In Depth Look why Papadopuolos story starting Trump investigation is terrible

a reply to: theantediluvian

The point with mifsud is that it was obvious he had connections to a EU MP that was campaigning for Hillary. No one that knew him ever saw him with connections to russians; but everyone commented on his connections to this MP, who warned of facsism and campaigned for Hillary against trump.

So isnt it odd that all of the sudden he has these connections to russians that no one knew of?

I feel its worth looking in to; and the fact that the media has no interest of looking in to this or reporting it is disappointing.

It seems to me to at least be just as likely that Mifsud, who worked at universities connected to western intel agencies, who was very close with a eu MP that campaigned for hillary, would have been helping out the hillary campaign by setting up a trump associate

As to the alternative; that this professor with all of the ties above also managed b=to become a Kremlin assest years before he was useful to them, plant himself around all of the government and intel people from the western world without being noticed, chance in to meeting a low level trump campaign worker, facilitate meetings with russians all to bring down hillary.

Does this mean I have proof of this?

Of course not. But I am not the one demanding a multi year witch hunt (including wiretaps, raids on lawyers, etc.) based on this narrative.

SO if this was the reason for the start of the investigation, these relationshsips and questions should have been answered.

Again, talking about context.

The context is we KNOW that hillarys team paid for Kremlin sourced dirt against trump, but no investigation. We KNOW the Podesta group with Manafort pushed Kremlin intereste through Hillary while she was SOS, but no investigation. And on and on.

Yet all of the reasons for investogating trump seem to start with hillary or hillary connected people.

I think its one coincidence too many.

a reply to: Grambler

No one will care. Liberals are happy to break the law and give away Constitutional protections if they embarrass Trump.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: underwerks
I guess the part that amazes me the most is that people believe a billionaire businessman with public connections to a foreign government WOULDN’T already be under almost constant surveillance.

What do people think our intel agencies get paid to do? To try and hinge this conspiracy on Papadopalous being the reason for the investigation into team Trump is extremely short sighted and misinformed.

WOW
Surveillance state 24/7
JFC that verifies EVERYTHING the founders were fearful of

Boy was I naive to think our rights would have to be take away, it appears they have already been given willingly in exchange for serving up a political opponent....

Yes not to mention, if they were surveilling trump 24/7, and this is the best they could come up with, then its laughable.

But I love the anti trumpers narrative on the FBI.

On one hand; they are super sophisticated unbiased professional investigators that should never be questioned. On the other hand, they can lose chain of custody on the most important piece of evidence (hillarys server) from one of the most important cases they have ever worked on for five weeks, and its just a clerical error thats easy to make.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks
I guess the part that amazes me the most is that people believe a billionaire businessman with public connections to a foreign government WOULDN’T already be under almost constant surveillance.

What do people think our intel agencies get paid to do? To try and hinge this conspiracy on Papadopalous being the reason for the investigation into team Trump is extremely short sighted and misinformed.

Tell that to the democrat anti trumpers.

They came out with this story as the start of the investigation once they realized that if the Clinton paid for dossier was the start, it would look real bad.

And as usual it backfires, and using the GP story still looks really bad.

I don’t know about you, but I would expect Trump and anyone he associates with to already be under constant surveillance, well before running for office. That goes for any other American billionaire who accepts money from foreign oligarchs and governmental people too.

Who cares what the “official” reason for starting the investigation was if we all know how our intelligence agencies operate?

Do you not think we’d see massive investigations into team Hillary if she had won? I’ve said this before in another thread, if you wanted Hillary in handcuffs you probably should have voted for her. I have a feeling that there is so much dirt on both Hillary and Trump that whoever won was destined to be raked over the coals.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Grambler

No one will care. Liberals are happy to break the law and give away Constitutional protections if they embarrass Trump.

It didn't take long to demonstrate that.....

I don’t know about you, but I would expect Trump and anyone he associates with to already be under constant surveillance, well before running for office. That goes for any other American billionaire who accepts money from foreign oligarchs and governmental people too. Who cares what the “official” reason for starting the investigation was if we all know how our intelligence agencies operate? Do you not think we’d see massive investigations into team Hillary if she had won? I’ve said this before in another thread, if you wanted Hillary in handcuffs you probably should have voted for her. I have a feeling that there is so much dirt on both Hillary and Trump that whoever won was destined to be raked over the coals.

So buckle up if trump manages to stay in office, it is EXPECTED for him to authorize survaillance and turn our intelligence apparatus at Soros, Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, and whomever else he is politically opposed to......

Be carefull when chasing ruskies you do not yourself become one...

a reply to: Sillyolme

From the Gawker article I linked previously:

This time, it appears he hacked into the Clinton Library's files, retrieving the scans from a folder called "wjcdrawings".

From elsewhere:

Hillary’s clintonemail.com server and the Foundation-run presidentclinton.com email server have exactly the same IP address, and the same SSL certificate (which an organization purchases for an email server to verify its trustworthiness).

mail.clintonemail.com and mail.presidentclinton.com both have an IP address of 64.94.172.146, according to an SSL Certificate Checker.

The two servers both have that same IP address, 64.94.172.146, according to DNS records. (Here are records for Hillary’s server, and here are records for Bill’s server).

Both servers have the same IP address, according to another independent Internet records database, robtex.net.

EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Shared An Email Network With The Clinton Foundation - Brietbart

Now, since I know you are going to attempt to say the above source is no good:

DNS Records
Domain: mail.clintonemail.com.
Added: 2010-01-22
Last updated: 2018-01-13

What points here by: CNAME / NS / MX / PTR
View: SubDomains / Check DNS Propagation / Dig .
SOA
NS
MX
A - (History:1)
2015-07-29 -> 2018-01-13 64.94.172.146
AAAA
CNAME
PTR
TXT

DNS history

And

DNS Records
Domain: mail.presidentclinton.com.
Added: 2009-08-09
Last updated: 2017-11-29

What points here by: CNAME / NS / MX / PTR
View: SubDomains / Check DNS Propagation / Dig .
SOA
NS
MX
A - (History:2)
2016-05-16 -> 2017-11-29 64.94.172.146
AAAA
CNAME
PTR
TXT

DNS history

And from Comey's original statement (which he lied about not sharing with anyone else in government because Peter Strzok edited it):

Comey also originally concluded that it was “reasonably likely” that Clinton’s nonsecure private server was accessed or hacked by hostile actors, though there was no evidence to prove it. But that passage was also changed to the much weaker “possible,” the memos show.

Comey’s original Clinton memo released, cites possible violations - The Hill

But you go on ahead and keep that snowglobe of delusion shaken well so you don't have to see reality.

originally posted by: underwerks


Do you not think we’d see massive investigations into team Hillary if she had won? I’ve said this before in another thread, if you wanted Hillary in handcuffs you probably should have voted for her. I have a feeling that there is so much dirt on both Hillary and Trump that whoever won was destined to be raked over the coals.

No I dont think we would have seen that.

In fact, given the FBI softballing of the legitimate investigation into her email server, I think its quite obvious that we wouldn't have seen anything close to what we are seeing now.

In fact, the investigation into trump, as shown by this thread, started well before he was elected.

So if your theory is true, why would have Comey et al exonerated Hillary before the election? Why wouldnt they have started wiretapping people connected to her campaign well before the election like they did with trump?

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Grambler

No one will care. Liberals are happy to break the law and give away Constitutional protections if they embarrass Trump.

It didn't take long to demonstrate that.....

I don’t know about you, but I would expect Trump and anyone he associates with to already be under constant surveillance, well before running for office. That goes for any other American billionaire who accepts money from foreign oligarchs and governmental people too. Who cares what the “official” reason for starting the investigation was if we all know how our intelligence agencies operate? Do you not think we’d see massive investigations into team Hillary if she had won? I’ve said this before in another thread, if you wanted Hillary in handcuffs you probably should have voted for her. I have a feeling that there is so much dirt on both Hillary and Trump that whoever won was destined to be raked over the coals.

So buckle up if trump manages to stay in office, it is EXPECTED for him to authorize survaillance and turn our intelligence apparatus at Soros, Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, and whomever else he is politically opposed to......

Be carefull when chasing ruskies you do not yourself become one...

Well Trump would first have to be politically opposed to Soros, Clinton, etc.

a reply to: underwerks

Well then why all your trump hatred?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: underwerks

Well then why all your trump hatred?

You answer your own questions.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Yes, it's largely circumstantial, yes it's *possible* that somebody made it look like the Russians but there's a lot different threads pointing to Russia and nothing exculpatory or seriously pointing to anyone else except Assange claiming that WikiLeaks didn't get the emails from the Russians.

Personally, I think those polls are consistent enough to be taken seriously.

It would seem most logical that a Bernie supporter(s) would have the greatest motive to hack/leak emails from the DNC, at the time.

Bernie was polling much better against Trump than Hillary was. It doesn't really make sense that Trump/Russia would want to give Bernie a boost before the convention considering Hillary would not have won the nomination without that massive amount of unpledged superdelegates.

Were there any Bernie supporters with access to the DNC server? If so, is there anything circumstantial that might indicate a Bernie supporter, who may have leaked the emails, was silenced so that the Russians could be blamed instead?

originally posted by: underwerks
Do you not think we’d see massive investigations into team Hillary if she had won?

No, since we have actual FBI messages where they said to go on easy on her because she will likely win. So if they wanted to go easy on her as a candidate fearing her retribution then they would certainly go easy if she won.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Case in point

“One more thing: she might be our next president. The last thing you need us going in there loaded for bear. You think she’s going to remember or care that it was more doj than fbi?” Page wrote.

Strzok said he agreed with that assessment.

“I called Bill and relayed what we discussed. He agrees. I will email you and [redacted] same.”

“Bill” is likely Bill Priestap, the FBI’s chief of counterintelligence.

Grassley Releases Strzok-Page Texts Showing FBI Was ‘Pulling Punches’ In Clinton Probe - Daily Caller

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Grambler

No one will care. Liberals are happy to break the law and give away Constitutional protections if they embarrass Trump.

Until Trump strikes down the patriot act, he is complicit in giving away constitutional protections as any lib.

a reply to: olaru12

We aren't talking him, we are talking about YOUR desire, not just willingness, but gleeful desire to give away your rights and mine as well.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: olaru12

We aren't talking him, we are talking about YOUR desire, not just willingness, but gleeful desire to give away your rights and mine as well.

Show me the evidence I am giving away your rights. You made a specific claim targeting ME. Knowingly lying on ATS is a banning offence. You made the claim, put up or shut up.

a reply to: olaru12

I already did. All of you who are cheering this on and making excuses why Mueller should not have to follow the law by doing things like show the Judge the scope of the investigation and just want to get Trump by any means possible are throwing our rights away.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: olaru12

I already did. All of you who are cheering this on and making excuses why Mueller should not have to follow the law by doing things like show the Judge the scope of the investigation and just want to get Trump by any means possible are throwing our rights away.

Then show where I made excuses for Mueller. You targeted/accused me specifically. You lied!

a reply to: olaru12

Cheering on the Mueller investigation.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: olaru12

Cheering on the Mueller investigation.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Try again. Not once did I mention Mueller. And not once did I mention giving away your constitutional rights.