Author Topic: Russia Investigation.  (Read 51159 times)

Spekulatius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2235
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #590 on: January 27, 2019, 01:31:53 PM »
When is the last time you have been to the U.S.?

I actually travelled through 9 States during the Holidays and things looked much healthier than I recall in a long time.

Busy, happy, welcoming people.

I wonder who is more out of touch really?

Cardboard

I go once a week to fill gas and once a month to visit family and friends.  Things are healthy in terms of the economy, but they are in complete disarray in terms of sentiment regarding the country.  You literally have a schism through the American psyche similar to the 60's and early 70's.  So yes, you are out of touch.  Cheers!

The division in opinion is greater since  at any time since the Vietnam wars (where it was far worse and actually led to riots), imo. I shudders me to think what actually might happen, when the economy goes bad.
To be a realist, one has to believe in miracles.


LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3013
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #591 on: January 27, 2019, 09:12:31 PM »
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/16/us/politics/senate-trump-russia-sanctions.html

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Wednesday narrowly staved off an effort by Democrats to deal the Trump administration’s Russia sanctions policy an embarrassing rebuke.

Eleven Republicans joined Democrats in a vote to enforce sanctions against the corporate empire of an influential ally of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, but the effort fell three votes short of the 60-vote threshold required to advance the measure. The vote was 57-42, with one Democratic senator not voting.

The sanctions against companies controlled by the influential oligarch, Oleg V. Deripaska, now seem destined to be lifted this week as part of a deal negotiated by the Treasury Department to reduce Mr. Deripaska’s ownership and control of the aluminum giant Rusal and two linked companies.


And sanctions have been lifted!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/27/us-lifts-sanctions-oleg-deripaska-russia

"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
brk.b | irm | mo | nlsn | pm | tap | tfsl | vz

investor-man

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 592
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #592 on: January 28, 2019, 09:25:34 PM »
And looks like they've yet to impose the promised sanction for the attacks in Europe https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-admin-has-not-imposed-new-sanctions-russia-required-law-n962216


What a treacherous piece of shit
Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #3 "Never spend more for an acquisition than you have to."

Schwab711

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1433
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #593 on: February 12, 2019, 08:48:16 AM »
Somehow, no one mentioned that we learned Trump's campaign Chairmen met with a GRU-connected individual during the campaign, shortly after "Russia, if you are listening" signal was sent, to share polling data and discuss sanctions. That's after the Trump Tower meeting about sanctions. In late-2015, a convicted Russian spy also asked Trump about sanctions. In August 2016, the GRU-connected individual was working directly for Oleg Deripaska, who recently had sanctions removed on companies that he still owns stakes in. He divested some shares to Russian state-owned banks, so I guess he doesn't technically have voting control so it's definitely not the payoff to the long-alleged conspiracy.

Nothing matters and no matter how much hypocrisy with Trump is pointed out, someone will deflect or ignore them to protect him. There's two sets of rules in this country. One for the guy who ran on "Lock her up!" and "Guilty until proven innocent!" and one for everyone else. In more important news, did anyone mention the freshman Rep, who's on exactly 0 legislative-writing committees, that is "a danger to the Republic"?

MarkS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 533
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #594 on: February 12, 2019, 09:41:24 AM »
Somehow, no one mentioned that we learned Trump's campaign Chairmen met with a GRU-connected individual during the campaign, shortly after "Russia, if you are listening" signal was sent, to share polling data and discuss sanctions. That's after the Trump Tower meeting about sanctions. In late-2015, a convicted Russian spy also asked Trump about sanctions. In August 2016, the GRU-connected individual was working directly for Oleg Deripaska, who recently had sanctions removed on companies that he still owns stakes in. He divested some shares to Russian state-owned banks, so I guess he doesn't technically have voting control so it's definitely not the payoff to the long-alleged conspiracy.

Nothing matters and no matter how much hypocrisy with Trump is pointed out, someone will deflect or ignore them to protect him. There's two sets of rules in this country. One for the guy who ran on "Lock her up!" and "Guilty until proven innocent!" and one for everyone else. In more important news, did anyone mention the freshman Rep, who's on exactly 0 legislative-writing committees, that is "a danger to the Republic"?
After two years Senators, both Democrats and Republicans on the committee report they have found no direct evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.   Schwab you are relying solely on innuendo to smear with no hard evidence to impeach.  Even if I accept, for example, that Donald Trump Jr. Was willing to accept help - opposition research -from the Russian, so what!  It's not illegal!  And frankly it's not different from what the Clinton campaign did when they solicited opposition research from foreign agents that included Russians. (I picked Donald Jr. as an example because he's mentioned in the article.).  What are the crimes?  More importantly where is the proof?

https://guardianlv.com/2019/02/senate-has-found-no-evidence-of-trump-and-russian-collusion/


Which freshman democrat anti semite?

Schwab711

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1433
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #595 on: February 12, 2019, 10:37:47 AM »
Somehow, no one mentioned that we learned Trump's campaign Chairmen met with a GRU-connected individual during the campaign, shortly after "Russia, if you are listening" signal was sent, to share polling data and discuss sanctions. That's after the Trump Tower meeting about sanctions. In late-2015, a convicted Russian spy also asked Trump about sanctions. In August 2016, the GRU-connected individual was working directly for Oleg Deripaska, who recently had sanctions removed on companies that he still owns stakes in. He divested some shares to Russian state-owned banks, so I guess he doesn't technically have voting control so it's definitely not the payoff to the long-alleged conspiracy.

Nothing matters and no matter how much hypocrisy with Trump is pointed out, someone will deflect or ignore them to protect him. There's two sets of rules in this country. One for the guy who ran on "Lock her up!" and "Guilty until proven innocent!" and one for everyone else. In more important news, did anyone mention the freshman Rep, who's on exactly 0 legislative-writing committees, that is "a danger to the Republic"?
After two years Senators, both Democrats and Republicans on the committee report they have found no direct evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.   Schwab you are relying solely on innuendo to smear with no hard evidence to impeach.  Even if I accept, for example, that Donald Trump Jr. Was willing to accept help - opposition research -from the Russian, so what!  It's not illegal!  And frankly it's not different from what the Clinton campaign did when they solicited opposition research from foreign agents that included Russians. (I picked Donald Jr. as an example because he's mentioned in the article.).  What are the crimes?  More importantly where is the proof?

https://guardianlv.com/2019/02/senate-has-found-no-evidence-of-trump-and-russian-collusion/


Which freshman democrat anti semite?


It is illegal to accept campaign contributions from a foreign government
It is not illegal to hire a non-US citizen. Either way, the campaign didn't hire Steele directly.

As to "no direct evidence of collusion", it was literally included in the Manafort transcript. Manafort pleaded guilty to conspiring with Kilimnik. What more evidence of conspiracy do you need? No one is going to call it collusion in a court document. You haven't even seen the Senate report. It's funny how news is reliable sometimes and fake news at other times. If all we need is an article for evidence then the evidence of conspiracy is magnitudes greater. The amount of time the investigation took has absolutely nothing to do with anything. You've been misled that the amount of time matters. You've been misled that accepting help from a sovereign foreign government is OK for a campaign. You've been misled that the "process crimes" have nothing to do with conspiracy. Roger Stone's indictments are directly related to the warrants served on 12 GRU officers hacking the DNC.

Mueller's prosecutor said the Manafort/Kilimnik meeting, in August 2016, where they discussed polling data and sanctions, "gets to the heart of our investigation".

Respectfully, you are repeating nonsense talking points.

cubsfan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1020
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #596 on: February 12, 2019, 11:08:35 AM »
This is too funny - there is so much corruption to go around with Comey, DOJ, FBI, Clinton campaign - Trump's activities don't hold
a candle to the illegal activities that occurred by the DC Swamp trying to elect Hillary. And the coverup has been worse than the crime.

What a joke.


Schwab711

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1433
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #597 on: February 12, 2019, 11:12:48 AM »
What are the crimes?  More importantly where is the proof?


This is too funny - there is so much corruption to go around with Comey, DOJ, FBI, Clinton campaign - Trump's activities don't hold
a candle to the illegal activities that occurred by the DC Swamp trying to elect Hillary. And the coverup has been worse than the crime.

What a joke.

Trump in a nutshell.

cubsfan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1020
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #598 on: February 12, 2019, 11:24:52 AM »
Yea, it's really good to have the Clinton Crime Syndicate out of business for once and for all.

Let's hope the POS stays out in the woods for good.

MarkS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 533
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #599 on: February 12, 2019, 11:28:42 AM »
Somehow, no one mentioned that we learned Trump's campaign Chairmen met with a GRU-connected individual during the campaign, shortly after "Russia, if you are listening" signal was sent, to share polling data and discuss sanctions. That's after the Trump Tower meeting about sanctions. In late-2015, a convicted Russian spy also asked Trump about sanctions. In August 2016, the GRU-connected individual was working directly for Oleg Deripaska, who recently had sanctions removed on companies that he still owns stakes in. He divested some shares to Russian state-owned banks, so I guess he doesn't technically have voting control so it's definitely not the payoff to the long-alleged conspiracy.

Nothing matters and no matter how much hypocrisy with Trump is pointed out, someone will deflect or ignore them to protect him. There's two sets of rules in this country. One for the guy who ran on "Lock her up!" and "Guilty until proven innocent!" and one for everyone else. In more important news, did anyone mention the freshman Rep, who's on exactly 0 legislative-writing committees, that is "a danger to the Republic"?
After two years Senators, both Democrats and Republicans on the committee report they have found no direct evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.   Schwab you are relying solely on innuendo to smear with no hard evidence to impeach.  Even if I accept, for example, that Donald Trump Jr. Was willing to accept help - opposition research -from the Russian, so what!  It's not illegal!  And frankly it's not different from what the Clinton campaign did when they solicited opposition research from foreign agents that included Russians. (I picked Donald Jr. as an example because he's mentioned in the article.).  What are the crimes?  More importantly where is the proof?

https://guardianlv.com/2019/02/senate-has-found-no-evidence-of-trump-and-russian-collusion/


Which freshman democrat anti semite?


It is illegal to accept campaign contributions from a foreign government
It is not illegal to hire a non-US citizen. Either way, the campaign didn't hire Steele directly.

As to "no direct evidence of collusion", it was literally included in the Manafort transcript. Manafort pleaded guilty to conspiring with Kilimnik. What more evidence of conspiracy do you need? No one is going to call it collusion in a court document. You haven't even seen the Senate report. It's funny how news is reliable sometimes and fake news at other times. If all we need is an article for evidence then the evidence of conspiracy is magnitudes greater. The amount of time the investigation took has absolutely nothing to do with anything. You've been misled that the amount of time matters. You've been misled that accepting help from a sovereign foreign government is OK for a campaign. You've been misled that the "process crimes" have nothing to do with conspiracy. Roger Stone's indictments are directly related to the warrants served on 12 GRU officers hacking the DNC.

Mueller's prosecutor said the Manafort/Kilimnik meeting, in August 2016, where they discussed polling data and sanctions, "gets to the heart of our investigation".

Respectfully, you are repeating nonsense talking points.

Schwab:

Four quick points:

1). Your statement that it is only illegal to accept money from foreign governments is just plain wrong.
https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

2).  As I understand Manafort's plea agreement, he plead guilty to charges stemming from his work with Ukraine, not Russia, long before his work with the Trump campaign. 

3). Your comment about going to the heart of the Trump investigation was an argument made concerning the enforcement of the plea agreement with Manafort.  It wasn't a claim that Manafort's guilty plea was proof against Trump.  It reflected the investigators frustration with Manafort over his not providing evidence against Trump in exchange for the plea deal. Specifically the investigators argued that Manafort's repeated lies were sufficient to void his plea agreement

4). If someone can't rely on news reports from supposedly reputable sources, then what are you relying on to make your allegations?
Moreover you're indirectly arguing that I must wait for the actual report before drawing any conclusions.  But aren't you drawing conclusions before reading the reports? 

Respectfully - color me unconvinced.