Trump is a Criminal

originally posted by: DBCowboy

It's almost as if they have one standard for those they hate, and another standard for those they like.

I'm interested in seeing all people rise above that snip right there.

originally posted by: JBurns

Besides, Cohen pleaded guilty before even being charged with a crime thanks to hack-garbage attorney Lanny Davis (a Clinton conspirator). No one has ever pleaded guilty BEFORE being charged in the history of this country, until Cohen's weak self comes along, and no one finds this unusual?

Dont you find that to be a cause for concern?

a reply to: JBurns

The ongoing Special Counsel investigation is a United States law enforcement and counterintelligence investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere, with primary focus on the 2016 presidential election.

Wikipedia

The special counsel is investigating all manner of Russian interference in the election. It was not appointed just to look at Trump. There was an ongoing investigation prior to that. What makes you think there was no evidence to support forming a special counsel? What makes you think that a special counsel requires evidence before being formed? Do you have links?

This is what USA Today says:

WASHINGTON – For two years, cybersecurity researchers, spies and federal prosecutors have laid out a stunningly thorough chain of evidence to support one simple conclusion: The Russian government sought to sway the 2016 presidential election.

USA Today

This is what Wikipedia has to say about the matter:

A January 2017 assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) stated that Russian leadership favored presidential candidate Trump over Clinton, and that Russian president Vladimir Putin personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's chances and "undermine public faith in the US democratic process".[3]:7

On October 7, 2016, the ODNI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated that the U.S. Intelligence Community was confident that the Russian Government directed recent hacking of emails with the intention of interfering with the U.S. election process.[4] According to the ODNI's report on January 6, 2017, the Russian military intelligence service (GRU) had hacked the servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the personal Google email account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and forwarded their contents to WikiLeaks.[3]:ii-iii,2[5][6][7]

Wikipedia

This all happened prior to the special counsel being formed on May 17, 2017. So what makes you think there was no evidence prior to its formation? It wasn't formed to investigate Trump.

Wikipedia also engages in combatting some of the disinformation you may believe about the special counsel.

While initially enjoying bipartisan support,[14] the special counsel investigation became subject to criticism by Trump and his supporters.[15]

Several allegations of investigators' misconduct have been raised and were almost immediately debunked, including supposed unlawful wire-tapping of Trump Tower during the campaign,[16][17] unmasking of Trump associates on intelligence intercepts,[18] FISA court alleged abuse against Carter Page detailed in the Nunes memo,[19][20] the alleged installation of a mole in the Trump campaign,[21][22][23] and the FBI being denied to forensically analyze the DNC servers.[24]

Wikipedia

You can visit Wikipedia to read the sources it cites.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: JBurns


It's interesting to see the Trump-haters ignore the gross violations and arbitrary use of the rule of law when it comes to the Clintons and leftists in general.


It's almost as if they have one standard for those they hate, and another standard for those they like.

Fake news!

There's no proof of that....oh never mind, there is.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: DBCowboy

It's almost as if they have one standard for those they hate, and another standard for those they like.

I'm interested in seeing all people rise above that snip right there.

Looking for people to show their better natures in the arena of politics is like trying to find a small butt in the Kardashian household.

a reply to: darkbake

To me, it seems corrupt to smear a law enforcement agency to avoid getting into trouble for one's criminal acts.

Trump's smearing didn't start until after the criminal acts of the law enforcement and intelligence agencies came to light.

Trumps alleged crimes are minuscule as to what the deep state, former administration etc are guilty of. The whole point is to change the focus on where the real crimes are.
a reply to: darkbake

a reply to: darkbake

In my O.P. I did mention that the Russia investigation was not based solely on the dossier. In fact, it started with four individuals who had ties to Trump and Russia.

Andrew McCabe himself stated that they never would have been able to get the FISA warrants without the dossier. Two of the four people you mention had already been investigated in the past and they had no damaging or new information to get a warrant, that's why they relied on the dossier.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

It's almost as if they have one standard for those they hate, and another standard for those they like.

Ivanka Trump sent hundreds of emails last year to White House aides, Cabinet officials and her assistants using a personal account, many of them in violation of federal records rules, according to people familiar with a White House examination of her correspondence.

White House ethics officials learned of Trump’s repeated use of personal email when reviewing emails gathered last fall by five Cabinet agencies to respond to a public records lawsuit. That review revealed that throughout much of 2017, she often discussed or relayed official White House business using a private email account with a domain that she shares with her husband, Jared Kushner.

Ivanka Trump used a personal email account to send hundreds of emails about government business last year

a reply to: Deetermined

The highly controversial memo from Committee Chairman Devin Nunes claimed McCabe testified that "no surveillance warrant would have been sought" for a Trump campaign aide without a disputed opposition-research dossier on Trump and Russia. Not so says McCabe -- the former No. 2 official at the FBI who signed one of the applications to surveil former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page. Ex-FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe fired Ex-FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe fired

"We started the investigations without the dossier. We were proceeding with the investigations before we ever received that information," McCabe told CNN as part of a wide-ranging interview. "Was the dossier material important to the package? Of course, it was. As was every fact included in that package. Was it the majority of what was in the package? Absolutely not."

This is a quote from McCabe himself. It looks like Republicans were trying to spread disinformation again. McCabe says that the dossier was NOT a majority of what was in the package used to get the FISA memo.

McCabe says Republicans 'mischaracterized' his testimony on Trump dossier

a reply to: darkbake

How many servers did she "bleach"?

How many cell phones did she destroy?


How many emails did she delete?




Your logic is outstanding!


"Batman has a penis, I have a penis, therefore. . . . . I must be Batman!"

a reply to: darkbake

Several allegations of investigators' misconduct have been raised and were almost immediately debunked,

That absolutely is not true. I'm betting there's no explanation or footnotes for those "debunks" either.

You might want to do some research on who's capable of posting information on Wikipedia. You have to rely heavily on their references to know whether or not any of it has merit.

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: Deetermined

The highly controversial memo from Committee Chairman Devin Nunes claimed McCabe testified that "no surveillance warrant would have been sought" for a Trump campaign aide without a disputed opposition-research dossier on Trump and Russia. Not so says McCabe -- the former No. 2 official at the FBI who signed one of the applications to surveil former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page. Ex-FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe fired Ex-FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe fired

"We started the investigations without the dossier. We were proceeding with the investigations before we ever received that information," McCabe told CNN as part of a wide-ranging interview. "Was the dossier material important to the package? Of course, it was. As was every fact included in that package. Was it the majority of what was in the package? Absolutely not."

This is a quote from McCabe himself. It looks like Republicans were trying to spread disinformation again. McCabe says that the dossier was NOT a majority of what was in the package used to get the FISA memo.

McCabe says Republicans 'mischaracterized' his testimony on Trump dossier

That may have been true when they obtained the first FISA warrant, but they had to use the dossier to continue to renew those FISA warrants. This is how McCabe tricks you with his words...

"We started the investigations without the dossier. We were proceeding with the investigations before we ever received that information," McCabe told CNN as part of a wide-ranging interview. "Was the dossier material important to the package? Of course, it was.

He doesn't tell you that they absolutely did need the dossier to get the renewals because they weren't getting any proof or dirt during their initial investigation.

a reply to: darkbake

Ivanka Trump used a personal email account to send hundreds of emails about government business last year

She kept all of those emails and followed the archiving rules for preserving them, unlike Hillary. Besides, all of Ivanka's emails were about scheduling meetings. There was no classified information or sensitive information being discussed, unlike Hillary.

a reply to: darkbake
There is literally nothing new in what you posted. Just reinterpertation of the same broken record. Did you forget Israel is who actually chooses our leaders in the end?? And this has been the most Israel administration ever in modern years. Lots of good been done for our rulers over there.... So yeA. Trump until 2024 is what you may continue to expect.

a reply to: darkbake

Thanks. Well put together. I don't have the strength to argue with the Trumpites...but you put it well.

I say truth will prevail....then we'll laugh...and they will scramble excuses why it turned out the way it will.

So, Im not adding, arguing, discussing or agreeing nor disagreeing w Trump's swamp things..but with you?

I had to say thanks at the very least...

a reply to: darkbake

Even if Trump ordered it and was aware, you’d have to prove it was campaign money. You’re banking everything on a lawyer, a proven liar.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Allaroundyou

It is a well put together thread. The Op deserves credit for that.
But there are well put together threads claiming the earth is flat too.

The bottom line though, is that there is still zero evidence that Trump was involved in any of these allegations.
But there is evidence that all these investigations were prompted and based off of illegal spying and fraudulent FISA warrants.

Once those FISA docs are declassified and put before a judge all of these incidental cases will be thrown out and any plea deals and/or convictions will be vacated because of fruit from the poisonous tree.

"Fruit of a poisoned tree" implies that the charges are true but must be disregarded by the courts because the collection of the evidence was similarly illegal.

It doesn't absolve anyone. If the evidence shows that they acted illegally, they acted illegally.

... and FISA searches are legal. The 1978 FIS act gives them legality. Information collected under FISA can also be then evidence in other investigations and trials, as was done in the case of the Watergate investigations which incriminated, then President, Nixon.

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: darkbake

Even if Trump ordered it and was aware, you’d have to prove it was campaign money. You’re banking everything on a lawyer, a proven liar.

If the FISA records show illegal activity attributable to Trump, it doesn't matter about Cohn's confessions.

The records themselves are evidence, not hearsay.

originally posted by: Deetermined

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: Deetermined

The highly controversial memo from Committee Chairman Devin Nunes claimed McCabe testified that "no surveillance warrant would have been sought" for a Trump campaign aide without a disputed opposition-research dossier on Trump and Russia. Not so says McCabe -- the former No. 2 official at the FBI who signed one of the applications to surveil former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page. Ex-FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe fired Ex-FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe fired

"We started the investigations without the dossier. We were proceeding with the investigations before we ever received that information," McCabe told CNN as part of a wide-ranging interview. "Was the dossier material important to the package? Of course, it was. As was every fact included in that package. Was it the majority of what was in the package? Absolutely not."

This is a quote from McCabe himself. It looks like Republicans were trying to spread disinformation again. McCabe says that the dossier was NOT a majority of what was in the package used to get the FISA memo.

McCabe says Republicans 'mischaracterized' his testimony on Trump dossier

That may have been true when they obtained the first FISA warrant, but they had to use the dossier to continue to renew those FISA warrants. This is how McCabe tricks you with his words...

"We started the investigations without the dossier. We were proceeding with the investigations before we ever received that information," McCabe told CNN as part of a wide-ranging interview. "Was the dossier material important to the package? Of course, it was.

He doesn't tell you that they absolutely did need the dossier to get the renewals because they weren't getting any proof or dirt during their initial investigation.

Umm, the grounds for the first FISA warrant don't go away because the first search came up empty. The dossier only added to the grounds for subsequent FISA warrants.