Napolitano: It's 'Unheard Of' for FBI #2 Official to Request Immunity Before Testifying

[Dashinka 23,238]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Perhaps, and not without good reason. Slick Willie went through the same thing. If you are a jerk to enough people, it does come back to you eventually and you might find the breaks going against you more often than someone who can act civil. 

 

   Many, many people dislike Trump for reasons other than his political affiliation. I am one of those. He may not be a Washington insider, but he's been around long enough and done enough to deserve what he gets. 

 

   I do think the focus has been distorted by the right here too. Is there proof of collusion? Perhaps not. Nothing that has been made public anyway. Is there evidence of collusion though? Certainly there is. Mueller's job is to find out if the preponderance of evidence leads to proof or not. 

Considering anything damaging to Trump eventually gets leaked by someone inside Washington, I tend to think if there was something, we would have heard about it already.

 

It is absolutely correct that many people dislike Trump for various reasons which is why we hear so many labels attached to him, and you are right, he has been around long enough to know what he was getting into when he ran for president and what to expect if he actually won.  I feel a lot of people, especially those in the biased media are so full of hatred for him due to the fact that he fights back.

[jg121783 3,907]

5 hours ago, jb914 said:

To believe that, we have to take former KGB agent Vladamir Putin's word over that of the entire US Intelligence Community, all of whom agree that Putin ordered Russia's cyber campaign against Clinton and pro Trump.

 

Here is the DNI's own declassified report: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf stating as much, read for yourself.

 

In what reality are we to take the Kremlin's word over every that of every single US intelligence agency?

In what reality do we take anyone affiliated with any government anywhere in the world at their word without any evidence whatsoever to back their assertions? I am not taking the Kremlin's word nor am I taking the word of a bunch of Obama hold overs. There are many in the US intelligence community who disagree with these people by the way. But that is besides the point. I don't take them at their word either. I make my judgements based solely on the EVIDENCE that is available or lack there of in this case.

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Obviously some on the winning side feel the same way then, or we wouldn't be here. 

 

   

 

   

Just because there is an R in front of their name doesn't mean they are on the winning side. Many of them by all rights should have a D in front of their name.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

20 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Just because there is an R in front of their name doesn't mean they are on the winning side. Many of them by all rights should have a D in front of their name.

 

  Trump has turned more than a few Republicans into Democrats for sure, but that's OK. I imagine once the Republican party nominates a decent human being in some future presidential primary, they'll come back.  

[jg121783 3,907]

27 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Trump has turned more than a few Republicans into Democrats for sure, but that's OK. I imagine once the Republican party nominates a decent human being in some future presidential primary, they'll come back.  

The people I am talking about were the way they are long before Trump and will remain that way long after Trump's second term.

[jb914 33]

1 hour ago, jg121783 said:

I make my judgements based solely on the EVIDENCE that is available or lack there of in this case.

Just because there is an R in front of their name doesn't mean they are on the winning side. Many of them by all rights should have a D in front of their name.

So where do you look for evidence?

 

What evidence would convince you, if not the conclusions of a National Security apparatus who have access to more information than anybody on the planet, whose entire reason for existence is to provide US Leadership (especially the President) with accurate information based on evidence?

 

This is sadly exactly what the Kremlin wants. 50% of America completely mistrusts the government and media. Divided we fall.

 

No matter what reality is, you can count on Fox News or Brietbart to find someone to "disagree," just like until the bitter end Tobacco companies found fringe doctors and scientists to "disagree" with the fact that smoking causes cancer.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, jg121783 said:

The people I am talking about were the way they are long before Trump and will remain that way long after Trump's second term.

 

   It's not that there are a bunch of republicans who are secretly democrats. It's just that the tea party remnants are so far out to the right that they look left and see everyone else, republicans and democrats, as a bunch of liberal commies.

 

   The tea party crowd wants to claim the republican party as their own instead of accepting their place on the fringe. To be fair, the normal republicans should get to keep the (R). Tea party folks can be (T), and democrats keep the (D). 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

18 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   It's not that there are a bunch of republicans who are secretly democrats. It's just that the tea party remnants are so far out to the right that they look left and see everyone else, republicans and democrats, as a bunch of liberal commies.

 

   The tea party crowd wants to claim the republican party as their own instead of accepting their place on the fringe. To be fair, the normal republicans should get to keep the (R). Tea party folks can be (T), and democrats keep the (D). 

And Trump is one of the least typical pubs in decades.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

And Trump is one of the least typical pubs in decades.

 

   Trump has been a democrat, republican and independent at various times in the past. Makes sense that he's not a typical republican. Politically, I think he could work and deal with anybody. His ego get's in the way more than his politics do.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

7 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Trump has been a democrat, republican and independent at various times in the past. Makes sense that he's not a typical republican. Politically, I think he could work and deal with anybody. His ego get's in the way more than his politics do.

Fair enough 

[bcking 3,157]

20 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

You seem to forget that Steele got his information regarding Trump and Russia from somewhere (I.e. Russian agents) making him a de facto foreign agent of Russia if your theory of Russia trying to spread discord in our election.

Only if his Russian sources were working for the Russian government would they be considered foreign agents. Just random Russians working in their own self interest (being paid, for example) wouldn't be foreign agents. Just like Steele was working only for himself.

 

Our intelligence agencies have seperate evidence Russia wanted to push our election toward Trump (the joint statement put out by every intelligence agency combined says as much). The Trump investigation isn't trying to prove that, it's already proven. So it's unlikely Steele's Russian contacts were working for their goverment.

[Dashinka 23,238]

12 minutes ago, bcking said:

Only if his Russian sources were working for the Russian government would they be considered foreign agents. Just random Russians working in their own self interest (being paid, for example) wouldn't be foreign agents. Just like Steele was working only for himself.

 

Our intelligence agencies have seperate evidence Russia wanted to push our election toward Trump (the joint statement put out by every intelligence agency combined says as much). The Trump investigation isn't trying to prove that, it's already proven. So it's unlikely Steele's Russian contacts were working for their goverment.

I thought the media narrative was that Putin engineered Trump winning, why would this (Steele’s sources) have been any different?  Btw, I think you need to go back and review the sweeping statement that every US intelligence agency has come out, regardless, I think one would have to be living under a rock to not believe that foreign governments meddle in other countries elections.  The US does it all the time, and our media is paramount in trying to sway the people in one direction or the other.  Unless you can definitely say this changed any vote counts, or directed anyone to vote in a certain way I believe it is just election variations.

Edited June 17, 2018 by Bill & Katya

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

I thought the media narrative was that Putin engineered Trump winning, why would this (Steele’s sources) have been any different?  Btw, I think you need to go back and review the sweeping statement that every US intelligence agency has come out, regardless, I think one would have to be living under a rock to not believe that foreign governments meddle in other countries elections.  The US does it all the time, and our media is paramount in trying to sway the people in one direction or the other.  Unless you can definitely say this changed any vote counts, or directed anyone to vote in a certain way I believe it is just election variations.

I've read the intelligence briefing multiple times, and have probably provided the link to it more times on here than anyone else. Many people seem to "forget" (willfully) the conclusion. Or believe it a "deep state conspiracy" that involves every intelligence agency. The summary: the Russian government tried to manipulate the election in their favour, which they considered to be getting Trump elected. Mueller isn't investigating whether that is true. The intelligence community has seen that as fact for awhile now.

 

If that's the case, any contact Steele had in Russia would NOT have been working for the Russian government. The information passed to Steele was not in support of a "get Trump elected" agenda. It was about members of Trump's campaign coordinating with Russia. Steele was hired by Fusion GPS as an independent contractor. Perfectly legal. Clinton's administration hired fusion GPS. Also nothing wrong with that. Steele was acting for himself, not for a foreign government. 

 

Whether or not Russia's influence actually did contribute to Trump's win is irrelevant. If you try to murder someone but fail, you're still in trouble. Furthermore, the fact that "everyone tries to influence each other's elections" is also irrelevant. The US has always made a stand against our enemies (or very loose allies...mostly Russia) trying to influence the political process in other countries. To whatever degree we do the same thing, we are being hypocritical. But we are hypocritical about A LOT of things. We want NK to denuclearise, but don't ask us about our nuclear arsenal. We are somehow "different" because we deem ourselves more "responsible" with our power. 

 

So bottom line we don't believe other countries should be actively influencing our "democratic" elections. That seems like a pretty basic thing that we should all agree on. If that's the case, a full investigation into what Russia did and who helped them/knowingly worked with them is highly relevant. Hence the investigation. An investigation into a single independent foreign contractor working for himself? Far less relevant and important.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

I've read the intelligence briefing multiple times, and have probably provided the link to it more times on here than anyone else. Many people seem to "forget" (willfully) the conclusion. Or believe it a "deep state conspiracy" that involves every intelligence agency. The summary: the Russian government tried to manipulate the election in their favour, which they considered to be getting Trump elected. Mueller isn't investigating whether that is true. The intelligence community has seen that as fact for awhile now.

 

If that's the case, any contact Steele had in Russia would NOT have been working for the Russian government. The information passed to Steele was not in support of a "get Trump elected" agenda. It was about members of Trump's campaign coordinating with Russia. Steele was hired by Fusion GPS as an independent contractor. Perfectly legal. Clinton's administration hired fusion GPS. Also nothing wrong with that. Steele was acting for himself, not for a foreign government. 

 

Whether or not Russia's influence actually did contribute to Trump's win is irrelevant. If you try to murder someone but fail, you're still in trouble. Furthermore, the fact that "everyone tries to influence each other's elections" is also irrelevant. The US has always made a stand against our enemies (or very loose allies...mostly Russia) trying to influence the political process in other countries. To whatever degree we do the same thing, we are being hypocritical. But we are hypocritical about A LOT of things. We want NK to denuclearise, but don't ask us about our nuclear arsenal. We are somehow "different" because we deem ourselves more "responsible" with our power. 

 

So bottom line we don't believe other countries should be actively influencing our "democratic" elections. That seems like a pretty basic thing that we should all agree on. If that's the case, a full investigation into what Russia did and who helped them/knowingly worked with them is highly relevant. Hence the investigation. An investigation into a single independent foreign contractor working for himself? Far less relevant and important.

Any country worth a warm bucket of spit has a dog in the fight and tries to further their causes in our elections. Nothing new or shocking here. 

 

The US of A has been influencing elections across the globe for years. 

Big ol nothing burger 

 

Edited June 17, 2018 by Nature Boy Flair

[Steeleballz 7,550]

[bcking 3,157]

37 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Any country worth a warm bucket of spit has a dog in the fight and tries to further their causes in our elections. Nothing new or shocking here. 

 

The US of A has been influencing elections across the globe for years. 

Big ol nothing burger 

 

I already addressed this.

 

The US has held the long standing opinion that countries like Russia shouldn't influence the government's of other countries. We fought a few surrogate wars over the issue. If we would fight for another countries' right to democracy, I'd expect us to fight for our own.

 

Now do we influence other countries? Of course we do, but our international stance has always been rather hypocritical. As I mentioned, we believe strongly in denuclearisation for many countries, but would never think of joining them in that effort.

 

Unless we are making a huge policy shift and stating we aren't going to care about foreign influence here, or in our allies' countries, than Russia meddling in our election is a big deal.

 

Also if we really don't care, we might as well get rid of a few laws and regulations. FARA for one. Seems a waste of time if we no longer care about protecting our democracy. 

 

If our founding fathers could see us now...they would quickly discover what "facepalm" means.

Edited June 17, 2018 by bcking