Today in Trump

[El Kabong]

Curious that Barr said there's no evidence of collusion in the Mueller report and Mueller never piped up and corrected him....not like the media weren't BEGGING him to do so either.

But yeah $1 million in American dollars or $1 million in gold.... I'd certainly take it in this new bet if you had the money which you don't.

Start thinking of where your $20 of charity donations will go there Mr. Black Lives Matter

[Spicoli]

It's pretty obvious the Administration has been fully briefed on the reports actual content hence the retreat from initial hoopla of complete and full squeaky clean cloak by Trump. Barr never released Mueller official summaries either and that's for a reason. It just needs to come out and is overdue to be handed over to Congressional intel committee. On a random side and of lesser note..why is Trump posting fake approval poll results after Fox admitted they were in error and made a mistake early in the week. All the talk of fake news but he leaves them up as if accurate.

[walrus]

It's pretty obvious the Administration has been fully briefed on the reports actual content hence the retreat from initial hoopla of complete and full squeaky clean cloak by Trump. Barr never released Mueller official summaries either and that's for a reason. It just needs to come out and is overdue to be handed over to Congressional intel committee. On a random side and of lesser note..why is Trump posting fake approval poll results after Fox admitted they were in error and made a mistake early in the week. All the talk of fake news but he leaves them up as if accurate.

The poll thing I don’t get myself. As far as the full report whatever does not by law need to be redacted I’m for releasing it. I do find it funny that many of the Dems who were in office when slick Willy was pres. And were saying the Star report should never be released or the same ones clamoring for this mueller report to be released. My how things change, even the republicans want the report released.

[El Kabong]

It's pretty obvious the Administration has been fully briefed on the reports actual content hence the retreat from initial hoopla of complete and full squeaky clean cloak by Trump. Barr never released Mueller official summaries either and that's for a reason. It just needs to come out and is overdue to be handed over to Congressional intel committee. On a random side and of lesser note..why is Trump posting fake approval poll results after Fox admitted they were in error and made a mistake early in the week. All the talk of fake news but he leaves them up as if accurate.

Well AG Barr released his report and it was co-signed by Assistant AG Rod Rosenstein, who coincidentally signed one (if not more) of the FISA warrants which were obtained by using bogus intel planted/leaked by the very agents investigating Trump to begin with, so it's not like Rosenstein is a Trump ally or anything. Is he just tagging along hoping he doesn't get in trouble?

What will it take for the folks who are vehemently anti-Trump to be mollified? I'm guessing many will say "The complete unredacted Mueller report" which that's not going to happen due to the grand jury testimony which is legally protected. Where will the goalposts move to after the Mueller report is released and if nothing is shown OR if clear bias and "fruit of the poisonous tree" tactics are shown what then? Will the folks who backed Mueller and backed Comey (after first calling for his removal then using that removal to call on these investigations into Trump) now back an investigation as to how things went so sideways for these crooked cops? Or is it just a lynch mob after Donald Trump because "Orange Man Bad" and he's broken their feeble little brains?


I really do wonder where this all ends up.... the anti-Trump folks need to chill out a bit their histrionics aren't good for the nation.

[Kirkland Laing]

Curious that Barr said there's no evidence of collusion in the Mueller report and Mueller never piped up and corrected him....not like the media weren't BEGGING him to do so either.

But yeah $1 million in American dollars or $1 million in gold.... I'd certainly take it in this new bet if you had the money which you don't.

Start thinking of where your $20 of charity donations will go there Mr. Black Lives Matter

He didn't say there's no evidence of collusion. There's endless evidence of collusion. Bear in mind there were over 100 meetings between the Trump people and the Russians. Every one of those meetings should by law have been reported to the FBI. None of them were and all were angrily denied until they were exposed by the press. That alone is enough reason to investigate just what they were up to.
Collusion isn't a crime however. Mueller would have to prove a conspiracy crime and doesn't have enough evidence to be able to prove one beyond a reasonable doubt which is the standard for bringing charges. And Mueller hasn't said a word in public about the entire investigation and never will unless he's subpoenaed. The fact he hasn't said anything doesn't mean anything.

[Kirkland Laing]

"He has to answer"? You couldn't make it up.

I understand he's been charged with hacking into a United states top secret database. Or helping somebody do it. There's no protection under the law for that now, is there. It's not like he's simply publishing classified information which is not a crime. The FBI have evidence to show he hacked into something top secret. That's a crime right?

That is an allegation and is unproven at this point in time and you are dealing with networks of power that have a history of dishonesty and criminality. Interesting that you take the side of Hilary Clinton, who has a proven track record of utter devastation and criminality. All Assange has really done is embarrass the kinds of people that you appear to have endorsed over the years.

If you are asking me whether I think trying to access data that proves government corruption is a crime. Well, I don't believe a government has the right to hide data or operate secretly. Anybody working in a government that is funded by the taxpayer or the buck passed onto the unborn is answerable to the public, so if the data is hidden, then I don't see an issue with it being sought and revealed if it is in the public interest.

It boils down to what government is and why it exists. That has deviated so far from what it should be I would say yes, it could be deemed criminal, but government itself has become somewhat criminal. The Iraq war was a war crime and goes unpunished. It's a bit strange to punish someone that reveals illegality regarding an illegal act.

You can bury a body after killing someone, but it would be a bit strange to criminalize someone who comes snooping around and digs up the body. You probably take drugs which would make you a criminal, but you are not wrong for doing it. It is all a matter of perspective.

People break the law all the time. Oftentimes the law is there to be broken as it exists for reasons that are not in the interests of the public, they are about protecting those in charge and little more.

It is unprovedn at this point in time. However to get the warrant the FBI have had to present evidence to a grand jury to get them to vote to indict and then to a federal judge to get a warrant and then a British judge has to see the evidence in order to sign off on a British warrant. Can you point to any examples of the FBI making up evidence in any previous high profile international case like this?

I'm not taking Hillary's side here, I'm just pointing out the feds seem to have the goods on him. Once again Miles we're not talking about exposing crimes or publishing classified information. Assange is being charged with helping to break into a database to steal classified information. That's an outright criminal act no matter how you look at it.

Exactly when has Hillary broken the law?

[Kirkland Laing]

Julian Assange will bring information about the murder of Seth Rich

The Mueller report says quite clearly and in full detail that the various thefts of DNC/Democratic/Clinton campaign electronic documents were carried out by the Russians and then disseminated via Wikileaks and other outlets.

Awww that is precious. I wonder how you'll react to Assange's testimony if he says anything contrary to that narrative.


Any statement on former White House Counsel Greg Craig being indicted?

If you bet at least $100 I'll give you 10000 to 1 odds that I'm right and you're wrong and the Mueller report proves all the emails were hacked by Russia. And I'll pay the money directly to you. You can make a million dollars by betting a hundred if you really believe the Seth Rich thing. Of course you won't take the bet because you don't have the balls to put your money where your mouth is.

Some GOP and Democratic lobbyists have been charged with not registering as foreign agents while lobbying for them. This guy is one of them.

I'd make the bet, but you don't have $1 million let alone $1 million to just give away so why should I bother? As tempting as it would be for me to be correct and you to be completely ruined.

I'll scrape it together somehow if you can come up with $100 you pathetic fucking bottlejob. Surely you must have enough confidence in all your brilliant research to risk $100?

[El Kabong]

I'll scrape it together somehow if you can come up with $100 you pathetic fucking bottlejob. Surely you must have enough confidence in all your brilliant research to risk $100?

OK then. And then there's the little issue of is this a different bet than the original bet or part of the same bet?


I HIGHLY doubt you have access to $1,000 extra just to hand over much less $1,000,000 but if you say so. I mean you wouldn't go betting something you don't have would you? I don't trust you. I trust that I am correct, but I don't trust you at all.

[Kirkland Laing]

It's pretty obvious the Administration has been fully briefed on the reports actual content hence the retreat from initial hoopla of complete and full squeaky clean cloak by Trump. Barr never released Mueller official summaries either and that's for a reason. It just needs to come out and is overdue to be handed over to Congressional intel committee. On a random side and of lesser note..why is Trump posting fake approval poll results after Fox admitted they were in error and made a mistake early in the week. All the talk of fake news but he leaves them up as if accurate.

Well AG Barr released his report and it was co-signed by Assistant AG Rod Rosenstein, who coincidentally signed one (if not more) of the FISA warrants which were obtained by using bogus intel planted/leaked by the very agents investigating Trump to begin with, so it's not like Rosenstein is a Trump ally or anything. Is he just tagging along hoping he doesn't get in trouble?

What will it take for the folks who are vehemently anti-Trump to be mollified? I'm guessing many will say "The complete unredacted Mueller report" which that's not going to happen due to the grand jury testimony which is legally protected. Where will the goalposts move to after the Mueller report is released and if nothing is shown OR if clear bias and "fruit of the poisonous tree" tactics are shown what then? Will the folks who backed Mueller and backed Comey (after first calling for his removal then using that removal to call on these investigations into Trump) now back an investigation as to how things went so sideways for these crooked cops? Or is it just a lynch mob after Donald Trump because "Orange Man Bad" and he's broken their feeble little brains?


I really do wonder where this all ends up.... the anti-Trump folks need to chill out a bit their histrionics aren't good for the nation.

If the FBI can surveil suspected foreign agents pursuant to a lawful warrant signed by a federal judge who has subsequently said it was applied for legally where will it end Lyle?

It's a slippery slope. You start by investigating a bunch of suspicious people, the next thing you've opened seventeen different investigations into money laundering, tax evasion and so on.

[El Kabong]

He didn't say there's no evidence of collusion. There's endless evidence of collusion. Bear in mind there were over 100 meetings between the Trump people and the Russians. Every one of those meetings should by law have been reported to the FBI. None of them were and all were angrily denied until they were exposed by the press. That alone is enough reason to investigate just what they were up to.
Collusion isn't a crime however. Mueller would have to prove a conspiracy crime and doesn't have enough evidence to be able to prove one beyond a reasonable doubt which is the standard for bringing charges. And Mueller hasn't said a word in public about the entire investigation and never will unless he's subpoenaed. The fact he hasn't said anything doesn't mean anything.

From the Barr summary and I quote: "The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S> Presidential election.As the report states "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump team conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities" "

That report referenced in the Barr summary is the Mueller Report and it's fucking quoted...but hey that comes out Thursday so I guess we'll see then.

It is unprovedn at this point in time. However to get the warrant the FBI have had to present evidence to a grand jury to get them to vote to indict and then to a federal judge to get a warrant and then a British judge has to see the evidence in order to sign off on a British warrant. Can you point to any examples of the FBI making up evidence in any previous high profile international case like this?

I'm not taking Hillary's side here, I'm just pointing out the feds seem to have the goods on him. Once again Miles we're not talking about exposing crimes or publishing classified information. Assange is being charged with helping to break into a database to steal classified information. That's an outright criminal act no matter how you look at it.

Exactly when has Hillary broken the law?

Well the FBI has done plenty of shady shit in the past so I wouldn't put it past them doing this. Who is to say England (and others) weren't also in on it? I don't think Britain was all that excited about Donald Trump being elected as he lifted up folks like Nigel Farrage and Brexit and UKIP. I'm not even going to look into the FBI doing this before because even if they weren't scandal plagued before (they were) it wouldn't have an impact on what they can or could do. To not believe that it is even a possibility is very naive....never paid attention to the COINTELPRO have you? You don't know for certain that the FBI infiltrates and uses organizations to stir shit up and keep the people attacking each other. They'll infiltrate a group and what was once a peaceful protest will become violent because their agent provocateurs will escalate things to that end.


Hillary has broken the law several times. Cattle futures, Whitewater, hell just by breaking her phones and destroying evidence that James Comey subpoenaed that would see any lesser person given a decade or so in prison. She deleted 33,000 subpoenaed emails, she didn't give up the server to the FBI so they could determine if it had been hacked or who did it.

[Kirkland Laing]

I'll scrape it together somehow if you can come up with $100 you pathetic fucking bottlejob. Surely you must have enough confidence in all your brilliant research to risk $100?

OK then. And then there's the little issue of is this a different bet than the original bet or part of the same bet?


I HIGHLY doubt you have access to $1,000 extra just to hand over much less $1,000,000 but if you say so. I mean you wouldn't go betting something you don't have would you? I don't trust you. I trust that I am correct, but I don't trust you at all.

Excellent. Here's the bet we just made;

If you bet at least $100 I'll give you 10000 to 1 odds that I'm right and you're wrong and the Mueller report proves all the emails were hacked by Russia. And I'll pay the money directly to you. You can make a million dollars by betting a hundred if you really believe the Seth Rich thing.

http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...95#post1516895

Now here's what we do know so far about the Mueller report. Unfortunately for you your extensive research didn't include reading the four page Barr letter that is the only Mueller report information that has actually been released so far. Here are parts of the letter quoted verbatim:

The Special Counsel’s report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts.

[...]

The Special Counsel’s investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election.

[...]

The second element involved the Russian government’s efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons associated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for the purposes of influencing the election.


[..]



The report’s second part addresses a number of actions by the President — most of which have been the subject of public reporting — that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns..................


https://www.vox.com/2019/3/24/182799...trump-congress


So, the Mueller report documents how it was the Russians who stole all the documents from various Democratic party organisations and people. There's chapter and verse in the report and proof beyond a reasonable doubt as evidenced by the chages Mueller has already brought.



Further putting the kibosh on the Seth Rich nonsense (by the way his family would like all the people still pushing this ridiculous conspiracy theory to stop doing it) is the fact that the people who created the whole conspiracy theory in the first place have admitted:


Russian hackers weren’t the ones behind the theft of Democratic emails that upended the 2016 presidential race, conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi told his InfoWars fans last year. Instead, Corsi said, Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich had stolen the emails and was murdered in revenge for the heist.
But Corsi was lying. In an email to Trump confidante Roger Stone in 2016, Corsi acknowledged that in fact hackers were behind the email theft, according to newly released messages.
Despite that admission, both Corsi and Stone played key roles promoting the conspiracy theory about Rich. Stone became one of the first major figures in Trump’s orbit to suggest Rich was murdered over the emails, tweeting on August 10, 2016 that Rich had “ties to DNC heist.”
In 2017, after Rich’s parents begged right-wing media personalities to stop pushing conspiracy theories about their son, Corsi put the blame for the email theft on Rich in a three-part InfoWars series.

[...]


Corsi’s theory helped fuel conspiracy theorists on the right who claim, without evidence, that Rich was murdered on the orders of Hillary Clinton. But emails from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the Trump campaign and Russia show that Corsi knew all along that Russian hackers gave the emails to WikiLeaks.
In an August 2, 2016 email, made public Tuesday in draft court papers prepared by Mueller’s office, Corsi told Stone that “hackers” were behind the WikiLeaks releases.



https://www.thedailybeast.com/roger-...ole-dnc-emails



If your fantastic research had involved just reading the various court filings, or even reading newspaper reports of the court filings, it would have saved you $100. That's a verifiable receipt for $50 to Black Lives Matter and one for $50 to the NAACP please.

[Kirkland Laing]

He didn't say there's no evidence of collusion. There's endless evidence of collusion. Bear in mind there were over 100 meetings between the Trump people and the Russians. Every one of those meetings should by law have been reported to the FBI. None of them were and all were angrily denied until they were exposed by the press. That alone is enough reason to investigate just what they were up to.
Collusion isn't a crime however. Mueller would have to prove a conspiracy crime and doesn't have enough evidence to be able to prove one beyond a reasonable doubt which is the standard for bringing charges. And Mueller hasn't said a word in public about the entire investigation and never will unless he's subpoenaed. The fact he hasn't said anything doesn't mean anything.

From the Barr summary and I quote: "The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S> Presidential election.As the report states "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump team conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities" "

That report referenced in the Barr summary is the Mueller Report and it's fucking quoted...but hey that comes out Thursday so I guess we'll see then.

It is unprovedn at this point in time. However to get the warrant the FBI have had to present evidence to a grand jury to get them to vote to indict and then to a federal judge to get a warrant and then a British judge has to see the evidence in order to sign off on a British warrant. Can you point to any examples of the FBI making up evidence in any previous high profile international case like this?

I'm not taking Hillary's side here, I'm just pointing out the feds seem to have the goods on him. Once again Miles we're not talking about exposing crimes or publishing classified information. Assange is being charged with helping to break into a database to steal classified information. That's an outright criminal act no matter how you look at it.

Exactly when has Hillary broken the law?

Well the FBI has done plenty of shady shit in the past so I wouldn't put it past them doing this. Who is to say England (and others) weren't also in on it? I don't think Britain was all that excited about Donald Trump being elected as he lifted up folks like Nigel Farrage and Brexit and UKIP. I'm not even going to look into the FBI doing this before because even if they weren't scandal plagued before (they were) it wouldn't have an impact on what they can or could do. To not believe that it is even a possibility is very naive....never paid attention to the COINTELPRO have you? You don't know for certain that the FBI infiltrates and uses organizations to stir shit up and keep the people attacking each other. They'll infiltrate a group and what was once a peaceful protest will become violent because their agent provocateurs will escalate things to that end.


Hillary has broken the law several times. Cattle futures, Whitewater, hell just by breaking her phones and destroying evidence that James Comey subpoenaed that would see any lesser person given a decade or so in prison. She deleted 33,000 subpoenaed emails, she didn't give up the server to the FBI so they could determine if it had been hacked or who did it.

Can you point to any times the FBI have trumped up evidence in a high profile international case or anything Hillary has been charged with. Would you like to bet on whether the FBI are making up these charges?

[El Kabong]

If the FBI can surveil suspected foreign agents pursuant to a lawful warrant signed by a federal judge who has subsequently said it was applied for legally where will it end Lyle?

It's a slippery slope. You start by investigating a bunch of suspicious people, the next thing you've opened seventeen different investigations into money laundering, tax evasion and so on.

The judge WOULD say it was applied for legally and dutifully filed because he/she/they wouldn't be told that the ways in which the FBI agents went about making their case was illegal/disingenuous. The judges were NEVER told the Steele Dossier was a Hillary funded hit piece, the judges were likely NEVER told by the FBI agents that Stzrok and Page (and Steele) had planted stories in the media only to bring them to the judges and say "OMG look at this, we need to investigate"


It's plain and simple 'fruit of the poisonous tree' even if the Trump team had broken the law (and they didn't) the evidence these jackasses gathered wouldn't be admissible due to how they went about gathering their "information" most of which was leaked or planted. Stefan Halper who tried to get hired onto the trump campaign is a United States Intelligence asset.....wow quite the coincidence that he ended up with Papadopolous.

[El Kabong]

Can you point to any times the FBI have trumped up evidence in a high profile international case or anything Hillary has been charged with. Would you like to bet on whether the FBI are making up these charges?

Well the FBI TENDS to stick with federal cases and not international as that's left to the CIA (most times) this is a Presidential issue and so it's unique in that regard.

You have more money you'd like to lose? Can you afford it? I mean to this point you'll only lose a cool mil.

[El Kabong]

Peter Strzok, Lisa Page conspired to leak anti-Trump stories to mainstream media
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-anti-trump-s/
On April 10, 2017, Mr. Strzok text-messaged Lisa Page, his lover and then-FBI counsel, to discuss a “media leak strategy.”

“I had literally just gone to find this phone to tell you I want to talk to you about media leak strategy with DOJ before you go,” Mr. Strzok said.

Two days later, Mr. Strzok congratulated Ms. Page on two derogatory stories that appeared about Carter Page, a former Trump volunteer whom the FBI was wiretapping.



And the gallery awaits Kirkland's witty response to this readily available information