Docs show John Brennan suppressed intel showing Russia actually wanted Hillary to win

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Sep 6, 2012
2,090
928
743
Edmond
If the government ever accused you of a crime and a review finds that there were 18 serious errors or omissions in the evidence used to get warrants against you, I have no doubt that you would be convinced that your rights had been violated. And I would defend you the same as I am the Trump administration.

We now know that the smoke you are referring to was just the narrative being painted by the media and Dem party and there was never an acceptable level of actual evidence to support the FISA warrant.

Unfortunately, the people in DC are above the law IMO. Nobody of any importance will be held accountable for this. They (Dems and Reps) make you and I think the divide is between you and I when the actual divide is between us and them. As long as we continue to think that way, they continue to win.
Term limits
 
Nov 6, 2010
1,435
524
743
Remind me what Manafort had to do with Russia and collusion?

Just what facts or meaningful evidence would have been the predicate for a legitimate investigation into collusion? I’ll make it easy. Name one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Every time Manafort comes up I give you the same answer, but it apparently you think he had legitimate reasons for sharing his polling data with Kilimnik that had nothing to do with helping them in their endeavors.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...mnik-trump-investigation-2016-election-latest

And to number 2, I guess I'll just go with what Mueller summarized in his report. I have to think, but can't fully speculate, that if this info came out regarding the Biden campaign was engaged in any of the below, that every single one of the folks on this board joining in this argument would be screaming for an investigation, and rightly so.

  • Russian interference in the 2016 election was “sweeping and systemic.”[1]
  • Major attack avenues included a social media “information warfare” campaign that “favored” candidate Trump[2] and the hacking of Clinton campaign-related databases and release of stolen materials through Russian-created entities and Wikileaks.[3]
  • Russia also targeted databases in many states related to administering elections gaining access to information for millions of registered voters.[4]


  • In 2015 and 2016, Michael Cohen pursued a hotel/residence project in Moscow on behalf of Trump while he was campaigning for President.[5] Then-candidate Trump personally signed a letter of intent.
  • Senior members of the Trump campaign, including Paul Manafort, Donald Trump, Jr., and Jared Kushner took a June 9, 2016, meeting with Russian nationals at Trump Tower, New York, after outreach from an intermediary informed Trump, Jr., that the Russians had derogatory information on Clinton that was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”[6]
  • Beginning in June 2016, a Trump associate “forecast to senior [Trump] Campaign officials that WikiLeaks would release information damaging to candidate Clinton.”[7] A section of the Report that remains heavily redacted suggests that Roger Stone was this associate and that he had significant contacts with the campaign about Wikileaks.[8]
  • The Report described multiple occasions where Trump associates lied to investigators about Trump associate contacts with Russia. Trump associates George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, and Michael Cohen all admitted that they made false statements to federal investigators or to Congress about their contacts. In addition, Roger Stone faces trial this fall for obstruction of justice, five counts of making false statements, and one count of witness tampering.
  • The Report contains no evidence that any Trump campaign official reported their contacts with Russia or WikiLeaks to U.S. law enforcement authorities during the campaign or presidential transition, despite public reports on Russian hacking starting in June 2016 and candidate Trump’s August 2016 intelligence briefing warning him that Russia was seeking to interfere in the election.
  • The Report raised questions about why Trump associates and then-candidate Trump repeatedly asserted Trump had no connections to Russia.[9]
 
Nov 6, 2010
1,435
524
743
If the government ever accused you of a crime and a review finds that there were 18 serious errors or omissions in the evidence used to get warrants against you, I have no doubt that you would be convinced that your rights had been violated. And I would defend you the same as I am the Trump administration.

We now know that the smoke you are referring to was just the narrative being painted by the media and Dem party and there was never an acceptable level of actual evidence to support the FISA warrant.

Unfortunately, the people in DC are above the law IMO. Nobody of any importance will be held accountable for this. They (Dems and Reps) make you and I think the divide is between you and I when the actual divide is between us and them. As long as we continue to think that way, they continue to win.
No, we don't know that. That is your opinion. A FISA warrant is not an arrest warrant. If it were the latter, I would agree with you.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,685
24,561
1,743
Tulsa, OK
No, we don't know that. That is your opinion. A FISA warrant is not an arrest warrant. If it were the latter, I would agree with you.
Believe it or not, I am glad to hear that you have no doubts in the case, because if you did and still defended this, well....I don't even know what I would think of you then.
 
Sep 29, 2011
1,268
285
713
60
Breckenridge, CO
Remind me what Manafort had to do with Russia and collusion?

Just what facts or meaningful evidence would have been the predicate for a legitimate investigation into collusion? I’ll make it easy. Name one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Every time Manafort comes up I give you the same answer, but it apparently you think he had legitimate reasons for sharing his polling data with Kilimnik that had nothing to do with helping them in their endeavors.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...mnik-trump-investigation-2016-election-latest

And to number 2, I guess I'll just go with what Mueller summarized in his report. I have to think, but can't fully speculate, that if this info came out regarding the Biden campaign was engaged in any of the below, that every single one of the folks on this board joining in this argument would be screaming for an investigation, and rightly so.

  • Russian interference in the 2016 election was “sweeping and systemic.”[1]
  • Major attack avenues included a social media “information warfare” campaign that “favored” candidate Trump[2] and the hacking of Clinton campaign-related databases and release of stolen materials through Russian-created entities and Wikileaks.[3]
  • Russia also targeted databases in many states related to administering elections gaining access to information for millions of registered voters.[4]


  • In 2015 and 2016, Michael Cohen pursued a hotel/residence project in Moscow on behalf of Trump while he was campaigning for President.[5] Then-candidate Trump personally signed a letter of intent.
  • Senior members of the Trump campaign, including Paul Manafort, Donald Trump, Jr., and Jared Kushner took a June 9, 2016, meeting with Russian nationals at Trump Tower, New York, after outreach from an intermediary informed Trump, Jr., that the Russians had derogatory information on Clinton that was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”[6]
  • Beginning in June 2016, a Trump associate “forecast to senior [Trump] Campaign officials that WikiLeaks would release information damaging to candidate Clinton.”[7] A section of the Report that remains heavily redacted suggests that Roger Stone was this associate and that he had significant contacts with the campaign about Wikileaks.[8]
  • The Report described multiple occasions where Trump associates lied to investigators about Trump associate contacts with Russia. Trump associates George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, and Michael Cohen all admitted that they made false statements to federal investigators or to Congress about their contacts. In addition, Roger Stone faces trial this fall for obstruction of justice, five counts of making false statements, and one count of witness tampering.
  • The Report contains no evidence that any Trump campaign official reported their contacts with Russia or WikiLeaks to U.S. law enforcement authorities during the campaign or presidential transition, despite public reports on Russian hacking starting in June 2016 and candidate Trump’s August 2016 intelligence briefing warning him that Russia was seeking to interfere in the election.
  • The Report raised questions about why Trump associates and then-candidate Trump repeatedly asserted Trump had no connections to Russia.[9]
Partner, here is what you completely don’t get.

EVERYTHING in the Mueller report is tainted. Mueller (ie Rosenstein) had no factual basis for an investigation into collusion. NONE. So anything that Mueller derived that could then point back to potential collusion is not a basis for the investigation. You’re trying to justify starting the investigation by using the results of the investigation. That’s not how it works in this country.

Back to Manafort. Sharing polling data is not illegal. If it was, he would have been prosecuted for it. And since it’s not illegal, how can it be the basis for an investigation?

As for election interference by the Russians, what’s that got to do with Trump unless Trump was facilitating such interference? Further, I don’t get the whole interference deal anyway since it’s never been shown to be anything but some social media posts. Hell, every candidate engages in untrue social media posts to the detriment of their opponent. Why are we so excited about a foreign power spreading truths and/or lies when our own citizen candidates and the MEDIA do so with impunity?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,685
24,561
1,743
Tulsa, OK
I don't know much of Matt Taibbi but from what I've read, he's hardly some neocon far right conspiracy nut. He works for Rolling Stone for Pete's sake which is hardly a conservative source. But I'll repeat, I don't know his political leanings. Anyway, here is a story from him slamming the Democrats for their embracing of authoritarianism. It's pretty long, you'll have to go to the link if you want the whole thing.

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/democrats-have-abandoned-civil-liberties

Emmet G. Sullivan, the judge in the case of former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, is refusing to let William Barr’s Justice Department drop the charge. He’s even thinking of adding more, appointing a retired judge to ask “whether the Court should issue an Order to Show Cause why Mr. Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury.”

Pundits are cheering. A trio of former law enforcement and judicial officials saluted Sullivan in the Washington Post, chirping, “The Flynn case isn’t over until a judge says it’s over.” Yuppie icon Jeffrey Toobin of CNN and the New Yorker, one of the #Resistance crowd’s favored legal authorities, described Sullivan’s appointment of Judge John Gleeson as “brilliant.” MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner said Americans owe Sullivan a “debt of gratitude.”

One had to search far and wide to find a non-conservative legal analyst willing to say the obvious, i.e. that Sullivan’s decision was the kind of thing one would expect from a judge in Belarus. George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley was one of the few willing to say Sullivan’s move could “could create a threat of a judicial charge even when prosecutors agree with defendants.”

Sullivan’s reaction was amplified by a group letter calling for Barr’s resignation signed by 2000 former Justice Department officials (the melodramatic group email somberly reported as momentous news is one of many tired media tropes in the Trump era) and the preposterous “leak” of news that the dropped case made Barack Obama sad. The former president “privately” told “members of his administration” (who instantly told Yahoo! News) that there was no precedent for the dropping of perjury charges, and that the “rule of law” itself was at stake.

Whatever one’s opinion of Flynn, his relations with Turkey, his “Lock her up!” chants, his haircut, or anything, this case was never about much. There’s no longer pretense that prosecution would lead to the unspooling of a massive Trump-Russia conspiracy, as pundits once breathlessly expected. In fact, news that Flynn was cooperating with special counsel Robert Mueller inspired many of the “Is this the beginning of the end for Trump?” stories that will someday fill whole chapters of Journalism F***s Up 101 textbooks.....(more)
 
Jul 25, 2018
3,227
965
243
49
Boulder, CO
Partner, here is what you completely don’t get.

EVERYTHING in the Mueller report is tainted. Mueller (ie Rosenstein) had no factual basis for an investigation into collusion. NONE. So anything that Mueller derived that could then point back to potential collusion is not a basis for the investigation. You’re trying to justify starting the investigation by using the results of the investigation. That’s not how it works in this country.

Back to Manafort. Sharing polling data is not illegal. If it was, he would have been prosecuted for it. And since it’s not illegal, how can it be the basis for an investigation?

As for election interference by the Russians, what’s that got to do with Trump unless Trump was facilitating such interference? Further, I don’t get the whole interference deal anyway since it’s never been shown to be anything but some social media posts. Hell, every candidate engages in untrue social media posts to the detriment of their opponent. Why are we so excited about a foreign power spreading truths and/or lies when our own citizen candidates and the MEDIA do so with impunity?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What's the cliche? "Poisoned fruit from a poisoned tree"
 
Sep 29, 2011
1,268
285
713
60
Breckenridge, CO
Partner, here is what you completely don’t get.

EVERYTHING in the Mueller report is tainted. Mueller (ie Rosenstein) had no factual basis for an investigation into collusion. NONE. So anything that Mueller derived that could then point back to potential collusion is not a basis for the investigation. You’re trying to justify starting the investigation by using the results of the investigation. That’s not how it works in this country.

Back to Manafort. Sharing polling data is not illegal. If it was, he would have been prosecuted for it. And since it’s not illegal, how can it be the basis for an investigation?

As for election interference by the Russians, what’s that got to do with Trump unless Trump was facilitating such interference? Further, I don’t get the whole interference deal anyway since it’s never been shown to be anything but some social media posts. Hell, every candidate engages in untrue social media posts to the detriment of their opponent. Why are we so excited about a foreign power spreading truths and/or lies when our own citizen candidates and the MEDIA do so with impunity?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What's the cliche? "Poisoned fruit from a poisoned tree"
Yup


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Nov 6, 2010
1,435
524
743
Partner, here is what you completely don’t get.

EVERYTHING in the Mueller report is tainted. Mueller (ie Rosenstein) had no factual basis for an investigation into collusion. NONE. So anything that Mueller derived that could then point back to potential collusion is not a basis for the investigation. You’re trying to justify starting the investigation by using the results of the investigation. That’s not how it works in this country.

Back to Manafort. Sharing polling data is not illegal. If it was, he would have been prosecuted for it. And since it’s not illegal, how can it be the basis for an investigation?

As for election interference by the Russians, what’s that got to do with Trump unless Trump was facilitating such interference? Further, I don’t get the whole interference deal anyway since it’s never been shown to be anything but some social media posts. Hell, every candidate engages in untrue social media posts to the detriment of their opponent. Why are we so excited about a foreign power spreading truths and/or lies when our own citizen candidates and the MEDIA do so with impunity?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OK, I do get your point, but let me leave you with a similar if completely unrelated analogy. Say a woman comes up missing and is not heard from for a week or two. The husband has lied several times about his knowledge of her last whereabouts, his knowledge of her disappearance, etc. There is absolutely no evidence of a crime even being committed at this point, let alone any evidence of the husbands involvement in it. Are you going to honestly say that the police should not at least investigate the husband?? I'm not saying they should charge the husband with anything, let alone convict him, but to say there should be no investigation??? That would be absurd. There is a reason why the levels of proof/cause for warrants, then grand jury indictments, and then finally verdicts in our justice system are progressively higher, as they should be. I'm completely content with the conclusions of the Mueller report being that there was no clear evidence of collusion, again, whatever that actually means. The country needed to know, and if nothing else came of the investigation, the scumbag Manafort, was removed from his position of peddling his influence against our country's interests. And if you think he was a completely innocent bystander in all this, then why did Trump, to his credit, fire him so quickly?

As far as your last question, it is much more complicated. You and others discount the effectiveness of Russia's propaganda on social media. That is certainly a fair question. I don't know for sure, but from your many posts, I think you are older and wiser than me, but as a result, also like me, a bit oblivious to the way people much younger than ourselves get their info. Make no mistake, Putin understands it, and learned exponentially from the last go around. This is where it comes back to Trump. Early on, I thought Putin truly had Trump compromised based on the way Trump acted so sheepishly around him. As time has gone on, I've come to realize there is simply no compromising material Putin could possibly have on Trump that would make any difference. Even if everything in the Steele dossier were true(and please don't think I believe it is), it would make no difference. So, I have come to the opinion that Trump simply doesn't want to alienate an ally for his re-election. Trump always has and always will only be concerned about Trump. So Trump, while not actively colluding with Russia, is glad to have them campaigning on his behalf. Much like the Charlottesville incident. Trump has absolutely no affinity for white supremacists, but he sure doesn't want to lose their votes. That is concerning to me. I'd prefer that we keep our dirty political brawls in-house, and work on our partisanship issues internally, and hopefully at some point get past them.
 
Sep 29, 2011
1,268
285
713
60
Breckenridge, CO
Yup


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It. Doesn’t. Have. To. Be. Illegal. To. Be. Considered. A. National. Security. Threat.

What’s illegal about a blowjob in the Oval Office? Nada.
Okay, I’ll play.

What was the national security threat and the actual facts that constituted a basis for a warrant? And a warrant to do what? And a warrant to search whom?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Sep 29, 2011
1,268
285
713
60
Breckenridge, CO
Partner, here is what you completely don’t get.

EVERYTHING in the Mueller report is tainted. Mueller (ie Rosenstein) had no factual basis for an investigation into collusion. NONE. So anything that Mueller derived that could then point back to potential collusion is not a basis for the investigation. You’re trying to justify starting the investigation by using the results of the investigation. That’s not how it works in this country.

Back to Manafort. Sharing polling data is not illegal. If it was, he would have been prosecuted for it. And since it’s not illegal, how can it be the basis for an investigation?

As for election interference by the Russians, what’s that got to do with Trump unless Trump was facilitating such interference? Further, I don’t get the whole interference deal anyway since it’s never been shown to be anything but some social media posts. Hell, every candidate engages in untrue social media posts to the detriment of their opponent. Why are we so excited about a foreign power spreading truths and/or lies when our own citizen candidates and the MEDIA do so with impunity?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OK, I do get your point, but let me leave you with a similar if completely unrelated analogy. Say a woman comes up missing and is not heard from for a week or two. The husband has lied several times about his knowledge of her last whereabouts, his knowledge of her disappearance, etc. There is absolutely no evidence of a crime even being committed at this point, let alone any evidence of the husbands involvement in it. Are you going to honestly say that the police should not at least investigate the husband?? I'm not saying they should charge the husband with anything, let alone convict him, but to say there should be no investigation??? That would be absurd. There is a reason why the levels of proof/cause for warrants, then grand jury indictments, and then finally verdicts in our justice system are progressively higher, as they should be. I'm completely content with the conclusions of the Mueller report being that there was no clear evidence of collusion, again, whatever that actually means. The country needed to know, and if nothing else came of the investigation, the scumbag Manafort, was removed from his position of peddling his influence against our country's interests. And if you think he was a completely innocent bystander in all this, then why did Trump, to his credit, fire him so quickly?

As far as your last question, it is much more complicated. You and others discount the effectiveness of Russia's propaganda on social media. That is certainly a fair question. I don't know for sure, but from your many posts, I think you are older and wiser than me, but as a result, also like me, a bit oblivious to the way people much younger than ourselves get their info. Make no mistake, Putin understands it, and learned exponentially from the last go around. This is where it comes back to Trump. Early on, I thought Putin truly had Trump compromised based on the way Trump acted so sheepishly around him. As time has gone on, I've come to realize there is simply no compromising material Putin could possibly have on Trump that would make any difference. Even if everything in the Steele dossier were true(and please don't think I believe it is), it would make no difference. So, I have come to the opinion that Trump simply doesn't want to alienate an ally for his re-election. Trump always has and always will only be concerned about Trump. So Trump, while not actively colluding with Russia, is glad to have them campaigning on his behalf. Much like the Charlottesville incident. Trump has absolutely no affinity for white supremacists, but he sure doesn't want to lose their votes. That is concerning to me. I'd prefer that we keep our dirty political brawls in-house, and work on our partisanship issues internally, and hopefully at some point get past them.
Sure they should investigate the husband, but until there is evidence of a crime and probable cause, they would have to do so without warrants. And as you know, they certainly can’t go to a judge and lie about the evidence of a crime to justify a warrant. And if without a warrant they can reasonably show a crime has been committed and their is evidence the husband committed such crime, then sure, they can get any necessary warrants and/or charge him.

As for Manafort, he certainly is a scumbag, and deserves what he gets though I’m not sure how many of his crimes were discovered through means other than subpoena power afforded Mueller. As it currently stands all warrants/subpoenas pursuant to the FISA court and those issued by Mueller are valid so any convictions pursuant thereto are valid. But to the extent they may be ruled invalid in the future, Manafort convictions are subject to being reversed.

Regarding election interference, I have no idea where you’re going. Every foreign leader likely has a preferred candidate in every US election. So what? Maybe Putin preferred Trump, maybe not. But I still don’t get the angst over Russia engaging in social media antics. Trump’s questionable rhetoric about Clinton, or Clinton’s questionable rhetoric about Trump, or the media’s inability to fairly report news, and treat one candidate more favorably than the other had at least a million times more impact on the election than $300k worth of Facebook ads by the Ruskies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk