It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tying the conspiracy together: "The Russia Investigation Circus Is Over. Will There Be A Parade?"

page: 2
43
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Opinion piece, not a news article, written by John Linder (R-GA), and originally published on the Daily Caller.

This is only an opinion piece, and is apparent from the very loaded rhetoric contained therein, not to mention the editorial disclaimer.

Enough said.
edit on 17-12-2017 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: JBurns

What a waste of tax payers money. At least make up something believable. Not even lefitst believe the bs, except sadly hardcore indoctrinated leftists that watches MSNBC 24/7.


Yep they watch that sexual predator Chris MAthews with that thrill up his leg.



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr


Agreed as well. Although I personally dislike the typical results of communism (a dictator oppressing people), I do not fear it nor believe that said witch-hunts are necessary or helpful. If some people want to support communism, I say good for them. It doesn't hurt me/this country in the least, and I don't think anyone will argue this country is going to become a communist nation.

I believe the level of vitriol against Russia is bordering on discriminatory right now. The whole "have you ever had contact with a Russian" thing leaves a very bad taste in the mouth of democracy and freedom. The freedom of association is a hallmark pillar of free speech and expression.

It appears Russia is being arbitrarily discriminated against by these individuals, and I don't think it could come at a worse time. I think more people are beginning to see the wisdom of friendly relations with Russia, even in the short term (North Korea, terrorism). The act of sharing CIA intelligence with them (that prevented a terrorist attack on Russian soil) is IMHO a huge step toward normalizing relations with them.



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence


There isn't any loaded rhetoric, though.

Respectfully, this is factual information is pieced together in a very logical fashion.

Do you care to dispute the facts? I'm sorry but simply dismissing it as "loaded rhetoric" doesn't change those facts or somehow "recredit" Mueller's work (or the other events listed).



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
Opinion piece, not a news article, written by John Linder (R-GA), and originally published on the Daily Caller.

This is only an opinion piece, and is apparent from the very loaded rhetoric contained therein, not to mention the editorial disclaimer.

Enough said.


When one examines the evidence, a clear progression from A->B->C->D is demonstrated. Can I ask which piece of factual evidence you dispute? I can provide you with the source and link to said information



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns


There isn't any loaded rhetoric, though.


Sure?


Investigation Circus


Jim Clapper, todays P.T Barnum


All circuses, of course, have a tiny car full of clowns


climbing out from under the hood


Etc.


Do you care to dispute the facts?


Facts?

That there have already been indictments and guilty pleas from it?

The investigation is not over, there is much no one knows and hasn't been made public (because it's an ongoing investigation), and the rhetoric in this opinion piece aims to convince those who already believe it's nothing and is over when it's far from such a thing, already evident by the indictments and guilty pleas.

It's just getting started. That's why the damage control, like this opinion piece, and freaking out.
edit on 17-12-2017 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence


Ever hear of a guilty knowledge test? The fact you singled out all the irrelevent metaphores is interesting. Why haven't you refuted the actual proven information presented? I can also provide you Strozok's text messages, as well as the Clinton findings he personally modified to prevent espionage charges.


The investigation is not over, and the rhetoric in this opinion piece aims to convince those who already believe it's nothing and over when it's far from such a thing, already evident by the indictments and guilty pleas.


You mean the extremely low-level non-probe related charges? Those were procedural and technical, and had nothing to do with Russia. Whether they had lied about who they had meetings with, or about what shirt they wore to dinner last Thursday is irrelevant: lying to federal agents/obstruction/violation of obscure acts is the totality of the crime, and has zero to do with any "collusion" claims (which were largely peddled by Strozok and his mistress). In the case of Manafort and another (can't recall his name right now), the charges spanned a decade of criminal misconduct, mostly during the Obama Administration. To put it another way, they're moreso connected to Obama than to Trump. Strozok and several other agents personally changed the routine counter-intelligence investigation's course to a criminal probe attacking the President. That is also demonstrated.


It's just getting started. That's why the damage control, like this opinion piece, and freaking out.


No one is "freaking out." POTUS or AG Sessions could fire Mueller at any moment and congress has no recourse. The fact he hasn't demonstrates he isn't concerned, because he certainly isn't concerned with the opposition's reactions to his decisions. From Sally Yates onward, Trump has fired (or hired) staff at will with little regard to the thoughts/opinions his opponents (or even allies, in some cases).

In fact, the probe is already done interviewing the entire Trump White House, which means that as far as the President is concerned, the investigation is indeed finished.

If you'd like to contest the actual facts presented, please do so. Highlighting a metaphore (which was added to aid comprehension no doubt) does not increase the strength of your argument. You are the one failing to provide facts or substantive analysis of evidence, not me.

I look forward to responding to your criticism of the evidence that has been presented.

edit on 12/17/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns


The fact you singled out all the irrelevent metaphores is interesting.


You said there was no rhetoric. I showed that there was.


Why haven't you refuted the actual proven information presented?


As stated: There have already been indictments and guilty pleas. Fact.


No one is "freaking out."


Then why the rush to discredit the legally obtained information as "illegally obtained?" If there's nothing, why the repeated attempts to derail it and the entirety of the investigation?


the probe is already done interviewing the entire Trump White House, which means that as far as the President is concerned, the investigation is indeed finished.


Hardly.



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence




Hardly.


But. But.
Ty Cobb said so.



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: stosh64
Can't wait to see the usual Silly suspects show up and argue against this.

From MSN no less.
They don't work during Xmas



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence



Then why the rush to discredit the legally obtained information as "illegally obtained?" If there's nothing, why the repeated attempts to derail it and the entirety of the investigation?


In the totality of these revelations, the improperly obtained (allegedly improper) emails are a grain of sand sitting on a beach.

From the intentionally botched Clinton investigation, to the dubious acts of several top FBI agents and DOJ officials (from McCabe, to Strozok, Lisa Page, Lynch to Comey and onward), this exposed conspiracy stretches over a large number of incidents and as many people. Whether or not the most recent GSA documents were obtained legally is the least of my concerns. This case stands on its own merit, with or without that addition.

I hope that isn't the only defense you can come up with for the factual evidence I've presented.

Which specific credible and factual bit of my information are you contesting? Please, be extremely specific and stop focusing on semantics and side arguments. I don't care about rhetoric or anything else, only the facts that have been presented as supported by the evidence in hand.

...and you've still failed to actually address (let alone dispute or discredit) any of the evidence, its analysis or the overarching conspiracy's logical progression.
edit on 12/17/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns


I hope that isn't the only defense you can come up with for the factual evidence I've presented.


Your only "evidence" is partisan conjecture.

Your premise is that the investigation "circus" is over, based on an opinion piece.

I showed that it isn't over, but still ongoing, and that indictments and guilty pleas have already happened.

The rest is an attempt at discreditation and attempting to undermine a lawful investigation.



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

You've done no such thing. You have deflected and presented junk information to detract from the discussion. You have failed at discrediting my information, because it is available in the OP for all who are interested. Instead of reposting my OP, I have extrapolated the information and presented it in question format.

If you honestly ask yourself the following questions (and do the appropriate independent research - don't take my word for it) I trust you'll expand your awareness of this conspiracy. If you're totally convinced of your position, what harm can come from exploring these alternatives?

Dems and media like to say 17 intelligence agencies agreed unanimously - this is untrue. In actually, only three agencies provided input and NSA only expressed "moderate confidence" in the reports. Later, Clapper admitted that only a select handful of people within these agencies came to these findings - hardly the unanimous claim he'd made initially. In fact, the three agencies couldn't even be described as "unanimous." How much do you want to bet that FBI's opinion came from Pete Strozok (the lead counterintelligence SA at that time)

The accusations against Russia are entirely based on the findings of a private company (CrowdStrike) that the DNC hired in response to the leaks. 16GB of data was transferred in just a couple of seconds, so we already know it was transferred locally (via USB 3.0+ no less).

How come the same agents/lawyers who steered this standard counter-intelligence probe to an attack against Trump were involved in the Clinton investigation? Why is a special counsel needed now, but not when a Democrat administration was investigating a former SOS and DNC Presidential candidate?

What about the extremely suspicious text messages between Strozok, Lisa Page and others? What "insurance policy" against Trump were they referring to? Knowing the extent people went to in the 2016 election, what makes you believe these people maintained their professional standards? Wouldn't the right thing to have done been to recuse themselves?

What about the laundering of millions of dollars from the Clinton campaign and the DNC to pay Fusion GPS to produce a dossier full of salacious unverified (mostly unverifiable) charges against Trump? What if that was used to obtain intrusive FISA warrant(s)? How about Bruce Ohr meeting with the writers of the slanderous "dossier" ?

How about Andrew Weissmann, who congratulated disgraced acting-AG Sally Yates for refusing to follow what is universally termed a "lawful Presidential order"?

Why was Clinton, Mills, Abedin and dozens more interviewed without being put under oath by Peter Strozok no less? Why would co-conspirator Cheryl Mills be allowed to sit in on the interrogation?

Why did Strozok decline to charge Mills and Abedin for lying about knowledge of Clinton's illegal server? They clearly had the knowledge (as proven by their own emails), yet lied directly to federal agents (a crime whether under oath or not). They also were not prosecuted for this offense - yet it is precisely what the likes of Mike Flynn and company are charged with. Precisely the same offense. Once again, two sets of rules.

If this entire nonsense is based on the erroneous and malicious actions of these corrupt and tainted agents as well as the phony "dossier" (aka Democrat op-research hit-job stuff), then I fully expect the investigation will be shut down without warning. And rightfully so. A new investigator can easily be appointed, who is not tainted like Mueller and virtually his entire team.


edit on 12/17/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: JBurns


Your only "evidence" is partisan conjecture.

Your premise is that the investigation "circus" is over, based on an opinion piece.




That doesn't change the facts. The credible evidence referenced in the OP is available from any source. You don't even need an analysis, just look at the raw evidence and tell me which piece I presented is lacking in credibility or otherwise incorrect. That is a personal, friendly challenge.


I showed that it isn't over, but still ongoing, and that indictments and guilty pleas have already happened.

The rest is an attempt at discreditation and attempting to undermine a lawful investigation.


You've done no such thing. The indictments and guilty pleas are entirely unrelated to the allegations against POTUS. They span over a decade and three administrations. Nice try though.

I'm not "attempting" to do anything. It is already thoroughly discredited. Besides, didn't you hear? They're done with the White House.

You again provide no evidence supporting your position, nor have you refuted any relevant body of information I've presented. I can sense I'm wasting my time here.



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

He Said with No Substantiall Proof to Back it Up , She Said with No Substantial Proof to Back it Up , a Fiction is Still a Fiction if it is Not Backed Up by Provable Substantiated Facts in a Reasonable Amount of Time . Millions of Dollars Spent , the Ultimate Losers in this Charade are the American Taxpayer ..........
edit on 17-12-2017 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns


You've done no such thing. You have deflected and presented junk information to detract from the discussion.


Who's the one deflecting from the current criminal investigation into Russian interference and Trump's campaign to Clinton, in usual fashion?


If this entire nonsense is based on the erroneous and malicious actions of these corrupt and tainted agents


But it isn't. It's wishful thinking and attempted spin, and about a real investigation into real crimes involving many players around Trump, some who who have already been indicted and plead guilty.


who is not tainted like Mueller and virtually his entire team.


Conjecture. But thanks for proving my point by attempting to discredit the investigation by what some perceive is bias, when it is anything but.

Nice talking points you have there.



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: JBurns

He Said with No Substantiall Proof to Back it Up , She Said with No Substantial Proof to Back it Up , a Fiction is Still a Fiction if it is Not Backed Up by Provable Substantiated Facts in a Reasonable Amount of Time . Millions of Dollars Spent , the Ultimate Losers in this Charade are the American Taxpayer ..........


I could not agree more Zanti


It has been one speculative rumor-mill induced line/accusation after the other. They refuse to look at any evidence objectively, and dismiss factual claims as if we were still in the campaign days. Despite Obama and Clapper both telling them no Russian interference occurred, they still perpetuate these bogus and malicious allegations.

The anti-Trump people do know Obama/Clapper admitted to this, right? I can show you...

I still remember when they were using the word "collusion" incessantly to describe their allegations until enough of us informed them "collusion" pertained to anti-trust statutes alone, and that even if true, allegedly "cooperating with a foreign government to influence an election" wasn't an actual crime in this jurisdiction.

Time for them to stop perpetuating a bitter sour-grape candidate's paranoid ravings. Fact is, Hillary Clinton's poorly secured home server was a much more enticing target for nation-state APT's. It is clear the DNC breach was an internal leaker, especially given the analysis of data provided by CrowdStrike. No attacker ever exfiltrates 16GB of data over their target's network. It would either be in small bursts over several weeks (disguised as other traffic, hidden within images, etc) or transferred locally (wirelessly or via USB). Given the transfer speeds required, only USB 3.0+ could handle that transfer. William Binney, former NSA analysis agrees with this assessment.



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

" But it isn't. It's wishful thinking and attempted spin, and about a real investigation into real crimes involving many players around Trump, some who who have already been indicted and plead guilty. "




Objection Your Honor , this Information is a Stated Public Opinion not Presented with Facts !



..Sustained .



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 06:38 PM
link   
I'm thinking that "The investigation is over" might be a bit of a surprise to Robert Mueller.



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: MysticPearl

Yeah. Imagine how stupid that would be.




top topics



 
43
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join