Quote:“It’s a reflection of us still not knowing,” Page told Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) when questioned about texts she and Strzok exchanged in May 2017 as Robert Mueller was being named a special prosecutor to take over the Russia investigation.

With that statement, Page acknowledged a momentous fact: After nine months of using some of the most awesome surveillance powers afforded to U.S. intelligence, the FBI still had not made a case connecting Trump or his campaign to Russia’s election meddling.

Page opined further, acknowledging “it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing” to connect Trump and Russia, no matter what Mueller or the FBI did.

“As far as May of 2017, we still couldn’t answer the question,” she said at another point.

Shortly after he was fired, ex-FBI Director James Comey told the Senate there was not yet evidence to justify investigating Trump for colluding with Russia. “When I left, we did not have an investigation focused on President Trump,” Comey testified.

And Strzok, the counterintelligence boss and leader of the Russia probe, texted Page in May 2017 that he was reluctant to join Mueller’s probe and leave his senior FBI post because he feared “there’s no big there, there.”

So, by the words of Comey, Strzok and Page, we now know that the Trump Justice Department — through Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — unleashed the Mueller special prosecutor probe before the FBI could validate a connection between Trump and Russia.

Which raises the question: If there was no concrete evidence of collusion, why did we need a special prosecutor?

http://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/406881-...re-mueller

(09-16-2018 09:15 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

Quote:“It’s a reflection of us still not knowing,” Page told Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) when questioned about texts she and Strzok exchanged in May 2017 as Robert Mueller was being named a special prosecutor to take over the Russia investigation.

With that statement, Page acknowledged a momentous fact: After nine months of using some of the most awesome surveillance powers afforded to U.S. intelligence, the FBI still had not made a case connecting Trump or his campaign to Russia’s election meddling.

Page opined further, acknowledging “it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing” to connect Trump and Russia, no matter what Mueller or the FBI did.

“As far as May of 2017, we still couldn’t answer the question,” she said at another point.

Shortly after he was fired, ex-FBI Director James Comey told the Senate there was not yet evidence to justify investigating Trump for colluding with Russia. “When I left, we did not have an investigation focused on President Trump,” Comey testified.

And Strzok, the counterintelligence boss and leader of the Russia probe, texted Page in May 2017 that he was reluctant to join Mueller’s probe and leave his senior FBI post because he feared “there’s no big there, there.”

So, by the words of Comey, Strzok and Page, we now know that the Trump Justice Department — through Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — unleashed the Mueller special prosecutor probe before the FBI could validate a connection between Trump and Russia.

Which raises the question: If there was no concrete evidence of collusion, why did we need a special prosecutor?

http://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/406881-...re-mueller

Because the opposition party was using the FBI and DOJ to go "looking" for a crime in order to impact the election and then Trump's presidency. This investigation was started on zero real evidence. It's been a snipe hunt from go.

Who woulda thunk it...

I think we all know the answer to that question.
Some of us are fine with ‘the end justifies the means’.
The best that could come of this is prison for everyone involved in this corruption. Spare no one for ‘the sake of the country’. That includes Hussein. Trump will pardon him anyway.

(09-16-2018 09:54 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(09-16-2018 09:15 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

Quote:“It’s a reflection of us still not knowing,” Page told Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) when questioned about texts she and Strzok exchanged in May 2017 as Robert Mueller was being named a special prosecutor to take over the Russia investigation.

With that statement, Page acknowledged a momentous fact: After nine months of using some of the most awesome surveillance powers afforded to U.S. intelligence, the FBI still had not made a case connecting Trump or his campaign to Russia’s election meddling.

Page opined further, acknowledging “it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing” to connect Trump and Russia, no matter what Mueller or the FBI did.

“As far as May of 2017, we still couldn’t answer the question,” she said at another point.

Shortly after he was fired, ex-FBI Director James Comey told the Senate there was not yet evidence to justify investigating Trump for colluding with Russia. “When I left, we did not have an investigation focused on President Trump,” Comey testified.

And Strzok, the counterintelligence boss and leader of the Russia probe, texted Page in May 2017 that he was reluctant to join Mueller’s probe and leave his senior FBI post because he feared “there’s no big there, there.”

So, by the words of Comey, Strzok and Page, we now know that the Trump Justice Department — through Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — unleashed the Mueller special prosecutor probe before the FBI could validate a connection between Trump and Russia.

Which raises the question: If there was no concrete evidence of collusion, why did we need a special prosecutor?

http://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/406881-...re-mueller

Because the opposition party was using the FBI and DOJ to go "looking" for a crime in order to impact the election and then Trump's presidency. This investigation was started on zero real evidence. It's been a snipe hunt from go.

Heck they failed at a setup. It was a snipe hunt where they stocked the field with pheasant. Incompetent sedition

So that’s how you guys are going to spin it huh. They never would have found this out if Mueller wasn’t appointed. Interesting defense.....sure.

(09-16-2018 12:30 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  So that’s how you guys are going to spin it huh. They never would have found this out if Mueller wasn’t appointed. Interesting defense.....sure.

Never would have found nothing without Mueller? They already knew there was nothing. Mueller has proven there was nothing.

(09-16-2018 12:30 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  So that’s how you guys are going to spin it huh. They never would have found this out if Mueller wasn’t appointed. Interesting defense.....sure.

Their desperation is pretty pathetic.

(09-16-2018 09:15 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

Quote:“It’s a reflection of us still not knowing,” Page told Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) when questioned about texts she and Strzok exchanged in May 2017 as Robert Mueller was being named a special prosecutor to take over the Russia investigation.

With that statement, Page acknowledged a momentous fact: After nine months of using some of the most awesome surveillance powers afforded to U.S. intelligence, the FBI still had not made a case connecting Trump or his campaign to Russia’s election meddling.

Page opined further, acknowledging “it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing” to connect Trump and Russia, no matter what Mueller or the FBI did.

“As far as May of 2017, we still couldn’t answer the question,” she said at another point.

Shortly after he was fired, ex-FBI Director James Comey told the Senate there was not yet evidence to justify investigating Trump for colluding with Russia. “When I left, we did not have an investigation focused on President Trump,” Comey testified.

And Strzok, the counterintelligence boss and leader of the Russia probe, texted Page in May 2017 that he was reluctant to join Mueller’s probe and leave his senior FBI post because he feared “there’s no big there, there.”

So, by the words of Comey, Strzok and Page, we now know that the Trump Justice Department — through Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — unleashed the Mueller special prosecutor probe before the FBI could validate a connection between Trump and Russia.

Which raises the question: If there was no concrete evidence of collusion, why did we need a special prosecutor?

http://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/406881-...re-mueller

Or what was the evidence used to get a FISA warrant on Trump campaign? ..and furthermore----why were those FISA warrants renewed multiple times?

Says the dynamic duo that cream their undies when someone connected with Trump pleads guilty to a parking ticket from 10 years ago.

(09-16-2018 12:40 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(09-16-2018 12:30 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  So that’s how you guys are going to spin it huh. They never would have found this out if Mueller wasn’t appointed. Interesting defense.....sure.

Their desperation is pretty pathetic.

You looking in the mirror again?

(09-16-2018 12:40 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(09-16-2018 12:30 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  So that’s how you guys are going to spin it huh. They never would have found this out if Mueller wasn’t appointed. Interesting defense.....sure.

Their desperation is pretty pathetic.

If you're talking about the Mueller investigation, then you'd be correct.

I will give the short sweet answer on the, "Why Mueller"...

there were (still are) a lot of Never Trump Republicans and a ton of others that are too chicken **** to stand up for the President. If this was a true red Republican in office and with the exact same facts. We would never been down this road and even with the slightest chance a Mueller happened. It would have been cut short because those Chicken **** Republicans would be all over the goose hunt and limited the scope.

(09-16-2018 04:21 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  I will give the short sweet answer on the, "Why Mueller"...

there were (still are) a lot of Never Trump Republicans and a ton of others that are too chicken **** to stand up for the President. If this was a true red Republican in office and with the exact same facts. We would never been down this road and even with the slightest chance a Mueller happened. It would have been cut short because those Chicken **** Republicans would be all over the goose hunt and limited the scope.

What you surmise is probably true. The Republican Congress probably would not have permitted Mueller such a free hand if this were a President Jeb, a President Marco or even a President Ted. That is wrong, and it is shameful, that they have allowed the Democrats to pretty much control the message on this investigation, with only Sarah Sanders from the White House and a scattered few in Congress calling out this charade.

But bear in mind: it is just as true that Donald Trump had a substantial hand in making his own bed. There is no bigger crybaby/bully in Washington, DC than Donald Trump. Doesn't make it right. And, in the end, what is best for our nation is far more important than whether we admire or loathe the president. But I (and probably at least a few others) are not particularly inclined to work up much sympathy for him.

There's a piece of this missing. Maybe you guys know what I dont.

Who advised Trump to bring in Manafort to run his campaign?

(09-16-2018 05:05 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(09-16-2018 04:21 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  I will give the short sweet answer on the, "Why Mueller"...

there were (still are) a lot of Never Trump Republicans and a ton of others that are too chicken **** to stand up for the President. If this was a true red Republican in office and with the exact same facts. We would never been down this road and even with the slightest chance a Mueller happened. It would have been cut short because those Chicken **** Republicans would be all over the goose hunt and limited the scope.

What you surmise is probably true. The Republican Congress probably would not have permitted Mueller such a free hand if this were a President Jeb, a President Marco or even a President Ted. That is wrong, and it is shameful, that they have allowed the Democrats to pretty much control the message on this investigation, with only Sarah Sanders from the White House and a scattered few in Congress calling out this charade.

But bear in mind: it is just as true that Donald Trump had a substantial hand in making his own bed. There is no bigger crybaby/bully in Washington, DC than Donald Trump. Doesn't make it right. And, in the end, what is best for our nation is far more important than whether we admire or loathe the president. But I (and probably at least a few others) are not particularly inclined to work up much sympathy for him.

he's not from their ilk....he simply understands their 'ilk consistency'.....

why this surprises anyone is beyond me....

he took on all three branches (the third being the msm)

one would be an idiot if you didn't see any of this shite coming....

again, I despise politics (for obvious reasons stated over time), but if there is one long lasting legacy from #henceDJT, is exposing and causing many on the sidelines to wage battle via dialogue that had waned....

his record will stand on merit....so far so good!!!

well done Mr. President.....well fk'n done!!!!

(09-16-2018 05:45 PM)Claw Wrote:  There's a piece of this missing. Maybe you guys know what I dont.

Who advised Trump to bring in Manafort to run his campaign?

Putin, of course.

Russia has been cultivating Trump for decades.

(09-17-2018 05:45 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Russia has been cultivating Trump for decades.

Mach... The 80s called and want their foreign policy back.

(09-16-2018 01:27 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Says the dynamic duo that cream their undies when someone connected with Trump pleads guilty to a parking ticket from 10 years ago.

That you think taking millions from Putin to weaken NATO is parking tickets is the problem. YOU are the problem. You guys need your heads examined. Quit being so tribal. Team over country. We have a traitor in the highest chair. Now that Manafort has flipped. We will find out what happened in that Trump Tower meeting.

Matter of time. Trump is a Russian Asset. Like I have said all along.