Counter Intel sweep. You don’t end an investigation before it is finished. Plus it’s not like the R’s would do anything without a full complete investigation.

As I have said to you many many times Owl. This is not a tv show. You don’t get the bad guy by the third commercial break.

(01-12-2019 01:10 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  As I have said to you many many times Owl. This is not a tv show. You don’t get the bad guy by the third commercial break.

But you ought to be able to come up with something. I mean, the basic premise was that Trump colluded with "the Russians" to fix the 2016 presidential election. That's a pretty focused object to investigate. Instead of that, we've prosecuted Manafort for basically failing to file tax disclosure forms 8-10 years before the election, and Flynn for lying about contacts after the election that were perfectly appropriate for a member of a transition team to be having, and a bunch of Russian companies that he has no jurisdiction over for actions unrelated to any contact with Trump. I mean, by this time in Watergate, Nixon had been resigned for nearly half a year, and Mueller's not even getting warm.

It's the basic concept, "Orange man bad, so there must be something criminal somewhere, so keep looking until we find it." It's the same mentality that led Dan Rather to concoct a phony letter about GWB's national guard service.

Did you even bother to read that twitter feed?

Start there.

Then here......

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/...ans-223970

You’re welcome.

(01-12-2019 12:21 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  NY Times story.

https://www.axios.com/fbi-opened-investi...20dad.html

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/m...asset.html


The shutdown is a distraction.

This is what the focus should be on. Scary thought? They have the transcript from Helsinki.

The FBI doesn’t let this leak unless they have the goods.

So, the "article" actually never backs its claim that the FBI began an investigation to determine if Trump was woking as a Russian agent. The other piece not only says Trump is NOT a Russian agent---but it goes on to to say that being a Russian "asset" might be reflected in helping to aide Russian interests---but presents nothing to indicate that Trump has even helped further any Russian interests. Both represent nothing more that wildly out of control speculation---real honest to God tin foil hat stuff.

Secondly, if the firing of Comey was the trigger to make the FBI to investigate if Trump was working with the Russians---why was the FBI investigating the Trump campaign in 2016? I thought the FBI supposedly was investigating collusion with the Russians in 2016. You guys need to get your Russia Russia Russia time line straight before you get Obama sent to jail for civil rights and Federal election law violations.

(01-12-2019 01:27 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Did you even bother to read that twitter feed?

Start there.

Then here......

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/...ans-223970

You’re welcome.

lol...this is based on twitter feeds? Case closed. End thread.

(01-12-2019 01:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-12-2019 12:21 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  NY Times story.

https://www.axios.com/fbi-opened-investi...20dad.html

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/m...asset.html


The shutdown is a distraction.

This is what the focus should be on. Scary thought? They have the transcript from Helsinki.

The FBI doesn’t let this leak unless they have the goods.

So, the "article" actually never backs its claim that the FBI began an investigation to determine if Trump was woking as a Russian agent. The other piece not only says Trump is NOT a Russian agent---but it goes on to to say that being a Russian "asset" might be reflected in helping to aide Russian interests---but presents nothing to indicate that Trump has even helped further any Russian interests. Both represent nothing more that wildly out of control speculation---real honest to God tin foil hat stuff.

Secondly, if the firing of Comey was the trigger to make the FBI to investigate if Trump was working with the Russians---why was the FBI investigating the Trump campaign in 2016? I thought the FBI supposedly was investigating collusion with the Russians in 2016. You guys need to get your Russia Russia Russia time line straight before you get Obama sent to jail for civil rights and Federal election law violations.

Sure Trump hasn’t furthered Russian interests.......


Other than this... sure
Destabilizing NATO. Destabilizing the UK and the European Union. Pushing China closer to Russia. A warm water military port in the Mediterranean. Just the beginning of gifts received by Putin

He has it all.......

Bwahaaaa

https://news.yahoo.com/mueller-feds-prob...09115.html

Posts in this thread: (prior to my post)

Machiavelli = 17
UofMstateU = 3
Owl 69/70/75 = 3
Attackcoog = 2
WKUYG = 1
Curumim = 1
No Bull = 1

The other 6 posters = 11 posts

So, by average mach has at posted at more than 5 times each of most active individual members in this thread, and 17 times more than the rest. (1 to 1 comparison)

He sure is trying hard to convince everyone this is true. I wonder if that's because he's trying to convince himself as well.

Anyone on here knows you don’t have to convince me at all....

I’ve been on the trail for years........

Do you think Mach cleans the spooge off his keyboard today or does he do it tonight?

(01-12-2019 02:03 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Anyone on here knows you don’t have to convince me at all....

It's called Confirmation Bias:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

You judge every piece of information based on if it agrees with your preconceived opinion. You should try to be more objective about information you read.
The report hasn't been released yet. Yet you believe you already know what it includes.

You've made a judgment without access to evidence.

(01-12-2019 02:03 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I’ve been on the trail for years........

So you've been on the trail for years and still have ZERO factual evidence other than hearsay.
That should make you consider that perhaps you've been on the wrong trail. The FBI has been investigating for years, and still haven't found conclusive evidence of any wrong doing by Trump. If they had... they'd have already arrested him. The fact that we're on two years and they're still searching... should be a clear indication that nothing has been proven to be true.

States it’s a NY Times piece. Uses NY Mag and Axios as proof along with Twitter. Sounds legit. Anyone got any WD40. I need to spray down my buckle so I can safely buckle up.

I remember when posters on this board incessantly spammed us about how Trump wasnt being investigated for ANYTHING. We all just rolled out eyes and said "Sure Jan, wait and see". And here we are.

(01-12-2019 02:09 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(01-12-2019 02:03 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Anyone on here knows you don’t have to convince me at all....

It's called Confirmation Bias:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

You judge every piece of information based on if it agrees with your preconceived opinion. You should try to be more objective about information you read.
The report hasn't been released yet. Yet you believe you already know what it includes.

You've made a judgment without access to evidence.

(01-12-2019 02:03 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I’ve been on the trail for years........

So you've been on the trail for years and still have ZERO factual evidence other than hearsay.
That should make you consider that perhaps you've been on the wrong trail. The FBI has been investigating for years, and still haven't found conclusive evidence of any wrong doing by Trump. If they had... they'd have already arrested him. The fact that we're on two years and they're still searching... should be a clear indication that nothing has been proven to be true.

These investigations always seem to take a while. Look at Watergate...

(01-12-2019 02:09 PM)q5sys Wrote:  You judge every piece of information based on if it agrees with your preconceived opinion. You should try to be more objective about information you read.

Wise advice.

This piece will tie up some questions you may have.

It was Russia. Always about Russia. Full stop.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-if-obst...-bombshell

(01-12-2019 03:32 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(01-12-2019 02:09 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(01-12-2019 02:03 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Anyone on here knows you don’t have to convince me at all....

It's called Confirmation Bias:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

You judge every piece of information based on if it agrees with your preconceived opinion. You should try to be more objective about information you read.
The report hasn't been released yet. Yet you believe you already know what it includes.

You've made a judgment without access to evidence.

(01-12-2019 02:03 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I’ve been on the trail for years........

So you've been on the trail for years and still have ZERO factual evidence other than hearsay.
That should make you consider that perhaps you've been on the wrong trail. The FBI has been investigating for years, and still haven't found conclusive evidence of any wrong doing by Trump. If they had... they'd have already arrested him. The fact that we're on two years and they're still searching... should be a clear indication that nothing has been proven to be true.

These investigations always seem to take a while. Look at Watergate...

While I get the point you're trying to make and I agree that investigations take time... I disagree with the argument it's trying to imply.

The technological abilities in information gathering today, would be a wet dream to Watergate investigators. You can't judge an investigation in the early 70s, to todays investigative abilities. Aside from the benefit of being able to sift through mountains of digital evidence quickly, we live in a post 9-11 world. Anything that can even loosely fall under 'national security concerns' can avoid the typical hurdles that investigators had to go through.

Hell, even with a FISA warrant it's taken more than two years and they haven't come up with anything. The entire Watergate sage went on from June 17, 1972 to Aug. 8, 1974. So roughly 26 months till Nixon's resignation.

The Mueller investigation officially started in May of 2017, and it would have had access to all information gathered under the FISA warrant. That warrant was issued was 27 months ago. We're already BEYOND the Watergate investigation. and the investigation still hasn't wrapped.

From the point the FISA warrant was in place, I can promise you every piece of data on all of Trumps associated as well as Trump himself was being saved. Perhaps not accessed, but being archived for later in case it became needed.

They've had plenty of time to find illegal action by Trump if it existed. All they've done is find crimes either unrelated to Trump or catch people lies that would not have existed except for the investigation.

Modern high tech high profile investigations should not take longer than investigations in the early 70s.

*Mach shuffles deck* This month’s focus is Trump is a Russian agent.