trying to turn attention away from the real story.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: Grambler

Lol, you’re so full of sh*t. Gryphon has consistently been one of the most rational people here.

You’re spinning in every direction, jumping all over the place, peddling your false little fantasy narrative.

It’s clear you don’t even believe it, you’re just trying to turn attention away from the major headlines.

Disagree, most partisan maybe.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

You’re spinning in every direction, jumping all over the place, peddling your false little fantasy narrative.

It’s clear you don’t even believe it, you’re just trying to turn attention away from the real story.

As is everyone else, when reality starts to descend.

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)
Discuss the topic and not other members.
Go After the Ball, Not the Player!

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

The time has come, and indeed, is long past, to stop personal interactions with intentional liars, stop pretending that their noxious screed has any place in any rational discussion such as ATS strives for. Liars, traitors, scoundrels ... intentional disinfo agents only thrive when their game is played.

For my part, I’m done with that. None of this is personal, and furthermore, none of this is partisan. Whether we are liberal, conservative or as most of us are, somewhere in the moderate in-between ... it’s just long past time to start fighting again for what we know to be true, and reasonable and factual.

The Mueller investigation has been prolific and unquestionable in its actions to this point. There is zero reasonable criticisms that can be raised against either the Special Counsel or the investigation itself. It is clear that those resorting to such tactics are nothing more than liars acting in line with the media and the political machine.

Stop playing their games; tell the truth and don’t look back.

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Since none of what is in the dossier has ever been verified I look forward to your response that it has.

I thought you said the FBI independently verified parts of it to use as part of the warrant request?

So which is it, unverified or verified?

I never said that. What I did say was using knowingly false information in order to deceive a judge in order to obtain warrants is a crime and any and all evidence collected as a direct result of those warrants would be considered fruit of the poisonous tree (IE Not admissible in court).

CNN reported the FBI investigation and warrants were based on the Dossier.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

Point out in article II of the US Constitution where it references a national popular vote.

spoiler alert:
It does not exist because there is no such thing as a national popular vote.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Intentionally ignoring facts those doesnt make your case.

Mueller has a clear conflict of interest in this case and by law and rules of the DOJ should have recused himself.

a reply to: Grambler

Why is this accepted as possible proof of something or worthy of investigation.

I didn't say it was. In of itself it's not anything but a curious fact that may or may not have anything to do with the dossier claim. It could very well be a coincidence. I was just pointing out that it was curious and that for all the talk in that opinion piece about things not being "worthy of a wack conspiracy theory..." that maybe it's not as wacky as he opined.

But an FBI informant that was key in bringing down criminals said that Russian interests were bribing Hillary to try to push through uranium one, then we see Hillarys foundation getting millions of dollars byu these players, Bill meeting putin and then getting a $500,000 speaking fee from russia a couple of weeks later, and then Hillarys assistant ends up voting to push uraniu,m one through, thats all just hogwash.

Well that's certainly more smoke than the Rosneft thing but then again, I wasn't trying to contrast them in the first place. I've argued why I don't think the Uranium One thing is what it's cracked up to be. I've also argued why I'm skeptical about "CS-1" but if he's got evidence, we'll know soon enough.

What I'm curious about is what happens if he testifies that he heard some rumors from some Russians? Will that be treated like the contents of the dossier? As unvetted raw intel? Or will Trump supporters be falling all over themselves claiming it's definitive proof of wrongdoing by Hillary? I tend to think the latter.

To me, I don't have a problem with the dossier as a jumping off point as long as that's all it is. Clearly any information from it should be corroborated before being used in any sort of legal action (including obtaining a FISA warrant). I feel the same way about what CS-1 might have to say. The difference here is that if Manafort goes on trial, nobody is going to be reading excerpts from the dossier to jurors and claiming that they're facts.

It can't be used as testimony.

What are the evidentiary standards for testimony in a congressional probe? Are there any at all? And how can you prove perjury in a hearsay claim? So what's to stop him from saying pretty much *anything* ?

a reply to: Grambler

Can we at least agree that it would have been very troubling if the FBI used this for a fisa warrant IF they didnt very carefully corborate the info first?

Yes, we can definitely agree to that. There's no way that uncorroborated claims in an oppo research dossier should be used to get a warrant, FISA or not.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Because the CI testimony / supporting documentation has already been used in court to secure several convictions against Russian actors and individuals in the US who were involved. Only the information regarding the Clinton's participation was was ignored and the CI information was kept under lock and key years after those investigations concluded and ended.

I am curious how long it will take the left to argue the Clintons were also CI working on the investigation in order to protect them.

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: Gryphon66

"Cult 45" is right on schedule ! Discredit Mueller. In all fairness, they will be running out of options, and it's all they have left.

'Star because Cult 45 is hilarious.

I dont claim you can have a better time with cult 45 than without it, but why take chances?

Deputy AG Rosenstein appointed Bob Mueller as Special Counsel on May 17, 2017. Mueller’s background and past associates were well known at that point. There is no information that has subsequently come to light that calls his appoitnement as such into question. Such questions are part of a organized attempt to lie and discredit the FBI investigations currently underway.

Letter of Appointment

a reply to: theantediluvian

The informant isnt oppo research, and he was never hired by a political opponent to dig up dirt on another. He was hired by the FBI to investigate russian corruption, which I am sure you will admit is far different.

But he may have nothing relevant to say, we shall see.

And the FBI now that they are done stonewalling may very well show they didnt use that dossier for Fisa warrants, or the heaviliy vetted it before they did. But if the latter is true, and then Muellers investigation can't prove many of the allegations in the dossier, then it would then seem like either the FBI was severely corrupt in using this for Fisa warrants, or they were politically motivated.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

Can we at least agree that it would have been very troubling if the FBI used this for a fisa warrant IF they didnt very carefully corborate the info first?

Yes, we can definitely agree to that. There's no way that uncorroborated claims in an oppo research dossier should be used to get a warrant, FISA or not.

Exactly. Again, I have said all along that although I find the democratic funding of this dossier to be very shady (as was Trump jrs meeting) I dont think its catastrophic.

Its hypocritical, and makes the dems screaming about russian collusion seem ridiculous, but not a huge crime in my opinion (baring if they violated disclosure laws or lied to congress about not knowing about funding it).

So lets see what the FBI has to say about how they used it, thats where the real scandal could be.

Even if Hillary wrote a personal check to Christopher Steele's Orbis consulting company for opposition research, I fail to see how it would have changed anything.

Steele isn't a foreign government. He doesn't run a country or represent the government of a country.

Don Jr's meeting on the other hand....meeting with Russians that had direct ties to the Russian government, with the expressed purpose of getting dirt? And then trying to lie about it under the guise of "adoptions" (which is a code word for sanctions..which mysteriously haven't been implemented by Trump's state dept..)

This whataboutism and projection from right-wingers is pitiful and a painfully obvious defense tactic.