Investigators to access NRA donor lists?

CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior MemberPosts: 4,359 Senior Member
They are claiming the access is to expose any Russian donations....whatever the reason, they will now have the names of 2A supporters. 


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/russia-investigators-likely-got-access-to-nras-tax-filings-secret-donors/ar-AAzuX0I?ocid=spartandhp
The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

Ayn Rand

Replies

  • Diver43Diver43 Senior Member Posts: 8,272 Senior Member
    edited July 3 #2
    Does anyone think this investigation has gone too far?  I am just an idiot dude, but it is starting to look like this investigation is a cover up for all the wrong doings of obama/clinton and crew.  Enough already!
    Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,270 Senior Member
    edited July 3 #3
    CaliFFL said:
    They are claiming the access is to expose any Russian donations....whatever the reason, they will now have the names of 2A supporters. 


    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/russia-investigators-likely-got-access-to-nras-tax-filings-secret-donors/ar-AAzuX0I?ocid=spartandhp
    Um they already had them. Part of the NRA's required tax filings. At least the PAC side. If you give a donation for political purposes someone in the government has your name.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,359 Senior Member
    CaliFFL said:
    They are claiming the access is to expose any Russian donations....whatever the reason, they will now have the names of 2A supporters. 


    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/russia-investigators-likely-got-access-to-nras-tax-filings-secret-donors/ar-AAzuX0I?ocid=spartandhp
    Um they already had them. Part of the NRA's required tax filings. At least the PAC side. If you give a donation for political purposes someone in the government has your name.
    The IRS had the names...not ideal considering how weaponized the IRS was under the previous administration, but better than the FBI. Let's see how long before the list gets leaked and the public shaming begins. Especially if the donors are high profile or businesses. 
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,270 Senior Member
    CaliFFL said:
    CaliFFL said:
    They are claiming the access is to expose any Russian donations....whatever the reason, they will now have the names of 2A supporters. 


    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/russia-investigators-likely-got-access-to-nras-tax-filings-secret-donors/ar-AAzuX0I?ocid=spartandhp
    Um they already had them. Part of the NRA's required tax filings. At least the PAC side. If you give a donation for political purposes someone in the government has your name.
    The IRS had the names...not ideal considering how weaponized the IRS was under the previous administration, but better than the FBI. Let's see how long before the list gets leaked and the public shaming begins. Especially if the donors are high profile or businesses. 
    I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but good. I prefer people buy my politicians in the light of day. I feel any donation that goes to a political cause should be public information. 
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 2,530 Senior Member
    If its public information why a formal investigation?

    Grandstanding had been a political tactic for a long time but this power struggle seems out of proportion historically.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,247 Senior Member
    edited July 3 #7
    The fact that this is being reported at all lends some credence to assertions that government bureaucracies are now pro-actively trying to influence public perceptions before an election. The NRA has been demonized by the left for decades, and with the recent super-escalations of left-wing hate-speech, this is not surprising. The radical lefties are in overdrive with their demagoguery over border issues and Supreme Court rhetoric, so why not the NRA and gun control?
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,247 Senior Member
    CaliFFL said:
    CaliFFL said:
    They are claiming the access is to expose any Russian donations....whatever the reason, they will now have the names of 2A supporters. 


    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/russia-investigators-likely-got-access-to-nras-tax-filings-secret-donors/ar-AAzuX0I?ocid=spartandhp
    Um they already had them. Part of the NRA's required tax filings. At least the PAC side. If you give a donation for political purposes someone in the government has your name.
    The IRS had the names...not ideal considering how weaponized the IRS was under the previous administration, but better than the FBI. Let's see how long before the list gets leaked and the public shaming begins. Especially if the donors are high profile or businesses. 
    I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but good. I prefer people buy my politicians in the light of day. I feel any donation that goes to a political cause should be public information. 
    Funny, considering that you never want to discuss the much more obvious Russian donations to the Clinton Foundation, made through 2 or 3 cutouts to launder it, or the fact that Mueller and Rosenstein were both completely silent about their investigation of Russian agents during Obama's sell-off of 20% of our uranium assets to the Russians.

    I would have absolutely no problem with the current 'Russia collusion' investigation, NRA included, except for two things:

    1.) Any investigation of a crime by the FBI is supposed to first identify what crime has been committed, and then follow the evidence wherever it leads. Any appointment of a special prosecutor requires the same (predicate evidence that a crime may have been committed), plus the appearance of conflict of interest within the DOJ that might prevent an unbiased investigation. The Justice Department has produced no evidence to a grand jury that would have justified its appointment of a special investigator, although they did present an unverified opposition research dossier to the FISA court for search warrants...which was obtained from the Russians and paid for by Hilary Clinton.

    Mueller's all Democrat team of investigators has gone back as far as 2006 to re-open a previously dropped case against Manafort, in an effort to coerce him to implicate Trump, and they behaved similarly against Flynn. There was never any confirmed evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that implicated Trump - if there is any, it would be the one thing that Mueller's cronies in the FBI have not leaked. Rosenstein has been refusing (for at least a year) the House oversight committee access to the defining documents that supposedly justify appointing a special prosecutor.

    2. Any investigation into Russian collusion, which by the way is not a crime unless it obstructs justice (influencing an election), should start with the payment of $500,000 to the husband of the Secretary of State, for one speech, in Moscow. There have been two firings and multiple demotions within the hierarchy of the FBI for bias in the Clinton server investigation, and no mention of the 130 million dollars that found its way to the Clinton Foundation during the uranium give-away.

    I know you get a big kick out of trolling the political threads and getting guys like me to write full page posts in response, while you simply move along to the next troll. But that's fine. I'm glad to do it, on the chance that it will encourage someone to dig some of this information out for themselves. You are doing what you do best, and so am I.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 6,809 Senior Member
    Ordinarily, I would have no issue with publicizing donor lists to the NRA, but you can be guaranteed that the left will use information like that for nefarious purposes.
    I HAVE HATED COMMUNISTS EVEN BEFORE THEY CHANGED
    THEIR NAME TO LIBERALS AND PROGRESSIVES
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,270 Senior Member
    If its public information why a formal investigation?

    Grandstanding had been a political tactic for a long time but this power struggle seems out of proportion historically.
    For the record it's not public information. Certain types of PACs get to keep their donors hidden from the public, but do have to report them to the IRS. To get the information the FBI just had to go to the IRS and say "let me see the NRA list (and probably a number of other PAC lists)". My point is that it SHOULD be public. Citizens United gave corporations unlimited rights to political free speech. I just feel like you our your company want to invest millions of dollars in political campaigns that those donations should be public. You have the right to support any politician or cause you want, you just shouldn't have the right to be able to do it in secret. 
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,270 Senior Member
    bisley said:
    CaliFFL said:
    CaliFFL said:
    They are claiming the access is to expose any Russian donations....whatever the reason, they will now have the names of 2A supporters. 


    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/russia-investigators-likely-got-access-to-nras-tax-filings-secret-donors/ar-AAzuX0I?ocid=spartandhp
    Um they already had them. Part of the NRA's required tax filings. At least the PAC side. If you give a donation for political purposes someone in the government has your name.
    The IRS had the names...not ideal considering how weaponized the IRS was under the previous administration, but better than the FBI. Let's see how long before the list gets leaked and the public shaming begins. Especially if the donors are high profile or businesses. 
    I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but good. I prefer people buy my politicians in the light of day. I feel any donation that goes to a political cause should be public information. 
    Funny, considering that you never want to discuss the much more obvious Russian donations to the Clinton Foundation, made through 2 or 3 cutouts to launder it, or the fact that Mueller and Rosenstein were both completely silent about their investigation of Russian agents during Obama's sell-off of 20% of our uranium assets to the Russians.

    I would have absolutely no problem with the current 'Russia collusion' investigation, NRA included, except for two things:

    1.) Any investigation of a crime by the FBI is supposed to first identify what crime has been committed, and then follow the evidence wherever it leads. Any appointment of a special prosecutor requires the same (predicate evidence that a crime may have been committed), plus the appearance of conflict of interest within the DOJ that might prevent an unbiased investigation. The Justice Department has produced no evidence to a grand jury that would have justified its appointment of a special investigator, although they did present an unverified opposition research dossier to the FISA court for search warrants...which was obtained from the Russians and paid for by Hilary Clinton.

    Mueller's all Democrat team of investigators has gone back as far as 2006 to re-open a previously dropped case against Manafort, in an effort to coerce him to implicate Trump, and they behaved similarly against Flynn. There was never any confirmed evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that implicated Trump - if there is any, it would be the one thing that Mueller's cronies in the FBI have not leaked. Rosenstein has been refusing (for at least a year) the House oversight committee access to the defining documents that supposedly justify appointing a special prosecutor.

    2. Any investigation into Russian collusion, which by the way is not a crime unless it obstructs justice (influencing an election), should start with the payment of $500,000 to the husband of the Secretary of State, for one speech, in Moscow. There have been two firings and multiple demotions within the hierarchy of the FBI for bias in the Clinton server investigation, and no mention of the 130 million dollars that found its way to the Clinton Foundation during the uranium give-away.

    I know you get a big kick out of trolling the political threads and getting guys like me to write full page posts in response, while you simply move along to the next troll. But that's fine. I'm glad to do it, on the chance that it will encourage someone to dig some of this information out for themselves. You are doing what you do best, and so am I.
    Political corruption is one of my biggest issues. As you well know I didn't vote for Clinton and the #1 reason by far is that she was obviously corrupt. Then again so is Trump so there were no good choices. The sad thing is that both Clinton and probably to a large degree Trump's corruption (at least the degree to which he funnels federal dollars to his own properties and peddles influence through his Mar Lago club and various other golf properties) is completely  legal based on our current laws, which of course are written by politicians who all benefit from the existing system that allows and even encourages corruption. This is a completely bipartisan issue, unfortunately that bipartisanship is 100% against the will of the people. The vast majority of voters hate corruption and close to 0% of politicians will ever do anything about it.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 9,818 Senior Member
    Diver43 said:
    Does anyone think this investigation has gone too far?  I am just an idiot dude, but it is starting to look like this investigation is a cover up for all the wrong doings of obama/clinton and crew.  Enough already!
    I think it's gone too long but I don't know if it's gone too far.  I'm very not paranoid so I don't care if anyone has my donations lists, especially since I don't donate.  However, if you do, it has to be recorded I believe to keep people from buying political power, which they do anyway.  My SIL gave $250 to a presidential candidate several years ago, and sure enough, I was able to find it.  Can't remember where.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,247 Senior Member
    bisley said:

    I would have absolutely no problem with the current 'Russia collusion' investigation, NRA included, except for two things:

    1.) Any investigation of a crime by the FBI is supposed to first identify what crime has been committed, and then follow the evidence wherever it leads. Any appointment of a special prosecutor requires the same (predicate evidence that a crime may have been committed), plus the appearance of conflict of interest within the DOJ that might prevent an unbiased investigation. The Justice Department has produced no evidence to a grand jury that would have justified its appointment of a special investigator, although they did present an unverified opposition research dossier to the FISA court for search warrants...which was obtained from the Russians and paid for by Hilary Clinton.

    Mueller's all Democrat team of investigators has gone back as far as 2006 to re-open a previously dropped case against Manafort, in an effort to coerce him to implicate Trump, and they behaved similarly against Flynn. There was never any confirmed evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that implicated Trump - if there is any, it would be the one thing that Mueller's cronies in the FBI have not leaked. Rosenstein has been refusing (for at least a year) the House oversight committee access to the defining documents that supposedly justify appointing a special prosecutor.

    2. Any investigation into Russian collusion, which by the way is not a crime unless it obstructs justice (influencing an election), should start with the payment of $500,000 to the husband of the Secretary of State, for one speech, in Moscow. There have been two firings and multiple demotions within the hierarchy of the FBI for bias in the Clinton server investigation, and no mention of the 130 million dollars that found its way to the Clinton Foundation during the uranium give-away.

    I know you get a big kick out of trolling the political threads and getting guys like me to write full page posts in response, while you simply move along to the next troll. But that's fine. I'm glad to do it, on the chance that it will encourage someone to dig some of this information out for themselves. You are doing what you do best, and so am I.
    Political corruption is one of my biggest issues. As you well know I didn't vote for Clinton and the #1 reason by far is that she was obviously corrupt. Then again so is Trump so there were no good choices. The sad thing is that both Clinton and probably to a large degree Trump's corruption (at least the degree to which he funnels federal dollars to his own properties and peddles influence through his Mar Lago club and various other golf properties) is completely  legal based on our current laws, which of course are written by politicians who all benefit from the existing system that allows and even encourages corruption. This is a completely bipartisan issue, unfortunately that bipartisanship is 100% against the will of the people. The vast majority of voters hate corruption and close to 0% of politicians will ever do anything about it.

    If political corruption is really one of your biggest issues, and Hilary Clinton is the most corrupt, then why are you not calling to re-open the case against her, when there is a mountain of evidence that the DOJ gave her a pass? The evidence of this is not hearsay - people have been fired or demoted because the OIG knows they were biased. This is potentially the biggest case of corruption ever - the DOJ manipulating a case for political purposes that could have national security implications - what better place to start cleaning up corruption?

    Instead, you focus on Trump, as if that level of evidence exists about him, who you think is guilty of...what? A team of very experienced Democrat-approved lawyers, as well as the former CIA director, FBI counter-intelligence investigators, Assistant Attorney Generals, FBI Directors and Assistant Directors have been doing a full-court press against him for over a year, and still have not presented a case against him. In fact, they haven't even identified a crime, yet, even after putting several peripheral employees in a state of financial ruin while trying to 'flip' them with perjury traps.

    Why not just insist that proper investigative procedures be followed? Determine if a crime has been committed, and follow the evidence, rather than choosing a person and hunting evidence to convict him or her. There was a known crime committed by Hilary Clinton, and any fool should be able to see that the word came down from very high up that she would not be charged. If you want to begin cleaning up corruption, this is a slam dunk case that you are ignoring.
    There is very hard evidence against Clinton, plus plenty of evidence that some of that evidence was intentionally destroyed, and that the foreign national who did it was given immunity and allowed to leave the country. If the same energy were to be applied to her case as is now being applied to Trump's case, there would probably be a clear trail to Obama, or Valerie Jarrett, by now.

    So, it just stands to reason that a person like you, who is not a Hilary Clinton fan, and whose 'biggest issue' is corruption, would be jumping all over this...why aren't you?
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,270 Senior Member
    edited July 4 #14
    bisley said:
    bisley said:

    I would have absolutely no problem with the current 'Russia collusion' investigation, NRA included, except for two things:

    1.) Any investigation of a crime by the FBI is supposed to first identify what crime has been committed, and then follow the evidence wherever it leads. Any appointment of a special prosecutor requires the same (predicate evidence that a crime may have been committed), plus the appearance of conflict of interest within the DOJ that might prevent an unbiased investigation. The Justice Department has produced no evidence to a grand jury that would have justified its appointment of a special investigator, although they did present an unverified opposition research dossier to the FISA court for search warrants...which was obtained from the Russians and paid for by Hilary Clinton.

    Mueller's all Democrat team of investigators has gone back as far as 2006 to re-open a previously dropped case against Manafort, in an effort to coerce him to implicate Trump, and they behaved similarly against Flynn. There was never any confirmed evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that implicated Trump - if there is any, it would be the one thing that Mueller's cronies in the FBI have not leaked. Rosenstein has been refusing (for at least a year) the House oversight committee access to the defining documents that supposedly justify appointing a special prosecutor.

    2. Any investigation into Russian collusion, which by the way is not a crime unless it obstructs justice (influencing an election), should start with the payment of $500,000 to the husband of the Secretary of State, for one speech, in Moscow. There have been two firings and multiple demotions within the hierarchy of the FBI for bias in the Clinton server investigation, and no mention of the 130 million dollars that found its way to the Clinton Foundation during the uranium give-away.

    I know you get a big kick out of trolling the political threads and getting guys like me to write full page posts in response, while you simply move along to the next troll. But that's fine. I'm glad to do it, on the chance that it will encourage someone to dig some of this information out for themselves. You are doing what you do best, and so am I.
    Political corruption is one of my biggest issues. As you well know I didn't vote for Clinton and the #1 reason by far is that she was obviously corrupt. Then again so is Trump so there were no good choices. The sad thing is that both Clinton and probably to a large degree Trump's corruption (at least the degree to which he funnels federal dollars to his own properties and peddles influence through his Mar Lago club and various other golf properties) is completely  legal based on our current laws, which of course are written by politicians who all benefit from the existing system that allows and even encourages corruption. This is a completely bipartisan issue, unfortunately that bipartisanship is 100% against the will of the people. The vast majority of voters hate corruption and close to 0% of politicians will ever do anything about it.

    If political corruption is really one of your biggest issues, and Hilary Clinton is the most corrupt, then why are you not calling to re-open the case against her, when there is a mountain of evidence that the DOJ gave her a pass? The evidence of this is not hearsay - people have been fired or demoted because the OIG knows they were biased. This is potentially the biggest case of corruption ever - the DOJ manipulating a case for political purposes that could have national security implications - what better place to start cleaning up corruption?

    Instead, you focus on Trump, as if that level of evidence exists about him, who you think is guilty of...what? A team of very experienced Democrat-approved lawyers, as well as the former CIA director, FBI counter-intelligence investigators, Assistant Attorney Generals, FBI Directors and Assistant Directors have been doing a full-court press against him for over a year, and still have not presented a case against him. In fact, they haven't even identified a crime, yet, even after putting several peripheral employees in a state of financial ruin while trying to 'flip' them with perjury traps.

    Why not just insist that proper investigative procedures be followed? Determine if a crime has been committed, and follow the evidence, rather than choosing a person and hunting evidence to convict him or her. There was a known crime committed by Hilary Clinton, and any fool should be able to see that the word came down from very high up that she would not be charged. If you want to begin cleaning up corruption, this is a slam dunk case that you are ignoring.
    There is very hard evidence against Clinton, plus plenty of evidence that some of that evidence was intentionally destroyed, and that the foreign national who did it was given immunity and allowed to leave the country. If the same energy were to be applied to her case as is now being applied to Trump's case, there would probably be a clear trail to Obama, or Valerie Jarrett, by now.

    So, it just stands to reason that a person like you, who is not a Hilary Clinton fan, and whose 'biggest issue' is corruption, would be jumping all over this...why aren't you?
    Here is my overall problem, her actual corruption isn't a crime as the laws are currently written. I could care less about her emails. Her emails were a fireable offense, not really a criminal one. It was stupidity and incompetence not corruption. Her husband and her speaking fees over the years and the Clinton foundation we're where the real corruption was based. But all of that was 100% legal and that's the friggin problem. Paul Ryan will cash in on his tax bill to the tune of 10's of millions of dollars over the next few years. 100% legal. 100% corrupt. 

    As for Trump, I mostly don't care about the Russia "collusion" story. What I care about are the books of the Trump Organization. I want 100% proof that he doesn't have massive loans outstanding to Russian Oligarchs. I want to know for sure the organization hasn't been laundering money for Oligarchs and other criminal organizations for years. At a minimun there has been massive amounts of tax evasion. There's enough evidence on all of these accounts to at least merit a full investigation. I want the FBI pulling on all the strings until they run out. So far they haven't come close to running out of string and to my knowledge they haven't even touched the tangled maze of "creative accounting" that is the Trump Organization's books. 

    I don't see Trump as a business man so much as a con artist. He's a really good one. One of the best the world has ever seen, but at the core everything about him is fraudulent. 
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 2,530 Senior Member
    They can't follow the evidences where it leads without incriminating each other. So they flaunt their bureaucratic power by aspersion. 
  • Diver43Diver43 Senior Member Posts: 8,272 Senior Member
    Alpha i thought you were a Government contractor with a clearance. Taking classified documents, emails, pictures, even a memo off of a secure network must be done on purpose and steps taken to accomplish it. You should have had the training and know, one violation can/will get you fired. Thousands get you many years in Federal Prison. You last reply must be written with tongue in cheak, or you should not have a Government job
    Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,247 Senior Member
    Alf,
    You are woefully misinformed about the evidence against Clinton, so there's no reason to believe you have anything beyond another DNC narrative about Trump's crimes - probably more BS from the Fusion GPS dossier, which has been completely discredited.

    I hope this all gets sorted out.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 6,809 Senior Member
    edited July 4 #18
    What a bulls**t story. He's pulling chains again. That crap must have come out of MSLSD.
    I HAVE HATED COMMUNISTS EVEN BEFORE THEY CHANGED
    THEIR NAME TO LIBERALS AND PROGRESSIVES
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 10,300 Senior Member
    Secretary Clinton was also in charge when they misplaced a Billion or so from the State Dept. Budget, nobody seems to be looking too hard for that.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • cpjcpj Senior Member Posts: 39,240 Senior Member

    "I'm here for the guns, hunting, and skirt wearing men."
    Zee
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,247 Senior Member
    edited July 5 #21
    alphasigmookie said:

    .....As for Trump, I mostly don't care about the Russia "collusion" story. What I care about are the books of the Trump Organization. I want 100% proof that he doesn't have massive loans outstanding to Russian Oligarchs. I want to know for sure the organization hasn't been laundering money for Oligarchs and other criminal organizations for years. At a minimun there has been massive amounts of tax evasion. There's enough evidence on all of these accounts to at least merit a full investigation. I want the FBI pulling on all the strings until they run out. So far they haven't come close to running out of string and to my knowledge they haven't even touched the tangled maze of "creative accounting" that is the Trump Organization's books. 

    I don't see Trump as a business man so much as a con artist. He's a really good one. One of the best the world has ever seen, but at the core everything about him is fraudulent. 
    See, here is the problem, right there in your own words. You claim that corruption is your main issue, but yet you think it is perfectly fine for the DOJ to target a sitting president, even when there is no evidence of a crime. Oddly enough, that is exactly what you are claiming Hilary Clinton's situation to be - corrupt, but no crime. By that logic, the DOJ should have been investigating Obama's ties to Bill Ayres and the mob banker he bought his Chicago property from. Why did they not do that? Because there was no evidence of a 'predicate' crime, from which to begin an investigation from.

    You are quite content for the DOJ to concoct a phony reason to go back as many years as necessary to find an impeachable offense against Trump, yet Hilary's obvious crimes were not really crimes at all. That is the very definition of corruption within the DOJ, in case you didn't know.

     I don't believe you are even capable of seeing anything objectively. Everything has to fit neatly into your little liberal bubble, where everyone whom you disagree with politically is a racist, misogynist, or homophobe, or maybe just a robber-baron who deserves to be destroyed in the court system, using whatever tricks are necessary...however much it corrupts the legal system, in the process.
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,270 Senior Member
    Like it or not the FBI has lots of evidence to investigate the Trump Campaign. George Drop a Duce was an idiot and was bragging at the bar to people about Russian dirt on Hillary. That opened the can of worms. Carter Paige was know by the FBI as someone the Russians were trying to Recruit well before and traveled to Russia in the middle of the campaign. Paul Manafort, Trumps campaign manager is going to jail for a long time for money laundering. There was an admitted meeting at Trump tower with Russian agents. 

    Then there is this quote from his son...

    "In terms of high-end product influx into the US, Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," Trump Jr. said during a conference in New York in 2008.

    More than enough evidence to investigate his campaign. Wherever they follow the evidence from there is up to the evidence. But there's a lot of it.

    As for why the Russians. The obvious answer is Gazprom (the same company Carter Paige had contact with). They are hurting because of US sanctions. Russians help Trump get elected, he lifts sanctions on Russia, everyone profits. Like hundreds of billions of dollars at stake. Given what we know about the players, none would be too proud to pocket a few million or possibly in the case of Trump a few billion of facilitate that deal. 

    Then again I'm the one blinded by political ideology...
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 2,530 Senior Member
    Like it or not the FBI has lots of evidence to investigate the Trump Campaign. George Drop a Duce was an idiot and was bragging at the bar to people about Russian dirt on Hillary. That opened the can of worms. Carter Paige was know by the FBI as someone the Russians were trying to Recruit well before and traveled to Russia in the middle of the campaign. Paul Manafort, Trumps campaign manager is going to jail for a long time for money laundering. There was an admitted meeting at Trump tower with Russian agents. 

    Then there is this quote from his son...

    "In terms of high-end product influx into the US, Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," Trump Jr. said during a conference in New York in 2008.

    More than enough evidence to investigate his campaign. Wherever they follow the evidence from there is up to the evidence. But there's a lot of it.

    As for why the Russians. The obvious answer is Gazprom (the same company Carter Paige had contact with). They are hurting because of US sanctions. Russians help Trump get elected, he lifts sanctions on Russia, everyone profits. Like hundreds of billions of dollars at stake. Given what we know about the players, none would be too proud to pocket a few million or possibly in the case of Trump a few billion of facilitate that deal. 

    Then again I'm the one blinded by political ideology...
    I'd absolutely be inclined to believe this. What makes me highly suspicious is the prolonged delay in conclusion. The only explanation in my mind are bipartisan connections to indictable activity. If this is true, the DOJ is corrupt and being used as a political club. 
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,270 Senior Member
    Like it or not the FBI has lots of evidence to investigate the Trump Campaign. George Drop a Duce was an idiot and was bragging at the bar to people about Russian dirt on Hillary. That opened the can of worms. Carter Paige was know by the FBI as someone the Russians were trying to Recruit well before and traveled to Russia in the middle of the campaign. Paul Manafort, Trumps campaign manager is going to jail for a long time for money laundering. There was an admitted meeting at Trump tower with Russian agents. 

    Then there is this quote from his son...

    "In terms of high-end product influx into the US, Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," Trump Jr. said during a conference in New York in 2008.

    More than enough evidence to investigate his campaign. Wherever they follow the evidence from there is up to the evidence. But there's a lot of it.

    As for why the Russians. The obvious answer is Gazprom (the same company Carter Paige had contact with). They are hurting because of US sanctions. Russians help Trump get elected, he lifts sanctions on Russia, everyone profits. Like hundreds of billions of dollars at stake. Given what we know about the players, none would be too proud to pocket a few million or possibly in the case of Trump a few billion of facilitate that deal. 

    Then again I'm the one blinded by political ideology...
    I'd absolutely be inclined to believe this. What makes me highly suspicious is the prolonged delay in conclusion. The only explanation in my mind are bipartisan connections to indictable activity. If this is true, the DOJ is corrupt and being used as a political club. 
    The whitewater investigation lasted 7.5 years. It took Ken Star almost 2 years to investigate a blow job! Based upon historical precedent Muller is moving lightning fast. He already has 3 indictments from the investigation (and Michael Cohen likely being charged soon, although separate investigation not directly related to Muller). As always these investigations quickly tag the little fish, much harder to land the big ones. I'd venture a guess that there's less than a 10% chance Trump will be impeached before the 2020 election and at that point it may be moot. That's not to say he's not guilty, just that they may not be able to prove it in time. His biggest risk likely isn't Muller, but Cohen. Trump has hung him out to dry and Cohen doesn't seem like the type to take one for the team.

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mueller-is-moving-quickly-compared-to-past-special-counsel-investigations/

    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 2,530 Senior Member
    Well that certainly adds perspective, assuming Ken Star's investigation wasn't guilty of partisan selection.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,247 Senior Member
    edited July 5 #26
    ..Then again I'm the one blinded by political ideology...
    You absolutely are, in this case, although you won't even admit to having an ideology. This is quite common for American leftists, for the last 100 years, because when understood by the mainstream electorate, their aims are usually found to be repulsive to a great many of them .

    Normally, you do your homework well enough to make some sort of slippery argument to support whatever makes the opposition to any leftist cause look bad. But this time, you are ignorant about the facts that have already been exposed to the public, thanks to your avoidance of any news source that gives equal time to right-of-center politics. Either that, or you are helping with the Democrat spin.

    My ideology is very simple. I support the right of the majority to make laws for the entire country, even when I find myself in the minority - pretty much the same as patriotic Americans have supported for a couple hundred years, to good effect. I'm proud of my country, while knowing that it has not been perfect. There has been a lot of corruption, and a lot of corruption has been rooted out, when it finally got bad enough.

    If there were a viable political party whose ideology was as simple as mine, I would likely support it with my vote and donations. Until then, the Republicans are doing less harm to the USA than the Democrats, by a factor of about 100:1, so I vote for them. They do at least have about a 25% minority that believes as I do and has the guts to press it. Their moderates don't do as much harm as Democrats, and occasionally they get something right, or close to it.

    As for Trump, I picked him as the lesser of two evils, and I was right about that. But, he has done well, in spite of massive character flaws, and he was legally elected. Until he is proven guilty of a crime while in office, or betrays the public trust, I will support him, reluctantly.

    Donald Trump has the same Constitutional rights as any citizen, and one of those is that the DOJ cannot target him without stating what crime he is being investigated for. What is going on now is not a proper criminal investigation. It is a counter-intelligence investigation of the sort that the CIA runs against foreign governments, and is strictly prohibited from running against an American citizen. If they can do this to him, they will do it to anybody.

    You are wrong about this.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,247 Senior Member
    Well that certainly adds perspective, assuming Ken Star's investigation wasn't guilty of partisan selection.
    It certainly demonstrates the folly of appointing special prosecutors and giving them unlimited power to expand their investigations into anything they want. The DOJ appointed a special prosecutor to investigate an actual crime - the Whitewater real estate scam, whereby federal laws were violated and the main player (Jim McDougal) was convicted and sent to jail, where he subsequently gave evidence against Bill and Hilary Clinton. That case could not be made, though, because the Whitewater files disappeared mysteriously from Hilary Clinton's office, and Vince Foster committed suicide before he could be questioned about Hilary's involvement in it.

    The difference this time is that the DOJ won't produce the document which cites the crime that the special prosecutor is supposed to be investigating, leaving only the Comey testimony about his firing as the reason for the appointment of special counsel. This is a problem because Comey's testimony is contradicted by the fact that Rod Rosenstein, the acting AG recommended Comey's firing, and was backed up by the OIG. So Rosenstein, who appointed special counsel, is the chief witness to the fact that Comey was not fired to squash an investigation of Trump. That leaves no predicate crime from which to launch an investigation.

    So, this time, we are looking at DOJ corruption, and the likelihood that they gave Hilary a pass, and worked diligently to politically discredit Trump. There are dozens of conflicts of interest involved that have not been dealt with, and dozens of witnesses that need to be questioned by trained investigators...but we have to wait another six months for the OIG to get around to it...or appoint a special investigator to investigate the investigators.

  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 2,530 Senior Member
    The timing of DOJ announcements should be a fairly good indication of substance and intent if no creditable charges materialise.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.