Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
You have got to be kidding me.

Last week, in an effort to beat back accusations that she has lied about her identity, Simona Mangiante provided ABC News with a photograph of her Italian passport.

But rather than quiet widespread speculation that the wife of the former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos was perhaps not who she presented herself to be, that passport photo has now raised more questions than it has answered.

Mangiante acknowledged on Monday that she altered the date of birth on the photograph to disguise her age. She now says she is 37, not 34, years old.

…

On Monday, Mangiante acknowledged altering the passport photo after she faced pressure online from an independent journalist who has raised persistent questions about her identity. The journalist, Scott Stedman, reported on Twitter that he had obtained a copy of Mangiante’s marriage certificate, where the date of birth listed differed from the one on the passport photo provided to ABC News. Her date of birth also differed on an Italian legal database, as ABC News noted in its reporting last week.
Click to expand...
 
River said:
Does anyone think that this could pertain to fisa warrant intel?
Click to expand...

why do you think ANYTHING about how the probe was started can have ANY impact on the results?`
Do you think this is a TV-Law drama? You think that "fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree" arguments are at all relevant in this case?
 
River said:
Does anyone think that this could pertain to fisa warrant intel?
Click to expand...

Here, grasp these!

straws.jpg
 
River said:
Does anyone think that this could pertain to fisa warrant intel?
Click to expand...

As has already been posted, the document refers to the Manchester bombing from last year. It actually seems rather difficult to miss this.

But I do have a question for you: Suppose (hypothetically) two things come out regarding this investigation:

1. Proof of Trump's crimes are found. Not just collusion/conspiracy, but being part of a massive network of money laundering.

and

2. Proof that the investigation was initiated on fabricated evidence, or is somehow or another proven to be illegitimate in its beginning.

Question: Do you think Trump should still be allowed to be president and we should just turn a blind eye? I mean, hey, the man's privacy was violated; we weren't supposed to discover his crimes.
 
Cabbage said:
As has already been posted, the document refers to the Manchester bombing from last year. It actually seems rather difficult to miss this.

But I do have a question for you: Suppose (hypothetically) two things come out regarding this investigation:

1. Proof of Trump's crimes are found. Not just collusion/conspiracy, but being part of a massive network of money laundering.

and

2. Proof that the investigation was initiated on fabricated evidence, or is somehow or another proven to be illegitimate in its beginning.

Question: Do you think Trump should still be allowed to be president and we should just turn a blind eye? I mean, hey, the man's privacy was violated; we weren't supposed to discover his crimes.
Click to expand...


If Trump is found to be guilty of crimes, he should do the time like anyone else. I would hope partisanship would never matter when it comes to those issues. It would seem justice has not been dealt out fairly in some recent politicians cases. (clinton?) There are ongoing investigations into those events to determine if laws were broken, or just protocols.

Clearly, if Flynn can be charged with "lying to the FBI" about "misremembering a phone call" (from mccabes notes) Clinton should certainly be charged with Lying to the FBI along with a couple of her aides for their answers regarding the private server and its use.

The elephant in the room no one is talking about is Obama was also using private email account, and so were others -- some under pseudonyms. Obamas was bobama@ameritech.net. Will this also be exposed and investigated? (should be interesting to watch it all play out) I'm excited to see the declassification of these FISA warrants. I could not open the pdf on this laptop, is why I asked if it could be related. I could only see the description.
 
River said:
The elephant in the room no one is talking about is Obama was also using private email account, and so were others -- some under pseudonyms. Obamas was bobama@ameritech.net. Will this also be exposed and investigated? (should be interesting to watch it all play out) I'm excited to see the declassification of these FISA warrants. I could not open the pdf on this laptop, is why I asked if it could be related. I could only see the description.
Click to expand...

because one thing has nothing to do with the other. What you are doing is pure Whataboutism.

If you are concerned with improper email use by Presidents, start a new thread.
And begin with George W. Bush.
 
In an investigation into the crimes of Russia tampering with our election, Obama's anything is not the elephant in the room.
 
River said:
Clearly, if Flynn can be charged with "lying to the FBI" about "misremembering a phone call" (from mccabes notes) Clinton should certainly be charged with Lying to the FBI along with a couple of her aides for their answers regarding the private server and its use.
Click to expand...

It's worth noting that Flynn entered into a plea deal and that there's evidence that there are crimes he is not being charged for, including being paid by the Turkish government while advising Trump on foreign policy, being part of a plot to kidnap a Muslim cleric, and lying in foreign agent filings. The thing you're missing is that the FBI isn't interested in that one charge. They're interested in what he knows about the Trump campaign.

As for Clinton, Trump has certainly claimed that she lied to the FBI, but there is no evidence that is true, and evidence that it is not.

As for the other stuff you want to drag this thread off-topic with, if you want to discuss it, I recommend starting a new thread.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
It's worth noting that Flynn entered into a plea deal and that there's evidence that there are crimes he is not being charged for, including being paid by the Turkish government while advising Trump on foreign policy, being part of a plot to kidnap a Muslim cleric, and lying in foreign agent filings. The thing you're missing is that the FBI isn't interested in that one charge. They're interested in what he knows about the Trump campaign.

As for Clinton, Trump has certainly claimed that she lied to the FBI, but there is no evidence that is true, and evidence that it is not.

As for the other stuff you want to drag this thread off-topic with, if you want to discuss it, I recommend starting a new thread.
Click to expand...

I agree about derailment of the thread, but it needs to be said that there is ample proof of Clintons lies regarding the emails.

As for Flynn, I think we should wait until Mueller is done. (and that goes for the rest of those indicted) More charges could come, and more information can become available. We're still waiting on key documents that have been stonewalled for months from congress. When the OIG is finished, hopefully the American people will get to see what really happened to begin this thing. Not either sides spun version of it.
 
River said:
If Trump is found to be guilty of crimes, he should do the time like anyone else. I would hope partisanship would never matter when it comes to those issues.
Click to expand...
You might CLAIM that... But the fact is you seem to be in lock-step with Trump and the republicans, a party whom has become extremely partisan over the past decade or 2.

Perhaps if you actually distanced yourself from Trump your claim that you 'hope bipartisanship would never matter' might be believed. Until then, I think its just an empty claim, a figleaf over your hyperpartisanship.

It would seem justice has not been dealt out fairly in some recent politicians cases. (clinton?) There are ongoing investigations into those events to determine if laws were broken, or just protocols.
Click to expand...
Yet despite the republicans controlling both the white house (along with appointing people to the department of justice) and congress, no charges have been laid against clinton. On the other hand Mueller and his team have managed to lay dozens of charges (and get guilty pleas). Why do you think that is?

I know one of the common (and debunked) claims is "The FBI had Comey in charge", but he hasn't been around for quite some time. The republicans have had over half a year and haven't built a case. That should tell you something.
 
Segnosaur said:
You might CLAIM that... But the fact is you seem to be in lock-step with Trump and the republicans, a party whom has become extremely partisan over the past decade or 2.

Perhaps if you actually distanced yourself from Trump your claim that you 'hope bipartisanship would never matter' might be believed. Until then, I think its just an empty claim, a figleaf over your hyperpartisanship.


Yet despite the republicans controlling both the white house (along with appointing people to the department of justice) and congress, no charges have been laid against clinton. On the other hand Mueller and his team have managed to lay dozens of charges (and get guilty pleas). Why do you think that is?

I know one of the common (and debunked) claims is "The FBI had Comey in charge", but he hasn't been around for quite some time. The republicans have had over half a year and haven't built a case. That should tell you something.
Click to expand...

My bold; Do you admit also that the democrats have done the very same thing?

Also, why is the DOJ investigating Comey and McCabe currently?
 
River said:
You might CLAIM that... But the fact is you seem to be in lock-step with Trump and the republicans, a party whom has become extremely partisan over the past decade or 2.
Click to expand...
My bold; Do you admit also that the democrats have done the very same thing?
Click to expand...
Let me point out a real-life example of how things worked...

When the Democrats were developing the Affordable Care Act, they had hours of public hearings. They engaged the republicans to get their input (even incorporating some of their suggestions.) And in the end they voted against it. When the Republicans tried to introduce their own bill last year, they did so with no input from the Democrats, and attempted to cram the bill through congress.

So no, the level of partisanship by the Democrats and the Republicans is nowhere near equivalent. And if the Democrats have become less willing to work with the republicans, well, I think things like the health care act and the tax bill (another piece of legislation that was crammed through by republicans with little public debate) shows that there's no real point in trying to work with the republicans. Democrats tried. Republicans said "We're not interested in working with you".
 
River said:
Also, why is the DOJ investigating Comey and McCabe currently?
Click to expand...
The bigger question is... if they did something wrong why hasn't the DOJ brought charges, given the fact that neither has been involved with the FBI for over half a year.

By the way, you still haven't answered the question.... why have no charges been brought against Clinton if you think she's guilty, given the fact that Mueller was able to bring charges (and even obtain guilty pleas) in a far shorter time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom