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.

 

The point of cohens plea deal

page: 7
39
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll


It absolutely is about justice. This man has surrounded himself with criminals. Do you ever ask yourself why?


Not that I expect anything of value from your opinion on this, it does make you think. Trump was not a politician. He had ideas of how he thought things should work, but he had no idea how the back side of politics was. Sure he paid off politicians in the past to get them to vote for things that would help him in business, but he needed to know all about the inside of a political presidential run. I'm sure there were lots of people who offered to help him. It is possible that some of those who offered to help him and ended up helping him, were in actuality members of the opposition, who wanted to disrupt his path? Remember that the FBI already admitted to placing two different people in his circle of "friends".

But since that's speculation, it's likely just the ramblings of a conspiracy person who doesn't really understand things like a progressive might.




posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

And even given that incredible standard, hillarys team STILL falls into that catergory.

Her IT guy is literally on reddit the night before deleting these emails asking for help getting a very VIP's name off of email exchanges.

This proves intent to hide her name.

And it proves that the excuse of we were going to delete these months ago so its cool is a lie.

Why would an IT guy be asking for help getting names off of email exchanges that he planned to completely delete the next day?

This is not just me coming up with theories because i dont like the outcome.

The evidnce is clearly there.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 02:24 PM
link   
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

On russia smearing trump

The idea that only russians connected to trump needed to be investigated because russia hated hillary is absolutely mind numbingly absurd.

You yourself admit that russian sought to cause general unrest well before that. SO why would we want to investigate everyone with russian connections, regardless of what dies they were on?

The fact is that both during and definitely after the election, russians put out post that hurt trump. So what is the excuse for not looking into people that are against trump and their connection to russians?

Its just a thinly veiled argument to say what is really going on; we know that foriegn influence in rampant throughjout washington, we know that many shady russians had connections to hillary and the dnc, but we only want to look at the ones close to trump.

You are the one that said not investigaing would be negligence by the fbi, but here you are celebrating negligence from the fbi, as long as it benefits your side.
edit on 22-8-2018 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Tony Podesta

Yes I meant campaign managers brother. We have gone through this before, but tony was a huge donor with hillarty, and still close with his brother.

For some reason he was not charged for the same crime manafort was, lobbying for russians in 2012. I wonder who he was lobbbying t? Perhaps secretary of state Hillary clinton?

Thats just one connection from hillary.

People on her team are reported to have met with kislyak. People on her team got ukranian government help against trump.

Oh and her former lawyer and cheerleader lanny davis is also represnting convicted russian oligarch mobster firtsah (and trump lawyer cohen, no conflict there!)
Chris steele

Yes clearly this man is beyond reproach.

I mean, sure, he lied to the fbi, leaked to the press, and got fired for it, but yeah a standup guy.

I find it funny how anytime someone on your side is dealing with russian oligarchs, even the exact same ones that you want trump people investigated for, its just they are standup guys so it cool

Steele was working with glenn simpson directly contacting deripaska. You know, that russian oligarch that manafort had to be investigated for having connections to?

Not only that, but they were all in contact with bruce ohr from obamas doj, and mark warner senate intel vice chair.

Steele is in cionne ction with ohr and warner AFTER he was fired from the fbi. He is discussing how he hopes the "firewall" holds up from all of this.

I wonder what that was about?

And lastly on steele, what does his past work with the fbi have to do with his russian connections? Carter page worked as a witness for the fbi, but that didnt stop them from accusing him of being a russian conspirator a year later and spying on him, a charge they have not even came close to proving.

Glenn simpson

Glenn simpson was in contact with deripaska, a russian oligarch that manafort had connections to all thourought the dossier writing. He was facuiltating cinverasations between deripaska, mark warner, and steele (some of which warner wanted "no paper trail" for for some reason)

In addition to that, he had two clients, the very russian lawyer don jr is supposedly bad for meeting, vesil(eh you know who I am talking about) and a russian lobbyists named Akhmetshin, who was alos at thhe trump tower meeting.

Simpson had worked with these two to get russian sanctions lifted. Now remember, when trump was going to ligft sanctions, this was proof he was in putins pocket. Butr when hillary is apying a firm that is trying to get russians sanctions lifted, there is nothing to see there.

Simpson is back channeling to ohr after steele got fired about details they are getting from a "russian-ameircan lobbyist) who is most likely Akhmetshin .

despite this, and the fact that V had dinner with simpson before and after the don jr meeting, he claims to have had no knowldge of the meeting. Even though he was working with her to get sanctions lifted, and she was going to have this big meeting about just that, and she admitted to using simpsons talking piints in the fdon jr meeting, simpson, the stand up guy you are defending, has said he had no knowledge of the meeting.

This is a blatant lie, as you know. Why did he lie?

Going on though, Akhmetshin also admits to having met with people on hillarys team and is himself a former kgb operative

Tis could go on and on but I will continue below



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

The point is this; three of the major players that are said to be russian conspirators that were possibly colluding with trumps team; deripaska, Akhmetshin , and vesilnetskya, all had significant connections to people connected with hillary.

Akhmetshin and vesilnetskya were clients of the very firm and its founder glenn simpson hillary hired to get dirt on trump.

simpson by the way that was accused of being an unregistered russian lobbyist (which appears likely seeing as how the were unregistered and lobbying to remove russian sanctions)

One of these russian conspirators meets with simpson the night before and after the trump jr. meeting, but he claims he has no knowledge of this possible criminal act.

This same man, simpson, is in contact with the third conspirator deripaska, setting up meetings and communications with the writer of the dossier steele, and democrats bruce ohr and mark warner

Deripaska is also connected to hillarys campaign managers brother, who is also a hillary donor, tony podesta, who illegally lobbied with deripaska with manafort.

Simpson is hired by hillary to prove that trump is trying to get dirt on her from russians. To do so he hires steele who gets dirt on trump from some of the same russians trump is said to have been getting dirt from The most direct evidence of trump trying to get dirt from russians is meeting simpsons own supposedly dirty russian clients. Let that sink in

Now despite this, none of the hillary connections to some of the SAME EXACT DIRTY RUSSIANS that trumps team needed to be wiretapped, spied on, investigated, etc., warranted investigation.

I believe you would call that "negligence" on the part of the fbi.

edit on 22-8-2018 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude




So there is a blinding double standard with regard to your posts. I know it's easy to see from my house, but perhaps not so much from your vantage point. Have a great day and be safe.


If that's what you got from that post - then you either didn't read it or you didn't understand me


Have a great day and be safe.

Same back to you



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




I dont see how the destruction of subpoenaed evidence is potentially not a crime.

Forgive me Grambler - you went to a lot of trouble - but I'm going to use this first line of yours to explain my thinking

It is potentially a crime. Why did you choose to use the word potentially? :-)


How would the fbi ever prove there was intent?

How do they prove intent in any crime? I'm not trying to be difficult

Let me ask you a question. Trump is not accused or charged (officially) of anything right now. For the sake of argument, let's say he and his son (both of them) gleefully accepted useful information about Hillary from the Russians

Accepting this information is illegal. What if they didn't know that? They're morons when it comes to government. Novices - if I'm being kind. This is all new to them - no matter that Trump was running for the highest office in the land. They didn't know what they didn't know, and it doesn't seem like Trump was concerned about learning, or getting for real legal advice

So, if he illegally accepted information and used it against his opponent, but he didn't know it was wrong - how do we treat this? Letter of the law?

If after the fact he becomes aware (and how could he not) that he made a boo boo - and then lies about it - then goes on to try and prevent people from learning the truth? Is he guilty of obstruction?

The FBI determined that Ms. Clinton didn't commit a crime, and that it wasn't worth pursuing in court. Many (many) people loathe her and wish she was dead. Or, at least in jail

How disappointing for them

I imagine if Trump isn't charged with colluding with the Russians there will be a lot of bellyaching about that too. They'll have to console themselves with the fact that he got busted on obstruction. Which, personally - I think looks pretty obvious

But, what do I know? :-)


edit on 8/22/2018 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler
I believe they will fail. But if they succeed and impeach Trump, I will attack.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Grambler
I believe they will fail. But if they succeed and impeach Trump, I will attack.


Dont do so in my name.

I will not resort to violence!

Not only should you not do so for moral reasons, but it will also be ineffective.

If trump is impeached, attack by becoming more vocal, hold your politicans accountable in primaries, vote for people that will make a difference, even at the state level.

There is talk of a constitutional convention by the states; they could overide the corruption.

Or do like I am going to do and run for office yourself.

But dont use violence.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I understand what you are saying.

But I think your comparison is not valid.

The reason is, I do not believe getting dirt from a foreign person is in fact a crime.

In fact, I think it happens in almost every campaign.

What would be a crime is concealing that dirt from authorities if it included illegal activity (maybe), or definitely offering illegal favors in return for that dirt.

If you are right that recieving dirt from foriegners is illegal, then clearly we no without a shadow of a doubt that the dnc and hillary also broke the law by acceptuing russian sourced dirt from a british spy.

I dont believe either trump or hillary broke the law with this.

Lets say Angela merkel called up hillary and said "here is what I have been telling my voters about why immigration is good, you should try it" Did hillary just accept a contribution from a foreign national?

Or trump gets a call from a rpeorter at the bbc that says "we have a tape of hillary saying all coal workers are evil people" did trump just break the law?

Of course not.

Compare that to destroying subpoenaed evidence. This is cut and dry.

- continued below-



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Now, as to your larger point (at least what I read it as) if a canaidate breaks the law not out of malicious intent, but out of ignorance, how much account should we hold the to.

If they broke the law, they should be held accountable. We just have to make sure this is applied evenly across all candidates and people.

But surely in the penalty phase, you can give a lighter punishment

For example, not properly filing paperwork for one campaign loan probably was a msitake, and though illegal, shouldnt be punished harshly.

But doing like these republicans in california, and using campaign money for years on over 250 thousand dollars worth of personal stuff? Clearly they should recieve a far harsher punishment.

So in hillarys case about destroying evidnce.

Hillary never claimed her team didnt get the subpoena. So they cant claim ignorance that they didnt know they couldnt destroy the evidence.

And when taken into account that we now find out they lied about the content of those emails, saying it was all personal, that makes it even worse.

And when we then look at combettas reddit posts, that prove he was told by someone to remove a very VIP (no doubt hillary) name from emails a day befor he deleted them, this proves a conspiracy to alter evidnce and should be punished even further.

But with all of this, no punishment.

Now lastly, when you take this in conjunction with how at almost every turn in the hillary investigation they went extremely soft on her, and with almost every turn of the trump investigation they went as hard as possiible, and with the texts from people in the fbi praising hillary and hating trump, its easy to see the double standard.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Grambler :-)

You think Hillary should be in jail? I still wonder then - why isn't she at least on trial? Trump has that kind of power - seems like a no brainer

As far as Trump goes - I'm waiting to see where this goes

Different people have different opinions


Jarrett said that "you can collude all you want with a foreign government in an election," because there’s no law that says collusion is a crime.

Three prominent election law scholars said there are at least four laws that would prohibit the sort of activities under investigation, whether those laws mention collusion or not. Jarrett’s focus on a single word fails to reflect the reach of the criminal code.

We rate this claim False.


I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this one
edit on 8/22/2018 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan


So let me get this straight. Cohen hired a Clinton lawyer and then pled guilty , because he is part of the "deep state", conspiracy. You do realize how stupid that sounds ? A.T.S. Is definitely the place for you.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: hoss53
No, listen man here is the truth. The Deep State found something truly disgusting on this Cohen guy, likely something most of his clients or even family would not have known. They threatened him early on, so they staged the whole office raid after he gave them their bone. The fact that he has a Clinton attorney tells volumes right there. That attorney is his handler.

I don't see why we do not have a dedicated group of patriots working in the shadows to execute the handlers in front of their homes and call it a botched robbery. This lawyer is just going to keep demanding more from Cohen until he finally does actually commit suicide from being unable to handle the dreadful truth, that his secret will eventually be revealed and his handler has no intention of allowing him his freedom.

Like junkies working as CI's for their crooked detectives. There will always be one more favor to fill, one more meeting to set up. It is that realization that they will not be free until they are dead or their secret will be known that finally sends them over the edge. Hopefully he has it in him to take out his lawyer as well in the end.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Its not that I think hillary should be in jail for destroying that evidnce.

Its that someone on her team should have been punished.

Maybe that would have been a fine, or probabtion, or yes even jail time.

But someone should be held responsible for the obvious crime.

Bit they werent.

Trump does not have the power to arrest her.

Heck, trump is constantly asking his own doj and fbi to shut down mueller or fire people like bruce ohr.

Yet they dont listen to him. Its because trump does not control them.

And again, schumer told us the intel community would get trump for criticizing him.

So of course they are not going to listen to trump and arrest hillary when the already exonerated her.

As far as trump colluding, he didnt do so any more than hillary.

So again, if he is guilty, so is she.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


The idea that only russians connected to trump needed to be investigated because russia hated hillary is absolutely mind numbingly absurd.


Well then it's a good thing I didn't say that!


You yourself admit that russian sought to cause general unrest well before that. SO why would we want to investigate everyone with russian connections, regardless of what dies they were on?


If a crime has occurred or there is sufficient reason to suspect that it has, it should be pursued by law enforcement regardless of who is involved. The Internet Research Agency was investigated and principals were indicted for things that were clearly not done (or portrayed as having been done) to benefit Trump's campaign.

Are we going to pretend that Democrats are never investigated? Nobody alive has been investigated more than Bill and Hillary Clinton. In fact, you can chalk some of the distaste for more investigations of Hillary on the impeachment of Bill Clinton for lying about having sex with an intern (the specific charges in the articles were perjury and IIRC obstruction of justice) and the dozens of Benghazi investigations.

That said, I couldn't care a less if an investigation is launched into whether or not the Clinton campaign coordinated with a foreign government in a criminal attack on her opponent/his party/his campaign manager. What was the specific act and what was the foreign government she's feared to have been conspiring with?


The fact is that both during and definitely after the election, russians put out post that hurt trump. So what is the excuse for not looking into people that are against trump and their connection to russians?


That has in fact been investigated, by the Mueller team. I'm unaware of any Trump campaign staff being investigated for conspiring with the Internet Research Agency. I do recall hearing that there had been some communication to somebody in the campaign but that it was judged that the Trump campaign staff involved were unaware that the person/persons contacting them was/were Russian nationals in the employ of the Internet Research Agency.


Its just a thinly veiled argument to say what is really going on; we know that foriegn influence in rampant throughjout washington, we know that many shady russians had connections to hillary and the dnc, but we only want to look at the ones close to trump.


I fully support cleaning house. I would start by outright outlawing foreign lobbying. At the very least, prosecute FARA violations and start locking people up.

Trump won. Trump is President. The overwhelming bulk of anything that could be reasonably described as a foreign government's efforts to sway the last election was in favor of Trump. I personally believe that no conspiracy was necessary, that no quid pro quo was required. Putin's hatred (and for that matter, Assange's) for Clinton is no secret.

They would have done the same thing with another candidate opposing Clinton imo unless that person was even more hawkish on Russia.

Let's switch gears slightly here. We can all agree that this # is bad. Your biggest issue is that they investigated people in the Trump campaign for possible conspiracy? I think that would be more reasonable if it weren't for Trump's own actions and those of a few key others. Remember what I said waaaay back in December 2016/January 2017? Trump could have turned this around then by taking the high road. He could have put the national interest before his ego and at least pretended that he wanted the interference investigated and addressed (with sanctions whatever).

He did not. He did basically the opposite. Whether it was to protect his ego from the possibility of his victory being tainted or out of a concern that there might have been a conspiracy by some, the result was that he looked guilty af. This is on top of the his jubilant displays over the hacks themselves "I love Wikileaks!" "Russia if you're listening..." etc.

Then there's Mike Flynn. Not only did Trump take the stance that he did, his nat sec advisor was on the phone assuring Kislyak that as soon as Trump was in sworn in, they'd roll back sanctions that had been imposed to punish Russia for interfering — in favor of his boss — in the election of the previous month.

Even if that's not a formal quid pro quo, it sure as hell seems like an informal one doesn't it?



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


For some reason he was not charged for the same crime manafort was, lobbying for russians in 2012. I wonder who he was lobbbying t? Perhaps secretary of state Hillary clinton?


Technically, Podesta was lobbying for Ukraine under the pro-Kremlin regime of Putin lackey Yanukovych. Mueller didn't go after Vin Weber (Mercury) either, nor has he gone after Cohen for unregistered foreign lobbying (which is a case that could be made), Flynn escaped that charge as well and I haven't seen indictments for Elliott Broidy or George Nader either. In the case of the Ukrainian lobbying, I would also point out that Manafort was the top guy. Gates worked for him and Gates directed the lobbying in the US.

That said, you might have missed it. I know I did, it's been a busy month:

Special counsel refers cases of 3 lobbyists, including Vin Weber, to federal prosecutors in New York


WASHINGTON — Robert Mueller, the special counsel, has referred three investigations into possible illicit foreign lobbying by Washington insiders to federal prosecutors in New York who are already handling the case against President Donald Trump’s former lawyer, according to multiple people familiar with the cases.


They also tie into the special counsel investigation of Trump: All three cases are linked to Paul Manafort, the president’s former campaign chairman, whose trial on financial fraud charges began Tuesday in Alexandria, Virginia.

The cases involve Gregory Craig, who served as the White House counsel under President Barack Obama before leaving to work for the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; former Rep. Vin Weber, R-Minn., who joined a lobbying firm after leaving Congress; and Podesta, a high-powered Washington lobbyist whose brother, John Podesta, was the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.



People on her team are reported to have met with kislyak. People on her team got ukranian government help against trump. Oh and her former lawyer and cheerleader lanny davis is also represnting convicted russian oligarch mobster firtsah (and trump lawyer cohen, no conflict there!)


I'm not sure who is reported to have met with Kislyak from the Clinton team. The Ukrainian bit I think is a reference to the work of Alexandra Chulapa and AFAIK, there was no effort by the Ukrainian government to assist Clinton. I don't see what Lanny Davis representing Firtash (who btw is both a former business partner of Manafort and Vincent Tchenguiz, the corrupt Iranian-British mogul who was Cambridge Analytica's largest shareholder) and Michael Cohen has to do with what we're talking about except that you seem to believe that Lanny Davis is using Michael Cohen to serve the interests of Clinton.

I have no idea but I do think he's got some potential conflict of interest problems representing those two.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Hey I am heading to sleep

Just wanted to say as always I enjoy our conversations and will respond tomorrow



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

First, I'll respond to most of that block starting with Christopher Steele down through this:


Glenn simpson was in contact with deripaska, a russian oligarch that manafort had connections to all thourought the dossier writing. He was facuiltating cinverasations between deripaska, mark warner, and steele (some of which warner wanted "no paper trail" for for some reason)


I think I know what you're referring to. I'd actually missed it myself a week and half ago but Washington Examiner detailed emails between Christopher Steele and Bruce Ohr. Steele does mention Oleg Deripaska several times in Jan-Feb of 2016. Apparently his lawyer (Waldman) was in communication with Steele and Steele and Ohr go way back. I don't know if I'd call it lobbying but if he was paid for it, it is. Western intelligence agencies certainly have an "it's complicated" relationship with Deripaska.

I don't see anything about Glenn Simpson having been in contact with Deripaska or with Steele about Deripaska or even Deripaska and Steele directly.

If I'm not mistaken, you're conflating this with something else altogether which was revealed by leaked text messages between Mark Warner and Adam Waldman. If I recall correctly, Waldman initiated contact with Warner, telling him that Christopher Steele wanted to speak. AFAIK, Simpson wasn't involved. I also don't recall there being any mention of Deripaska in the exchanges between Warner and Waldman.

As far as the paper trail thing, it's really clear from the text:

"We want to do this right private in London don’t want to send letter yet cuz if we can’t get agreement wud rather not have paper trail,"

It's in reference to sending a letter to Steele. It seems they didn't want to put anything in writing until they knew that they could hash out terms and come to an agreement. Notice that Warner says "we" ? When the texts were leaked to the press (specifically, Republicans on Nunes's House Intel committee were alleged to have leaked the texts to Fox News... which I'm sure Trump supporters are outraged about.), Burr came out immediately and issued a joint statement that he, the Republican chair of the committee who is not exactly a #NeverTrumper, was in the loop the whole time. As Nunes proved, that's all that matters, right? (in principal anyway, there are differences in House/Senate committee rules)

So to recap, the chains here are for these separate things are: Deripaska - Adam Waldman - Christopher Steele - Bruce Ohr, Christopher Steele - Adam Waldman - Mark Warner & Richard Burr

It doesn't seem that Simpson was involved in either.

Now this part:


I mean, sure, he lied to the fbi, leaked to the press, and got fired for it, but yeah a standup guy.

I find it funny how anytime someone on your side is dealing with russian oligarchs, even the exact same ones that you want trump people investigated for, its just they are standup guys so it cool

Steele was working with glenn simpson directly contacting deripaska. You know, that russian oligarch that manafort had to be investigated for having connections to?

Not only that, but they were all in contact with bruce ohr from obamas doj, and mark warner senate intel vice chair.

Steele is in cionne ction with ohr and warner AFTER he was fired from the fbi. He is discussing how he hopes the "firewall" holds up from all of this.


Fair enough. I might be prejudiced to view Steele in a too favorable light but don't you think you have at least an equally powerful prejudice against the man that leads you to assume the worst motives that best fit your views? In every pro-Trump theory, Steele is basically just assumed to be an evil person with an amazing hatred of Trump with not well explained origins (money? He billed like $100k for six months. Less taxes, less business overhead, less project expenses — that's not a lot of dough to be put in the position he wound up in).

Strzok? I regularly see it suggested that he should be shot, sent to gitmo, hung for treason, etc. It's just taken for granted that he possessed such a singularly immense hatred for Trump that he would (insert whatever the theory requires).

Should Strzok have been talking smack about Trump, Trump supporters, Bernie, Chelsea Clinton, Eric Holder, etc on his FBI phone to his DOJ colleague lover? No. But what happens when there is no evidence uncovered by the IG that substantiates any of the theories about this clandestine cadre conspiring to "hurt Trump" by any means necessary? Does having political bias then negate every good thing he has done in his career?

And don't even get me started on the smearing of Mueller.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 06:25 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

You say that you never said that connections to russians shouldnt be connected because russians hated hillary, but then you go on directly afterwards to basically give a defense of that.

Just because the russians biggest crime may have been against hillary doesnt mean we should not investigate her peoples ties to the very russians accused of influencing the election.

You later sort of admit this when you say all FARA violations should be charged. I agree with that.

Now you say that actually there was an investigation into the clinton people cionnected to russia. Thats hogwash. Yes, those russians were invetsigated, but the democrats or hillary connected people, or for that matter republicans cinnected through mercury llc were not investigated with anywhere near the same level of veracity that the trump people were.

Where were the wiretaps, the fbi spies being sent in, the subpoenas for evidnce, etc.

Now you will say, well trumps people are worse. well not with whats been charged by mueller so far. Page hasnt been charged, but was wiretapped. Papadopolous and flynn were only charged with lying to the fbi (a crime which mills and abedin also committted, but were for some reason let go).

Lets see the evidnce that tony podesta was interviewed in the manner flynn or manafort was. Or how about chris steele? Or glenn simpson? Or bruce ohr? Or hillary herself.

Keep in mind, manafort is being charged with cromes dating back to 2012. Well we know in that timeframe that Bill clinton actually met in secret with Putin himself. And we know that he then recieved a half a million dollars from a russian state bank. Where is the invetsigation there? Oh thats right, bob mueller was running the fbi when that happened, so nothing to see there.

Speaking of quid pro quo's, funny how right after that bill clinton putin meeting, uranium one went thorugh, huh?

And if trump seeking to remove sanctions is somehow proof of shadiness, what do you say about glenn simpson, who was helping lobby two for two of the exact same russian conspirators that trumps people are accused of meting with to end russian sanctions?

So we have to believe a man glenn simpson, lobbying to lift russian sanctions with to russian conpirators that trump is bad for trying to lift russian sanctions possibly at the behest of those exact same two russian conspirators?



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join