Manonthestreet
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2014
- 34,759
- 23,055
- 1,945
Did you read? No you didn't otherwise you'd know one of those is a Clintonista....course I don't expect Mueller to get her....Nunes might thoughwith all this new info
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Guess what shoe Mueller will drop next
- Thread starter DrLove
- Start date
Valerie
Platinum Member
- Sep 17, 2008
- 31,521
- 7,388
- 1,170
Now, though, months of investigation—including five guilty pleas and the remaining open indictments of Paul Manafort and the 13 Russians involved in the Internet Research Agency—has provided a whole new set of “known unknowns” (a dozen of them, to be exact). Be on the lookout for some of these to become “known knowns” before long.
What Rick Gates' Guilty Plea Means For Mueller’s Probe
1. What can Paul Manafort offer Bob Mueller?
The former Trump campaign chairman is 68 years old, so even the two indictments he currently faces could result in a life sentence if he ends up heading to prison—and that’s before Gates’ testimony and any additional charges Mueller might bring. If he decides to cooperate, what can he offer Mueller, particularly on the Trump Tower meeting with Kushner, Donald Trump Jr., and Russian nationals, where Manafort evidently took copious notes? And then there’s another question, one of the most intriguing since Manafort took his unpaid role as the Trump campaign chair: Why did he get involved in the campaign in the first place? He appears to have had no shortage of reasons to stay off the radar of US authorities, so why did he put himself in such a high-profile position? Now that Gates has pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge, who else knew about the conspiracy? Mueller has broad latitude to bring charges against anyone else who knew or abetted that conspiracy.
2. What did George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn trade?
This is perhaps the most significant open question to close watchers of the investigation. Both Papadopoulos and Flynn received plea deals in exchange for their cooperation with Mueller’s investigation; Papadopoulos’ guilty plea even included language typically reserved for a witness who has provided active cooperation, like wearing a wire to record conversations with co-conspirators. Presumably, in both cases Mueller was willing to trade because their information was central to his ongoing investigation, but we have yet to see evidence become public that appears to be linked to the cooperation of either Flynn or Papadopoulos—so when will those shoes drop and who did they help Mueller target?
3. How did George Papadopoulos know in May 2016 that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton?
We now understand that the Russia investigation began, in part, because of drunken boasting by Papadopoulos to an Australian official, in a London bar in May 2016, that the Russians had dirt on Hillary. The Australian government passed that information to US intelligence after the DNC email hack became public. So how did Papadopoulos know—and who else did he tell inside the Trump campaign if and when he did learn about the dirt?
4. What was in the Trump transition documents that so worried witnesses?
We’ve seen some legal scuffling and pearl-clutching over the fact that Mueller has obtained records, including emails, from the Trump presidential transition team. According to Axios, the White House only learned Mueller had the emails when they were used as the basis for questions to witnesses. How were the records relevant to Mueller’s investigation? There was news Monday, from CNN, that Mueller’s interest in Jared Kushner has expanded to include some of his attempts to garner business funding during the transition. This scoop is of a piece with recent reporting by The Wall Street Journal and The New Yorker that has pointed to potential security and counterintelligence challenges Kushner may face. Does Kushner have a China problem, in addition to—or instead of—a Russia problem?
5. What happens to Tony Podesta and Vin Weber?
Amid the hubbub surrounding Manafort’s indictment, one of Washington’s longest-reigning power players, Tony Podesta (John Podesta’s brother), abruptly announced his retirement and, effectively, the dissolution of his firm. Rumors have run rampant since then that Podesta and another DC “superlobbyist,” former congressman Vin Weber, face legal jeopardy themselves related to their role in Manafort’s dealings with Ukraine—though they’ve both publicly denied wrongdoing. This may be largely unrelated to the core of Mueller’s probe, but the uncertainty is a sign of a creeping paralysis that is infecting parts of Washington as Mueller churns onward. In Watergate, 69 people ended up being charged and 48 pleaded guilty or were found guilty at trial. Mueller has already brought charges against 19.
6. Who is the third unnamed “traveler” in the last Friday's Mueller indictment?
According to the indictment of the 13 Russians last week, an unnamed and unindicted employee of the IRA traveled to Atlanta for four days in November 2014. The employee appears to be part of the IRA’s IT department, since he or she reported on the trip afterward and filed expenses with the IT director, Sergey P. Polozov, whose job it was to procure servers and other technical infrastructure inside the US to help mask the origins of the IRA’s activity. Mueller’s team surely knows the individual’s name—why didn’t they include it in the indictment and why wasn’t that person indicted at the same time? There are a lot of internal documents, communications, and specific directives cited in the indictment. Does Mueller have another nonpublic cooperator—and, if so, what else has he or she provided to Mueller?
7. Is it a coincidence that the IRA organized a “Down with Hillary” rally in New York for the same day that Wikileaks dumped the DNC emails?
As more evidence emerges through Mueller’s indictments, there are new timelines to trace. The Russian “specialists” at the IRA appear to have devoted significant effort to promoting a “Down with Hillary” rally in New York that was scheduled—weeks in advance—for the same day that Wikileaks dumped tens of thousands of emails stolen from the DNC. How much did the IRA know about and align with the efforts of other Russian entities, like the hacking teams Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear that targeted the DNC, the DCCC, and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta?
8. Which, if any, Americans cooperated with the Russian efforts?
This question goes to the political heart of Mueller’s inquiry. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein made a rare public statement last Friday to announce the charges against the Internet Research Agency; he pointedly noted that no Americans were wittingly involved in the matter “in this indictment,” which President Trump wrongly seized upon as vindication (“Case Closed,” he tweeted), but most observers interpreted the statement as an artful way of saying that there might be cooperation alleged in a future indictment.
For instance, there were three unnamed Trump campaign staff mentioned in the indictment, officials who were approached by IRA specialists. Notably absent from the indictment’s otherwise high level of detail is whether there were replies to those overtures. The new indictment also talks about the IRA’s decision to promote Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who appeared at the same December 2015 dinner in Moscow with Vladimir Putin that Gen. Michael Flynn attended. Is there any link between her attendance and the IRA’s decision to promote her candidacy? Similarly, there are plenty of unanswered questions about the Trump campaign’s repeated contacts with Russian officials and Russian nationals—and their repeated lies about such contacts when asked about them.
9. What was the ongoing evidence of Carter Page’s cooperation with Russian agents?
The widely derided “nothingburger” of the so-called Nunes Memo did establish one intriguing piece of evidence: The 90-day FISA warrant to surveil one-time campaign adviser Page was renewed three times, by three different deputy attorneys general: Sally Yates, Dana Boente, and Rod Rosenstein. Each time, in order for it to have been renewed, there would have needed to be new evidence that Page was still involved in foreign intelligence matters. What exactly was that evidence—and who was Carter Page talking to, well into 2017?
10. How big is “Project Lakhta”?
Mueller’s indictment of the Internet Research Agency refers obliquely to the IRA as part of a “larger… interference operation” funded by the oligarch Yevgeny V. Prigozhin that was known as Project Lakhta. The indictment says, “Project Lahkta had multiple components, some involving domestic audiences within the Russian Federation and others targeting foreign audiences in various countries, including the United States.” Is this a bread crumb pointing toward future indictments or other investigative avenues? Did Project Lakhta also involve other “active measures” conducted by other entities, like perhaps some of the active cyber intrusions we saw conducted by the Russian government’s hacking teams known as Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear?
11. Who directed Michael Flynn’s conversations with Sergey Kislyak—and why did he lie about them?
The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency was once one of the most respected intelligence officers of his generation, but he lied to the FBI just days into his 24-day term as the White House’s national security adviser. Why? The lies focused on his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition, specifically in regard to the Obama administration’s announcement of sanctions against Russia for their election interference as well as a UN resolution about Israel. He told Mueller’s team that the conversations were directed by a senior official—KT McFarland saw her nomination to be ambassador to Singapore scuttled over the conversations—but why, if it was an appropriate, authorized conversation, did he choose to lie to the FBI about it?
12. Why did the Russian embassy need $150,000 in cash?
One of the most intriguing threads of the Mueller investigation is a series of money transfers and payments that were flagged as atypical and suspicious by the Russian Embassy’s US bank, Citibank. Buzzfeed has reported that Mueller’s team has the reports of suspicious activity and that Citibank specifically flagged an unusual $120,000 “payroll” deposit to Kislyak 10 days after Trump’s election and blocked an attempted withdrawal of $150,000 in cash just after the inauguration.
What Rick Gates' Guilty Plea Means For Mueller’s Probe
1. What can Paul Manafort offer Bob Mueller?
The former Trump campaign chairman is 68 years old, so even the two indictments he currently faces could result in a life sentence if he ends up heading to prison—and that’s before Gates’ testimony and any additional charges Mueller might bring. If he decides to cooperate, what can he offer Mueller, particularly on the Trump Tower meeting with Kushner, Donald Trump Jr., and Russian nationals, where Manafort evidently took copious notes? And then there’s another question, one of the most intriguing since Manafort took his unpaid role as the Trump campaign chair: Why did he get involved in the campaign in the first place? He appears to have had no shortage of reasons to stay off the radar of US authorities, so why did he put himself in such a high-profile position? Now that Gates has pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge, who else knew about the conspiracy? Mueller has broad latitude to bring charges against anyone else who knew or abetted that conspiracy.
2. What did George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn trade?
This is perhaps the most significant open question to close watchers of the investigation. Both Papadopoulos and Flynn received plea deals in exchange for their cooperation with Mueller’s investigation; Papadopoulos’ guilty plea even included language typically reserved for a witness who has provided active cooperation, like wearing a wire to record conversations with co-conspirators. Presumably, in both cases Mueller was willing to trade because their information was central to his ongoing investigation, but we have yet to see evidence become public that appears to be linked to the cooperation of either Flynn or Papadopoulos—so when will those shoes drop and who did they help Mueller target?
3. How did George Papadopoulos know in May 2016 that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton?
We now understand that the Russia investigation began, in part, because of drunken boasting by Papadopoulos to an Australian official, in a London bar in May 2016, that the Russians had dirt on Hillary. The Australian government passed that information to US intelligence after the DNC email hack became public. So how did Papadopoulos know—and who else did he tell inside the Trump campaign if and when he did learn about the dirt?
4. What was in the Trump transition documents that so worried witnesses?
We’ve seen some legal scuffling and pearl-clutching over the fact that Mueller has obtained records, including emails, from the Trump presidential transition team. According to Axios, the White House only learned Mueller had the emails when they were used as the basis for questions to witnesses. How were the records relevant to Mueller’s investigation? There was news Monday, from CNN, that Mueller’s interest in Jared Kushner has expanded to include some of his attempts to garner business funding during the transition. This scoop is of a piece with recent reporting by The Wall Street Journal and The New Yorker that has pointed to potential security and counterintelligence challenges Kushner may face. Does Kushner have a China problem, in addition to—or instead of—a Russia problem?
5. What happens to Tony Podesta and Vin Weber?
Amid the hubbub surrounding Manafort’s indictment, one of Washington’s longest-reigning power players, Tony Podesta (John Podesta’s brother), abruptly announced his retirement and, effectively, the dissolution of his firm. Rumors have run rampant since then that Podesta and another DC “superlobbyist,” former congressman Vin Weber, face legal jeopardy themselves related to their role in Manafort’s dealings with Ukraine—though they’ve both publicly denied wrongdoing. This may be largely unrelated to the core of Mueller’s probe, but the uncertainty is a sign of a creeping paralysis that is infecting parts of Washington as Mueller churns onward. In Watergate, 69 people ended up being charged and 48 pleaded guilty or were found guilty at trial. Mueller has already brought charges against 19.
6. Who is the third unnamed “traveler” in the last Friday's Mueller indictment?
According to the indictment of the 13 Russians last week, an unnamed and unindicted employee of the IRA traveled to Atlanta for four days in November 2014. The employee appears to be part of the IRA’s IT department, since he or she reported on the trip afterward and filed expenses with the IT director, Sergey P. Polozov, whose job it was to procure servers and other technical infrastructure inside the US to help mask the origins of the IRA’s activity. Mueller’s team surely knows the individual’s name—why didn’t they include it in the indictment and why wasn’t that person indicted at the same time? There are a lot of internal documents, communications, and specific directives cited in the indictment. Does Mueller have another nonpublic cooperator—and, if so, what else has he or she provided to Mueller?
7. Is it a coincidence that the IRA organized a “Down with Hillary” rally in New York for the same day that Wikileaks dumped the DNC emails?
As more evidence emerges through Mueller’s indictments, there are new timelines to trace. The Russian “specialists” at the IRA appear to have devoted significant effort to promoting a “Down with Hillary” rally in New York that was scheduled—weeks in advance—for the same day that Wikileaks dumped tens of thousands of emails stolen from the DNC. How much did the IRA know about and align with the efforts of other Russian entities, like the hacking teams Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear that targeted the DNC, the DCCC, and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta?
8. Which, if any, Americans cooperated with the Russian efforts?
This question goes to the political heart of Mueller’s inquiry. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein made a rare public statement last Friday to announce the charges against the Internet Research Agency; he pointedly noted that no Americans were wittingly involved in the matter “in this indictment,” which President Trump wrongly seized upon as vindication (“Case Closed,” he tweeted), but most observers interpreted the statement as an artful way of saying that there might be cooperation alleged in a future indictment.
For instance, there were three unnamed Trump campaign staff mentioned in the indictment, officials who were approached by IRA specialists. Notably absent from the indictment’s otherwise high level of detail is whether there were replies to those overtures. The new indictment also talks about the IRA’s decision to promote Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who appeared at the same December 2015 dinner in Moscow with Vladimir Putin that Gen. Michael Flynn attended. Is there any link between her attendance and the IRA’s decision to promote her candidacy? Similarly, there are plenty of unanswered questions about the Trump campaign’s repeated contacts with Russian officials and Russian nationals—and their repeated lies about such contacts when asked about them.
9. What was the ongoing evidence of Carter Page’s cooperation with Russian agents?
The widely derided “nothingburger” of the so-called Nunes Memo did establish one intriguing piece of evidence: The 90-day FISA warrant to surveil one-time campaign adviser Page was renewed three times, by three different deputy attorneys general: Sally Yates, Dana Boente, and Rod Rosenstein. Each time, in order for it to have been renewed, there would have needed to be new evidence that Page was still involved in foreign intelligence matters. What exactly was that evidence—and who was Carter Page talking to, well into 2017?
10. How big is “Project Lakhta”?
Mueller’s indictment of the Internet Research Agency refers obliquely to the IRA as part of a “larger… interference operation” funded by the oligarch Yevgeny V. Prigozhin that was known as Project Lakhta. The indictment says, “Project Lahkta had multiple components, some involving domestic audiences within the Russian Federation and others targeting foreign audiences in various countries, including the United States.” Is this a bread crumb pointing toward future indictments or other investigative avenues? Did Project Lakhta also involve other “active measures” conducted by other entities, like perhaps some of the active cyber intrusions we saw conducted by the Russian government’s hacking teams known as Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear?
11. Who directed Michael Flynn’s conversations with Sergey Kislyak—and why did he lie about them?
The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency was once one of the most respected intelligence officers of his generation, but he lied to the FBI just days into his 24-day term as the White House’s national security adviser. Why? The lies focused on his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition, specifically in regard to the Obama administration’s announcement of sanctions against Russia for their election interference as well as a UN resolution about Israel. He told Mueller’s team that the conversations were directed by a senior official—KT McFarland saw her nomination to be ambassador to Singapore scuttled over the conversations—but why, if it was an appropriate, authorized conversation, did he choose to lie to the FBI about it?
12. Why did the Russian embassy need $150,000 in cash?
One of the most intriguing threads of the Mueller investigation is a series of money transfers and payments that were flagged as atypical and suspicious by the Russian Embassy’s US bank, Citibank. Buzzfeed has reported that Mueller’s team has the reports of suspicious activity and that Citibank specifically flagged an unusual $120,000 “payroll” deposit to Kislyak 10 days after Trump’s election and blocked an attempted withdrawal of $150,000 in cash just after the inauguration.
Hillary Clinton/Ben Rhodes/Loretta LURCH/Valeri Jaredd/Samantha Powers/Obama/Clapper/Comey/McCabe/Struck/Page...........just to name a few.
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
you might want to try that again without the delusional Alex jones insanity.
reality... try it, you'll like it.
As we have had this investigation for over a year and there has yet to be a single indictment against Trump or anyone in his campiagn for collusion with the Russians I will wait and see if the first shoe ever drops.
Valerie
Platinum Member
- Sep 17, 2008
- 31,521
- 7,388
- 1,170
As we have had this investigation for over a year and there has yet to be a single indictment against Trump or anyone in his campaign for collusion with the Russians I will wait and see if the first shoe ever drops.
trumptard, "collusion" is not a crime unless it involves criminal activity like money laundering, bank fraud, criminal conspiracy, and/or obstruction of justice.
many indictments have already come down and more are on the way, dumbo.
Collusion and Russian interference in the election was the whole reason we were given for this investigation you stupid bitch it had nothing to do with money laundering, bank fraud, criminal conspiracy,or obstruction of justice and FYI we have not seen anyone indicted on obstruction of justice either. You live in this far left fantasy world of yours for as long as you wish I really don't give a shit and I'm not going spend an excessive amount of time arguing with a partisan idiot.As we have had this investigation for over a year and there has yet to be a single indictment against Trump or anyone in his campaign for collusion with the Russians I will wait and see if the first shoe ever drops.
trumptard, "collusion" is not a crime unless it involves criminal activity like money laundering, bank fraud, criminal conspiracy, and/or obstruction of justice.
many indictments have already come down and more are on the way, dumbo.
Nike? Adidas? Converse? New Balance, perhaps?I'm partial to Don "Guido" Trump Junior. But Little Jared seems a bit more likely for all the lies, omissions and additions to his clearance forms. Both of them likely guilty of money laundering through Deutsche Bank and ties have probably been established between Jared's digital work on the campaign and the amazing coincidences as to where Russians dumped their fake news and when they started leaking emails.
So weigh in - there are many shoes remaining!
Plenty of types of shoes to drop...
Valerie
Platinum Member
- Sep 17, 2008
- 31,521
- 7,388
- 1,170
Collusion and Russian interference in the election was the whole reason we were given for this investigation you stupid bitch it had nothing to do with money laundering, bank fraud, criminal conspiracy,or obstruction of justice and FYI we have not seen anyone indicted on obstruction of justice either. You live in this far left fantasy world of yours for as long as you wish I really don't give a shit and I'm not going spend an excessive amount of time arguing with a partisan idiot.As we have had this investigation for over a year and there has yet to be a single indictment against Trump or anyone in his campaign for collusion with the Russians I will wait and see if the first shoe ever drops.
trumptard, "collusion" is not a crime unless it involves criminal activity like money laundering, bank fraud, criminal conspiracy, and/or obstruction of justice.
many indictments have already come down and more are on the way, dumbo.
try getting your news from outside the KGB fake news troll farm
ptbw forever
Gold Member
- May 9, 2015
- 16,522
- 1,779
- 290
- Banned
- #49
Try getting your news from a source that has higher production values and experience in the field than a high school newscast.Collusion and Russian interference in the election was the whole reason we were given for this investigation you stupid bitch it had nothing to do with money laundering, bank fraud, criminal conspiracy,or obstruction of justice and FYI we have not seen anyone indicted on obstruction of justice either. You live in this far left fantasy world of yours for as long as you wish I really don't give a shit and I'm not going spend an excessive amount of time arguing with a partisan idiot.As we have had this investigation for over a year and there has yet to be a single indictment against Trump or anyone in his campaign for collusion with the Russians I will wait and see if the first shoe ever drops.
trumptard, "collusion" is not a crime unless it involves criminal activity like money laundering, bank fraud, criminal conspiracy, and/or obstruction of justice.
many indictments have already come down and more are on the way, dumbo.
try getting your news from outside the KGB fake news troll farm
Valerie
Platinum Member
- Sep 17, 2008
- 31,521
- 7,388
- 1,170
Try getting your news from a source that has higher production values and experience in the field than a high school newscast.
if you think facts from a grand jury investigation aren't real news, you're helpless.
ptbw forever
Gold Member
- May 9, 2015
- 16,522
- 1,779
- 290
- Banned
- #51
What facts, moron?Try getting your news from a source that has higher production values and experience in the field than a high school newscast.
if you think facts from a grand jury investigation aren't real news, you're helpless.
What grand jury?
AvgGuyIA
Gold Member
When all is said and done, Hillary paid for the fake dossier which gave reason to spy on the ?trump campaign. Watergate was nothing.
that's just fake news from the anti-American troll farm, s0n.
Valerie
Platinum Member
- Sep 17, 2008
- 31,521
- 7,388
- 1,170
Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee have released a classified memo rebutting Republicans' claims that the FBI improperly surveilled the Trump campaign.
The heavily redacted document claims the FBI did not rely on faulty evidence when securing a warrant to surveil former Trump campaign aide Carter Page – an allegation Republicans made in a memo the committee released last month.
The version that the White House approved for release on Saturday states that FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials "did not 'abuse' the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, omit material information or subvert this vital tool to spy on the Trump campaign".
"In fact," the memo continues, "DOJ and the FBI would have been remiss in their duty to protect the country had they not sought a FISA warrant and repeated renewals to conduct temporary surveillance of Carter Page, someone the FBI assessed to be an agent of the Russia government."
Democrats release memo rebutting Republican claims about FBI surveillance of Trump campaign
The heavily redacted document claims the FBI did not rely on faulty evidence when securing a warrant to surveil former Trump campaign aide Carter Page – an allegation Republicans made in a memo the committee released last month.
The version that the White House approved for release on Saturday states that FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials "did not 'abuse' the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, omit material information or subvert this vital tool to spy on the Trump campaign".
"In fact," the memo continues, "DOJ and the FBI would have been remiss in their duty to protect the country had they not sought a FISA warrant and repeated renewals to conduct temporary surveillance of Carter Page, someone the FBI assessed to be an agent of the Russia government."
Democrats release memo rebutting Republican claims about FBI surveillance of Trump campaign
Last edited:
Valerie
Platinum Member
- Sep 17, 2008
- 31,521
- 7,388
- 1,170
"an allegation Republicans made in a memo the committee released last month."
Devin Nunes admits his memo cherry-picked information to prove anti-Trump bias at the FBI
Right's push to release memo on FBI 'abuses' endorsed by Russian bots
Devin Nunes admits his memo cherry-picked information to prove anti-Trump bias at the FBI
Right's push to release memo on FBI 'abuses' endorsed by Russian bots
Valerie
Platinum Member
- Sep 17, 2008
- 31,521
- 7,388
- 1,170
traitors never let facts get in the way of their anti-American conjecture 
The memo also rebuts claims that the FBI relied exclusively on information in the so-called "Steele dossier" – an opposition research document funded by Mr Trump's election rival – in launching its investigation of the Trump campaign. The memo claims the FBI only received the Steele dossier in September of 2016 – seven weeks after the FBI started its Trump team investigation.
memo rebutting Republican claims about FBI surveillance
The memo also rebuts claims that the FBI relied exclusively on information in the so-called "Steele dossier" – an opposition research document funded by Mr Trump's election rival – in launching its investigation of the Trump campaign. The memo claims the FBI only received the Steele dossier in September of 2016 – seven weeks after the FBI started its Trump team investigation.
memo rebutting Republican claims about FBI surveillance
NRA Connections
A Potential Game Changer
The allegation that Russia funneled money into the NRA – to directly support Trump's presidential bid – is staggering. Until now, we've understood the Russian support of Trump to have been oblique, delivered by a cadre of Facebook and Twitter trolls, and by the release of hacked DNC and Clinton campaign emails through Wikileaks.
The notion that the Kremlin was supporting Trump's presidential bid financially – and through an organization that holds itself up as a paragon of American patriotism – is almost unreal.
The Trump-Russia-NRA Connection: Here’s What You Need to Know
I have no doubt at all that at at least 20 million of the 30 in blood money that the NRA spent on Trump came from Russia. Curious what came of that FBI investigation and whether it's something Mueller picked up?
Two things pretty much for sure - It would at least partially explain 1. Trump's undying love for all things Russia and 2. His total silence about guns following each incidence of the "American Carnage" he so successfully predicted on inauguration day.
The Washington Post published an article last week to the effect that the NRA Investigation is ongoing. In addition to explaining Trump’s lack of criticism of the NRA, it also explains the recent NRA attacks against the FBI and the MSM by Wayne LaPierre at CPAC.
It also explains the recent NRA ads attacking the government, that look like a call to civil war than anything to do with gun education or protecting the Second Amendment.
Valerie
Platinum Member
- Sep 17, 2008
- 31,521
- 7,388
- 1,170
Page had been on the radar of the FBI at least as far back as 2013, when a bureau wiretap caught suspected Russian spies discussing their attempts to recruit him. Even after being interviewed by the investigators in that case, Page continued to have extensive contacts with Russians, including trips to Moscow in July and December 2016.
Five senior Justice Department and FBI officials signed off on three requests for extensions of the foreign intelligence surveillance warrant for Page; all the requests were approved by a federal judge, according to the Republican memo.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...a059f168dd2_story.html?utm_term=.2a345b3d1e8d
To obtain a warrant to monitor a U.S. citizen under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Justice Department must convince a judge that there is probable cause to suspect that the person is an agent of a foreign power and is engaged in criminal conduct. Such warrants expire after 90 days.
To receive an extension, the department’s attorneys generally produce new evidence showing the judge that the monitoring has been producing information that advances the investigation.
Five senior Justice Department and FBI officials signed off on three requests for extensions of the foreign intelligence surveillance warrant for Page; all the requests were approved by a federal judge, according to the Republican memo.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...a059f168dd2_story.html?utm_term=.2a345b3d1e8d
To obtain a warrant to monitor a U.S. citizen under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Justice Department must convince a judge that there is probable cause to suspect that the person is an agent of a foreign power and is engaged in criminal conduct. Such warrants expire after 90 days.
To receive an extension, the department’s attorneys generally produce new evidence showing the judge that the monitoring has been producing information that advances the investigation.
Last edited:
Valerie
Platinum Member
- Sep 17, 2008
- 31,521
- 7,388
- 1,170
It Papa-dropped already.When is the first shoe going to drop?
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 22
- Views
- 88
- Replies
- 149
- Views
- 658
- Replies
- 87
- Views
- 915
- Replies
- 20
- Views
- 119
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8087
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-