The full 253 Page House Intelligence Committee report on the Russia Investigation

originally posted by: introvert
That does not have anything to do with what I said, nor does it have anything to do with the FEC investigation.

Then explain what you meant

originally posted by: introvert
Ok. Is there anything to their "talking points"?

Nope

originally posted by: introvert
Did Russia give the NRA money with that intent?

Nope

originally posted by: introvert
That is my point. You do not know and for you to say what you did is highly illogical.

Except for the evidence that says it didnt hap[pen but why worry about facts? This talking point is no different than the Trump Russia collusion. The NRA bs started back in January when the Democratic collusion lie came undone.

As has been pointed out time and again - Democrats keep claiming they have the smoking gun / new evidence and they keep repeating it to certain media outlets yet never get around to actually disclosing it. Since Democrats started these investigations everything has leaked except for the evidence Democrats claim exists.

If Democrats want to be taken seriously then they need to stop crying wolf.

originally posted by: introvert
A FEC preliminary investigation in to the NRA's dealings.

A campaign finance violation? The irony that the left all of a sudden cares yet remain silent with Clinton's 84 milion dollar campaign / DNC money laundering operation.

This is exactly what I am referring to.

originally posted by: introvert
Back to square one and my original point.

Which was?

originally posted by: introvert
Sure. But it does appear as though you are trying to deflect.

Deflect? Not even close. Review the evidence and the path this latest lie took. In case you forgot the Obama admin was spying on Trump and his staff. Obama was in office until January 2017. You are seriously telling me that with all the surveillance they had going on with Russia and Trump that they somehow missed the Russia-NRA-Trump collusion aspect?

When the Florida shooting occurred the NRA was blamed for it even though they had absolutely nothing to do with it. What better way for the left to try and bring down 2 birds with one stone than by linking the NRA to Russia and Trump. The fact Democrats are doing the same thing to Gov. Walker should be a clue for you.

I refuse to believe you are that naive.

originally posted by: introvert
All we have to do is agree that we do not have all the facts on the NRA issue.

Can we agree on that?

and just how long will it take these facts to come out? Just after the midterms or are you thinking the 2020 election?

The Democrats have lied so many times with all this # I do not believe them nor do I trust their standard "we have proof" but cant show you routine.

Personally speaking I think we have enough evidence to see the latest charade from the left lacks substance and evidence.

originally posted by: introvert
If so, what you said previously is illogical.

riight.... live long and prosper.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Xcathdra

With regards to the American Democracy Legal Fund:

American Democracy Legal Fund
Directors, Employees & Supporters

David Brock
Founder

American Democracy Legal Fund - Influence Watch

David Brock also founded the group Media Matters, correct the record, a member of priorities usa action pack, etc etc etc.

He is a professional Democratic operative.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

Podesta clicked on a phishing link; the DNC failed to protect their information. Now watch as we blame Russia and the Trump campaign while we pretend it is an attack on the nation.

Trump himself said he thought Russia was behind it.

Again, I'm open to sources and facts.

It appears while you claim others may be talking out the sides of their mouths, you yourself have bent over and let your ass in on the conversation.

Yeah things have changed since January 2017 when he made that comment before taking office. The the DNC decided to sue Trump, the Russian government and wikileaks for the hack even though they have nothing to support the legal argument. They opened Pandora box with that move since they are subject to discovery motions and depositions.

Clinton
Mills
Abedin
Podesta
Debbie Wasserman Shultz
Donna Brazile
The IT people who maintained Clintons server
The Awans
Crowdstrike
FusionGPS
The FBI and their lack of an actual investigation.
The server that was hacked
Email communications
phone communications
meeting calendars
etc etc etc

I can keep going but you should, by now, get the point.

This move by the DNC is going to be the gift that keeps on giving.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Then explain what you meant

The FEC investigation, which is at the heart of that particular issue you posted.

Nope

Really? You have proof of this issue being resolved?

Please share.

Except for the evidence that says it didnt hap[pen but why worry about facts?

Please share that evidence.

If Democrats want to be taken seriously then they need to stop crying wolf.

I don't care what the democrats say or if they are to be taken seriously. I'm concerned about what you have said, whether you can back it up and if you are just like the democrats, not to be taken seriously.

A campaign finance violation?

Well, is it true or is it false? Can you provide some sources for what you claim?

Which was?

If you do not have all of the info, how can you come to a conclusion. That was my point.

Is that unreasonable?

I refuse to believe you are that naive.

I refuse to believe conspiracies without facts to back them up and I do not like to make assumptions based on ignorance.

and just how long will it take these facts to come out? Just after the midterms or are you thinking the 2020 election? The Democrats have lied so many times with all this # I do not believe them nor do I trust their standard "we have proof" but cant show you routine. Personally speaking I think we have enough evidence to see the latest charade from the left lacks substance and evidence.

How long it takes to come out is irrelevant. Can we agree that we do not have all the facts or not?

riight.... live long and prosper.

Sure. Do you have the goods or not?

Your illogical assertions are boring and pathetic, not to mention an insult to the intelligence.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Perfect example of deflection.

Might I suggest you post actual proof of your assertions and stop wasting my time with this pathetic nonsense.

a reply to: Xcathdra
It´s so ironic. Whenever it´s about HRS getting questionable funds and money-shots from who knows, it´s all explained away. As soon as public enemy no. 1 is concerned, oh that must be bribery or similar.

Just want to say if you have the impression my last sentence was directed at you, it was not. Because I wrote "you" but in sense of the reader reading it...

We lay out some new facts: 1.) Russians sought to establish a secret back channel with Trump campaign through NRA in May 2016 according to an email from Paul Erickson to Rick Dearborn & Jeff Sessions. They sought to make “first contact” at the NRA convention. See the email here:

It´s almost like those waited until it´s closed and then "information surfaced" to reopen it. This achieves two things:

- Mudding the water at the exact moment the investigation is anounced insubstantial. Thus robbing the accused of fair and closure for good and in public. Like a little child breaking anothers childs toy because they can´t have it.
- Eventually prolonging the investigation until the next big election casting a shadow of doubt.

And if it proofs one thing is that they are not interested in the investigation per se, but what it implies on the one investigated. Just shows how mature some are. I mean, if they even had interest in their country, they would make the best out of the situation until the next election and not block every move, trying to bring the country to a stop.

Just again shows the mindset of those people, mostly composed of selfdeclared "victims". God damn, most of those youngsters running around screaming about social unjust and how supressed they are... NEVER went out the country to a third world #hole where children sleep in the dirt and don´t know when they see food the next time.

Slight offtopic. Recently found out about Jordan Peterson. I admire him for his intelect and way he thinks very similar to my thinking patterns! Imagine him in one of those interviews, that´s how I feel when I argue with some here on ATS.

You say XYZ and they understand ABC because they want to, not because they heard. Or am I wrong introvert?

a reply to: introvert
Nobody forces you to read this and you can leave, so why is he wasting your time then.. Think.

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: introvert
Nobody forces you to read this and you can leave, so why is he wasting your time then.. Think.

Perhaps you should read the entire context of the conversation before you put in your two cents.

That would be the most logical thing to do, but as we know...simple logic is a rare commodity on ATS.

a reply to: introvert
Oh I did. But the advice you gave, you should do that more often, too.

a reply to: verschickter

You say XYZ and they understand ABC because they want to, not because they heard. Or am I wrong introvert?

I take you literally for the words you post. No need to read in to it any more than that.

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: introvert
Oh I did. But the advice you gave, you should do that more often, too.

Ahh, the "I know you are but what am I "approach".

How childish, yet unsurprising.

No wonder logic seems foreign to some. Many still think they can use kindergarten tactics to converse with grown adults.

Cute...

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: introvert
Oh I did. But the advice you gave, you should do that more often, too.

Ahh, the "I know you are but what am I "approach".

How childish, yet unsurprising.

No wonder logic seems foreign to some. Many still think they can use kindergarten tactics to converse with grown adults.

Cute...

Says the one calling everyone idiots...

a reply to: introvert

Oh cool, you've hijacked yet another thread.

Page 5

Finding #20: Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted Paul Manafort on several charges,
none of which relate to allegations of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the
Trump campaign and the Russian government.

Mueller isnt even done yet... We dont know if more charges are coming because Mueller's team is tight lipped about the investigation. But the House committee sure want us to think its over.

(U) Finding #22: General Flynn pleaded guilty to making a false statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding his December 2016 conversations with Ambassador Kislyak, even though the Federal Bureau of Investigation agents did not detect any deception during Flynn's interview.

Is the house committee really that stupid? The FBI takes notes so people that lie well can be caught.

So much BS and this is only 2 things I pulled from page 5... I dont have the energy to go through this and point out all the wrong...



Edit

Page 7

Finding #35: Possible Russian efforts to set up a back channel with Trump associates after the election suggest the absence of collusion during the campaign, since the communication associated with collusion would have rendered such a "back channel" unnecessary.

The people that wrote this are really good at propaganda. They were using cut outs and Manafort and all the other Trump members who met with Russian officials before the election to get their messages to the campaign. After the election people started to make noise about those contacts and they needed a new channel to get information to them.

a reply to: Pyle

Not really.. If collusion existed prior to the elections then back channels would already be in place and there would be no reason for anyone from the Trump campaign to make overt/covert attempts to meet with Russians.

The same argument applies to the obstruction bs from firing Comey. On his science fiction tour for his book he has also given many media interviews. In those interviews he is asked specific questions about what he knew when he talk to Trump. Comey has backpedaled and has been caught in several lies. However the key is when you listen to his explanations and justifications for what he did and why he portrays himself as not having the answers and did not know the info in question when it occurred.

It's hard to make a case for obstruction for a termination when Comey himself apparently had no idea what was going on. By extension, because of that (among constitutional authority that the left ignores) lack of knowledge, his termination had no impact on the investigation (not to mention McCabe already testified in Congress that his termination had no impact and Comey himself saying in front of Congress Trump did not need a reason to fire him).

Rosenstein and Mueller both said Trump is not a target so I am a bit confused by the reaction of some on this topic.

As a side note I know we have not always gotten along or seen eye to eye on things but I would like to thank you for at least reviewing the report. It is more than others have done.

a reply to: introvert

You´re reading way to much into chars on a screen. Maybe you´re just too obsessed with being right.

originally posted by: introvert
The FEC investigation, which is at the heart of that particular issue you posted.

Which is why I raised the point of the group who filed the complaint.

originally posted by: introvert
Really? You have proof of this issue being resolved?


Please share.

See answer above.

originally posted by: introvert
Please share that evidence.

see answer above

originally posted by: introvert
I don't care what the democrats say or if they are to be taken seriously. I'm concerned about what you have said, whether you can back it up and if you are just like the democrats, not to be taken seriously.

lol the irony in the statement which, coincidentally, is part of the problem.

originally posted by: introvert
Well, is it true or is it false? Can you provide some sources for what you claim?

It is true a democratic operative filed a complaint with the FEC based on old information first raised back in January. You apparently missed or ignored the evidence of how this Trump collusion bs has evolved and how every time a lie by the left is debunked they somehow have another waiting in the wings to bring out. As I said Schiff and Warner and a few others have been making the media rounds since day 1 guaranteeing evidence of their claim exists yet somehow it never leaks.

A big clue should have been Schiff and his statements there is no smoking gun with Trump Russia collusion only to trot out the same base argument except this go around he is adding the NRA into the mix.

originally posted by: introvert
If you do not have all of the info, how can you come to a conclusion. That was my point.

Is that unreasonable?

If you dont have all the info how can you claim my conclusion is wrong?

originally posted by: introvert
I refuse to believe conspiracies without facts to back them up and I do not like to make assumptions based on ignorance.

and yet you support the witch hunt which has shown zero evidence of collusion since day 1.

I withdraw my previous comment.

originally posted by: introvert
How long it takes to come out is irrelevant. Can we agree that we do not have all the facts or not?

Absolutely wrong. Familiarize yourself with our system of jurisprudence. Investigations require a possible violation of the law followed with an investigation to determine the truth. When that investigation goes beyond its mandate you run into legal and constitutional violation issues. Prosecution intentionally dragging out legal actions that impact targets can get slammed for constitutional violations (right to speedy trials, prosecutorial misconduct etc etc etc)

The goal is to investigate the crime to confirm one exists and then to find a suspect. It is not to investigate a person while searching for a crime.

originally posted by: introvert
Sure. Do you have the goods or not?

Yup you can get the Redspice here.

originally posted by: introvert
Your illogical assertions are boring and pathetic, not to mention an insult to the intelligence.

and Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide.

You are not using reason as your guide. You are dismissing it.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Xcathdra

Perfect example of deflection.

Might I suggest you post actual proof of your assertions and stop wasting my time with this pathetic nonsense.

Its been confirmed the DNC has filed a lawsuit against Trump, Wikileaks and Russia for hacking their servers - DNC sues Russia, WikiLeaks, Trump campaign associates, alleging conspiracy

Because of that you very quickly reach the first few stages of the legal process with one of the very first being the Discovery phase.

a pre-trial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the other party or parties by means of discovery devices such as a request for answers to interrogatories, request for production of documents, request for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from non-parties using subpoenas. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery

Now, since this is a civil lawsuit the parameters get broadened than you would find in a criminal discovery motion.
Civil Discovery

Under the law of the United States, civil discovery is wide-ranging and may seek disclosure of information that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This is a much broader standard than relevance, because it contemplates the exploration of evidence which might be relevant, rather than evidence which is truly relevant. (Issues of the scope of relevance are taken care of before trial in motions in limine and during trial with objections.) Certain types of information are generally protected from discovery; these include information which is privileged and the work product of the opposing party. Other types of information may be protected, depending on the type of case and the status of the party. For instance, juvenile criminal records are generally not discoverable, peer review findings by hospitals in medical negligence cases are generally not discoverable and, depending on the case, other types of evidence may be non-discoverable for reasons of privacy, difficulty and/or expense in complying and for other reasons. (Criminal discovery rules may differ from those discussed here.) Electronic discovery or "e-discovery" refers to discovery of information stored in electronic format (often referred to as Electronically Stored Information, or ESI).

In practice, most civil cases in the United States are settled after discovery. After discovery, both sides often are in agreement about the relative strength and weaknesses of each side's case and this often results in either a settlement or summary judgment, which eliminates the expense and risks of a trial.

The abovei is what allows Trump / Russia / Wikileaks to subpoena records, servers, depose witnesses etc etc. Now, because it is civil the 5th amendment is restricted. In civil case a person can invoke their 5th amendment however its not absolute. A judge can order a person who invoked the 5th to reveal the information being sought. IF the person refuses the jury is informed they may view the invocation as a sign of guilt and can use that in their deliberations (Criminal is absolute and you are barred from drawing conclusions during deliberations).

Now you up to speed?

It is a matter of law and not politics although by doing this the DNC is using politics. One would think after the russia bs exploded in their face democrats would stop with the suicide charges..

but, here we are.

Finally the left seems to be unaware of this little development from January 2018 -
Court Order: DNC Fraud Lawsuit to Continue

The 11th appeals circuit reinstated the lawsuit against the DNC for fraud, rigging the primaries, violating their own charter, etc etc etc. They overturned the federal district court judge in Florida who dismissed the case and reinstated it. That, along with this current DNC suit, will open up al of their info that they have successfully refused to provide to the FBI for the initial claims and investigation of hacking.

The reinstated suit is going to touch on Seth Rich and the others who died under suspicious circumstances given their positions within the DNC and their interactions with it.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: rickymouse

Now I got to read more, this could be enjoyable reading. It seems that both sides were acting like idiots

I hope your not surprised by this.

I just like to see things like that in official writing.