Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I wouldn't say G posted lies from twitter.

---

Correct, you did not say the obvious. But kiki and Siggy did already point out his lies.

---

What lies were those?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Allright. Whatever dude.

Go ahead and pile on him guys and gals if you feel like it. He's not lying here, but he's a moron not worth my time.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Allright. Whatever dude.

Go ahead and pile on him guys and gals if you feel like it. He's not lying here, but he's a moron not worth my time.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Just because we're not feeding the troll does not mean you need to proclaim he's not lying. You pretending a liar is not a liar only makes you a liar.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
interesting

I was wondering how it was that Mueller could conduct such an unfettered inquisitio, fishing expedit investigation.

I've been trying to analogize to what I remember of Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr.

It seems that the same restrictions that apply to Mueller now should have applied to Starr then, when he was persecutio investigating Clinton in 1994. If a good case is made now that Mueller is acting outside of his mandate, I don't know why that argument wasn't made then about Starr. (I'm not a fan of Clinton as more and more of his actions have borne fruit. I make the comparison because I'm confused by the discrepancy.)

Quote:

---

WSJ: "Mueller’s Investigation Crosses the Legal Line"
Judge T.S. Ellis has expressed skepticism about the scope of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. “What we don’t want in this country is . . . anyone with unfettered power,” Judge Ellis, who is to preside over the trial of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, told prosecutor Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben May 4. “So it’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me that the special prosecutor has unlimited powers.”

Judge Ellis is right to be skeptical. Mr. Mueller’s investigation has crossed a constitutional line, for reasons the U.S. Supreme Court made clear in the 1988 case Morrison v. Olson. That case is best known for Justice Antonin Scalia’s powerful lone dissent arguing that the post-Watergate independent counsel statute was unconstitutional. But Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s opinion for the court, while upholding the statute, set forth limits that the Mueller investigation has exceeded.

At issue is the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which provides that “principal officers” must be appointed by the president with the Senate’s consent. Rehnquist wrote that independent counsel Alexia Morrison qualified as an “inferior officer,” not subject to the appointment process, because her office was “limited in jurisdiction” to “certain federal officials suspected of certain serious federal crimes.”

Mr. Mueller, in contrast, is investigating a large number of people and has already charged defendants with many different kinds of crimes, including—as in Mr. Manafort’s case—ones unrelated to any collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russia. That’s too much power for an inferior officer to have. Only a principal officer, such as a U.S. attorney, can behave the way Mr. Mueller is behaving. Mr. Mueller is much more powerful today than any of the 96 U.S. attorneys. He is behaving like a principal officer.

Rehnquist’s majority opinion has never been overturned. In Edmund v. U.S. and in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Oversight Board, the justices said that an officer cannot be inferior unless he has a boss—as Mr. Mueller does in Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed him. But that’s not a sufficient condition. As a principal officer, Mr. Rosenstein could legally have brought all the indictments Mr. Mueller has. But he may not delegate that authority to Mr. Mueller, any more than President Trump could delegate his veto power to Mr. Rosenstein.

The Framers struggled long and hard over the Appointments Clause. For better or worse, they arrived at the process of presidential nomination with senatorial consent. The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel should confirm the analysis set forth above in a legal opinion to guide Mr. Rosenstein in the exercise of his duties. Judge Ellis should dismiss the indictment against Mr. Manafort on Appointments Clause grounds. All other defendants Mr. Mueller charges, and witnesses he subpoenas, should challenge the constitutionality of his actions on Appointments Clause grounds.

---

If you have a subscription to WSJ you can read it there.

Originally posted at

WSJ: "Mueller’s Investigation Crosses the Legal Line"
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-14/its-unconstitutional-mueller
s-investigation-crosses-legal-line

SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

---

Ken Starr was Independent Counsel. Mueller is Special Counsel. They are created and operated under completely different laws. This was a huge point of contention when everybody was trying to avoid the mess we have now, but McConnell refused all sense.

Mueller's boss is Rosenstein. The power and authority which can be selectively delegated from Trump to Sessions to Rosenstein, but not to Mueller. The Congress has Review and Oversight authority due to FBI and DoJ being creations of Congress.
IIRC Starr was appointed by Congress, not DoJ.
Hope that helps.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
interesting

I was wondering how it was that Mueller could conduct such an unfettered inquisitio, fishing expedit investigation.

I've been trying to analogize to what I remember of Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr.

It seems that the same restrictions that apply to Mueller now should have applied to Starr then, when he was persecutio investigating Clinton in 1994. If a good case is made now that Mueller is acting outside of his mandate, I don't know why that argument wasn't made then about Starr. (I'm not a fan of Clinton as more and more of his actions have borne fruit. I make the comparison because I'm confused by the discrepancy.)

Quote:

---

WSJ: "Mueller’s Investigation Crosses the Legal Line"
Judge T.S. Ellis has expressed skepticism about the scope of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. “What we don’t want in this country is . . . anyone with unfettered power,” Judge Ellis, who is to preside over the trial of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, told prosecutor Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben May 4. “So it’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me that the special prosecutor has unlimited powers.”

Judge Ellis is right to be skeptical. Mr. Mueller’s investigation has crossed a constitutional line, for reasons the U.S. Supreme Court made clear in the 1988 case Morrison v. Olson. That case is best known for Justice Antonin Scalia’s powerful lone dissent arguing that the post-Watergate independent counsel statute was unconstitutional. But Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s opinion for the court, while upholding the statute, set forth limits that the Mueller investigation has exceeded.

At issue is the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which provides that “principal officers” must be appointed by the president with the Senate’s consent. Rehnquist wrote that independent counsel Alexia Morrison qualified as an “inferior officer,” not subject to the appointment process, because her office was “limited in jurisdiction” to “certain federal officials suspected of certain serious federal crimes.”

Mr. Mueller, in contrast, is investigating a large number of people and has already charged defendants with many different kinds of crimes, including—as in Mr. Manafort’s case—ones unrelated to any collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russia. That’s too much power for an inferior officer to have. Only a principal officer, such as a U.S. attorney, can behave the way Mr. Mueller is behaving. Mr. Mueller is much more powerful today than any of the 96 U.S. attorneys. He is behaving like a principal officer.

Rehnquist’s majority opinion has never been overturned. In Edmund v. U.S. and in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Oversight Board, the justices said that an officer cannot be inferior unless he has a boss—as Mr. Mueller does in Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed him. But that’s not a sufficient condition. As a principal officer, Mr. Rosenstein could legally have brought all the indictments Mr. Mueller has. But he may not delegate that authority to Mr. Mueller, any more than President Trump could delegate his veto power to Mr. Rosenstein.

The Framers struggled long and hard over the Appointments Clause. For better or worse, they arrived at the process of presidential nomination with senatorial consent. The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel should confirm the analysis set forth above in a legal opinion to guide Mr. Rosenstein in the exercise of his duties. Judge Ellis should dismiss the indictment against Mr. Manafort on Appointments Clause grounds. All other defendants Mr. Mueller charges, and witnesses he subpoenas, should challenge the constitutionality of his actions on Appointments Clause grounds.

---

If you have a subscription to WSJ you can read it there.

Originally posted at

WSJ: "Mueller’s Investigation Crosses the Legal Line"
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-14/its-uncons
titutional-muellers-investigation-crosses-legal-line

SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

---

Ken Starr was Independent Counsel. Mueller is Special Counsel. They are created and operated under completely different laws. This was a huge point of contention when everybody was trying to avoid the mess we have now, but McConnell refused all sense.

Mueller's boss is Rosenstein. The power and authority which can be selectively delegated from Trump to Sessions to Rosenstein, but not to Mueller. The Congress has Review and Oversight authority due to FBI and DoJ being creations of Congress.
IIRC Starr was appointed by Congress, not DoJ.
Hope that helps.

---

For Watergate, AG Richardson designated Archibald Cox as Special Counsel, independent of DoJ.

Indictments are for Citizens of America who are not Constitutionally defined as the President. The Constitution defines methods to address High Crimes and Misdemeanors, which are thru Congress. Subjugating the Office of the President to a Judicial proceeding would usurp the Constitution.
Watergate had a Senate Investigation Committee. Whitewater had an Independent Counsel appointed by Congress.
Mueller has not been appointed by Congress, and his authority is confined to conforming within the policies of the DoJ, which has stated twice that it cannot indict a President.

---

Quote:

---

When historians of the future finish their meal of rat à la moutarde at the campfire, and pass around the battered plastic jug of wild raisin wine, they will kick back and hear the griot sing of John Brennan, the fabled chief of an ancient order called the CIA, and how he started the monkey business aimed at bringing down the wicked Golden Golem of Greatness, chief of chiefs in the land once known as America. Alas, the hero’s journey of Brennan, ends in a jail cell at the storied Allenwood Federal Penitentiary, where he slowly pined away between games of ping-pong and knock-hockey, dreaming of a cable network retirement package that never was….

One gets the feeling more and more that Mr. Brennan is at the center of this ever-mushrooming matrix of scandals around the 2016 election. “Bigger Than Watergate?” the headline in today’s New York Times asks? The mendacity of this once-proud newspaper is really something to behold. Take the following paragraph, for instance:

“Depending on what is eventually proven, the core scandal could rival Watergate, in which a “third-rate burglary” of Democratic National Committee headquarters ultimately revealed a wide-ranging campaign of political sabotage and spying to influence the 1972 presidential election and undercut perceived rivals. In the current case, a hostile foreign power sought to sway the 2016 election and there is evidence that at least some people in Mr. Trump’s circle were willing to collaborate with it to do so.”

You have to really wonder how the Times editors overlooked the other relevant details in the current case pertaining to goings-on initiated by Mr. Brennan and involving obviously criminal misbehavior among the US Intelligence services, and especially the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in their effort to un-do the election that put the Trump creature in the White House instead of the enchantress known as Hillary. I did like the trope “a hostile foreign power.” Apparently they were too embarrassed to just say “Russia,” since by now it has become the most threadbare hobgoblin in all of US political history.

Rumors are flying that the long-awaited (so long it is nearly forgotten) Department of Justice Inspector General’s report contains a rather severe interpretation of what actually has been going on for the last couple of years in this farrago of charge and countercharge that the legacy news media has been doing its best to garble and deflect — namely, that the highest officers of the government conspired to tamper with the 2016 election. The latest twist is news — actually reported by the Times Thursday — that the FBI placed a “mole” inside the Trump campaign. If the mole discovered anything, then it is the only morsel of information that hasn’t been leaked in two years, which leads the casual observer to infer that the mole found really nothing.

On the other hand, a great deal is already known about the misdeeds surrounding Hillary and her supporters, including Mr. Obama and his inner circle, and some of those incriminating particulars have been officially certified — for example, the firing of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe on recommendations of the Agency’s own ethics committee, with overtones of criminal culpability. There is also little ambiguity left about the origin of the infamous Steele Dossier. It’s an established fact that it was bought-and-paid-for by the Democratic National Committee, which is to say the Hillary campaign, and that many of the dramatis personae involved lied about it under oath. Many other suspicious loose ends remain to be tied. Those not driven insane by Trumpophobia are probably unsatisfied with the story of what Attorney General Loretta Lynch was doing, exactly, with former President Bill Clinton during that Phoenix airport tête-à-tête a few days before FBI Director Jim Comey exonerated Mr. Clinton’s wife in the email server “matter.”

One can see where this tangled tale is tending: to the sacred chamber known as the grand jury. Probably several grand juries. That will lead to years of entertaining courtroom antics at the same time that the USA’s financial condition fatefully unravels. That event might finally produce the effect that all the exertions of the so-called Deep State have failed to achieve so far: the discrediting of Donald Trump. Alas, the literal discrediting of the USA and its hallowed institutions — including the US dollar — may be a much more momentous thing than the fall of Trump.

Personally, I won’t be completely satisfied until the editors of The New York Times have to answer to charges of sedition in a court of law.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

When historians of the future finish their meal of rat à la moutarde at the campfire, and pass around the battered plastic jug of wild raisin wine, they will kick back and hear the griot sing of John Brennan, the fabled chief of an ancient order called the CIA, and how he started the monkey business aimed at bringing down the wicked Golden Golem of Greatness, chief of chiefs in the land once known as America. Alas, the hero’s journey of Brennan, ends in a jail cell at the storied Allenwood Federal Penitentiary, where he slowly pined away between games of ping-pong and knock-hockey, dreaming of a cable network retirement package that never was….

One gets the feeling more and more that Mr. Brennan is at the center of this ever-mushrooming matrix of scandals around the 2016 election. “Bigger Than Watergate?” the headline in today’s New York Times asks? The mendacity of this once-proud newspaper is really something to behold. Take the following paragraph, for instance:

“Depending on what is eventually proven, the core scandal could rival Watergate, in which a “third-rate burglary” of Democratic National Committee headquarters ultimately revealed a wide-ranging campaign of political sabotage and spying to influence the 1972 presidential election and undercut perceived rivals. In the current case, a hostile foreign power sought to sway the 2016 election and there is evidence that at least some people in Mr. Trump’s circle were willing to collaborate with it to do so.”

You have to really wonder how the Times editors overlooked the other relevant details in the current case pertaining to goings-on initiated by Mr. Brennan and involving obviously criminal misbehavior among the US Intelligence services, and especially the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in their effort to un-do the election that put the Trump creature in the White House instead of the enchantress known as Hillary. I did like the trope “a hostile foreign power.” Apparently they were too embarrassed to just say “Russia,” since by now it has become the most threadbare hobgoblin in all of US political history.

Rumors are flying that the long-awaited (so long it is nearly forgotten) Department of Justice Inspector General’s report contains a rather severe interpretation of what actually has been going on for the last couple of years in this farrago of charge and countercharge that the legacy news media has been doing its best to garble and deflect — namely, that the highest officers of the government conspired to tamper with the 2016 election. The latest twist is news — actually reported by the Times Thursday — that the FBI placed a “mole” inside the Trump campaign. If the mole discovered anything, then it is the only morsel of information that hasn’t been leaked in two years, which leads the casual observer to infer that the mole found really nothing.

On the other hand, a great deal is already known about the misdeeds surrounding Hillary and her supporters, including Mr. Obama and his inner circle, and some of those incriminating particulars have been officially certified — for example, the firing of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe on recommendations of the Agency’s own ethics committee, with overtones of criminal culpability. There is also little ambiguity left about the origin of the infamous Steele Dossier. It’s an established fact that it was bought-and-paid-for by the Democratic National Committee, which is to say the Hillary campaign, and that many of the dramatis personae involved lied about it under oath. Many other suspicious loose ends remain to be tied. Those not driven insane by Trumpophobia are probably unsatisfied with the story of what Attorney General Loretta Lynch was doing, exactly, with former President Bill Clinton during that Phoenix airport tête-à-tête a few days before FBI Director Jim Comey exonerated Mr. Clinton’s wife in the email server “matter.”

One can see where this tangled tale is tending: to the sacred chamber known as the grand jury. Probably several grand juries. That will lead to years of entertaining courtroom antics at the same time that the USA’s financial condition fatefully unravels. That event might finally produce the effect that all the exertions of the so-called Deep State have failed to achieve so far: the discrediting of Donald Trump. Alas, the literal discrediting of the USA and its hallowed institutions — including the US dollar — may be a much more momentous thing than the fall of Trump.

Personally, I won’t be completely satisfied until the editors of The New York Times have to answer to charges of sedition in a court of law.

---

http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/gate-of-gates/ Well written.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
And either Brennan or Clapper went on TV last night and bragged about what a good job he did putting his mole in the Trump camp.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JJ:
The so called mole is a professor from England and he had nothing to do with the campaign. He was someone who had contact with some on Trumps campaign. He became concerned with what he was witnessing so he contacted the FBI. He was technically an informant not an FBI mole.

Now, explain how that is wrong or nefarious, and why you guys never get anything right. What is it that's in your DNA that drives you to believe and spread lies? Or is it that you are just that stupid.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that, once again, sig and zerohedge are behind yet another fake news propaganda thead.

T

---

Quote:

---

As months turn into nearly two years and no solid evidence emerges to nail Russia for nabbing Election 2016, some big Russiagate cheerleaders are starting to cover their tracks.

The best evidence that Russia-gate is sinking beneath the waves is the way those pushing the pseudo-scandal are now busily covering their tracks. ...

It’s Nobody’s Fault
The result is a late-breaking media chorus to the effect that it’s not the fault of the FBI that the investigation has dragged on with so little to show for it; it’s not the fault of Mueller either, and, most of all, it’s not the fault of the corporate press, even though it’s done little over the last two years than scream about Russia. It’s not anyone’s fault, evidently, but simply how the system works.

This is nonsense, and the gaping holes in the Times article show why.
The piece, written by Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman, and Nicholas Fandos and entitled “Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation,” is pretty much like everything else the Times has written on the subject, i.e. biased, misleading, and incomplete. Its main argument is that the FBI had no option but to step in because four Trump campaign aides had “obvious or suspected Russian ties.”

Flynn: With Stein at ‘The Dinner’ ‘At Putin’s Arm’
One was Michael Flynn, who would briefly serve as Donald Trump’s national security adviser and who, according to the Times, “was paid $45,000 by the Russian government’s media arm for a 2015 speech and dined at the arm of the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin.”

Another was Paul Manafort, who briefly served as Trump’s campaign chairman and was a source of concern because he had “lobbied for pro-Russia interests in Ukraine and worked with an associate who has been identified as having connections to Russian intelligence.”

A third was Carter Page, a Trump foreign-policy adviser who “was well known to the FBI” because “[h]e had previously been recruited by Russian spies and was suspected of meeting one in Moscow during the campaign.”

The fourth was George Papadopoulos, a “young and inexperienced campaign aide whose wine-fueled conversation with the Australian ambassador set off the investigation. Before hacked Democratic emails appeared online, he had seemed to know that Russia had political dirt on Mrs. Clinton.”

Seems incriminating, eh? But in each case the connection was more tenuous than the Times lets on. Flynn, for example, didn’t dine “at the arm of the Russian president” at a now-famous December 2015 Moscow banquet honoring the Russian media outlet RT. He was merely at a table at which Putin happened to sit down for “maybe five minutes, maybe twenty, tops,” according to Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein who was just a few chairs away. No words were exchanged, Stein says, and “[n]obody introduced anybody to anybody. There was no translator. The Russians spoke Russian. The four people who spoke English spoke English.”

The Manafort associate with the supposed Russian intelligence links turns out to be a Russian-Ukrainian translator named Konstantin Kilimnik who studied English at a Soviet military school and who vehemently denies any such connection. It seems that the Ukrainian authorities did investigate the allegations at one point but declined to press charges. So the connection is unproven.

Page Was No Spy
The same goes for Carter Page, who was not “recruited” by Russian intelligence, but, rather, approached by what he thought were Russian trade representatives at a January 2013 energy symposium in New York. When the FBI informed him five or six months later that it believed the men were intelligence agents, Page appears to have cooperated fully based on a federal indictment filed with the Southern District of New York. Thus, Page was not a spy pace the Times, but a government informant as ex-federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy has pointed out – in other words, a good guy, as the Times would undoubtedly see it, helping the catch a couple of baddies.

Papadopoulos
As for Papadopoulos, who the Times suggests somehow got advance word that WikiLeaks was about to dump a treasure trove of Hillary Clinton emails, the article fails to mention that at the time the conversation with the Australian ambassador took place, the Clinton communications in the news were the 30,000 State Department emails that she had improperly stored on her private computer. These were the emails that “the American people are sick and tired of hearing about,” as Bernie Sanders put it. Instead of spilling the beans about a data breach yet to come, it’s more likely that Papadopoulos was referring to emails that were already in the news – a possibility the Times fails to discuss.

FBI ‘Perplexed’
One could go on. But not only does the Times article get the details wrong, it paints the big picture in misleading tones as well. It says that the FBI was “perplexed” by such Trump antics as calling on Russia to release still more Clinton emails after WikiLeaks went public with its disclosure. The word suggests a disinterested observer who can’t figure out what’s going on. But it ignores how poisonous the atmosphere had become by that point and how everyone’s mind was seemingly made up.

By July 2016, Clinton was striking out at Trump at every opportunity about his Russian ties – not because they were true, but because a candidate who had struggled to come up with a winning slogan had at last come across an issue that seemed to resonate with her fan base. Consequently, an intelligence report that Russia was responsible for hacking the Democratic National Committee “was a godsend,” wrote Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes in Shattered, their best-selling account of the Clinton campaign, because it was “hard evidence upon which Hillary could start to really build the case that Trump was actually in league with Moscow.”

Not only did Clinton believe this, but her followers did as well, as did the corporate media and, evidently, the FBI. This is the takeaway from text messages that FBI counterintelligence chief Peter Strzok exchanged with FBI staff attorney Lisa Page.

Andrew McCarthy, who has done a masterful job of reconstructing the sequence, notes that in late July 2016, Page mentioned an article she had come across on a liberal web site discussing Trump’s alleged Russia ties. Strzok texted back that he’s “partial to any women sending articles about nasty the Russians are.” Page replied that the Russians “are probably the worst. Very little I finding redeeming about this. Even in history. Couple of good writers and artists I guess.” Strzok heartily agreed: “f***ing conniving cheating savages. At statecraft, athletics, you name it. I’m glad I’m on Team USA.”

This is the institutional bias that the Times doesn’t dare mention. An agency whose top officials believe that “f***ing conniving cheating savages” are breaking down the door is one that is fairly guaranteed to construe evidence in the most negative, anti-Russian way possible while ignoring anything to the contrary. So what if Carter Page had cooperated with the FBI? What’s important is that he had had contact with Russian intelligence at all, which was enough to render him suspicious in the bureau’s eyes. Ditto Konstantin Kilimnik. So what if the Ukrainian authorities had declined to press charges? The fact that they had even looked was damning enough.

Clapper: Bogus 'assessment'
The FBI thus made the classic methodological error of allowing its investigation to be contaminated by its preconceived beliefs.

---

Quote:

---

Objectivity fell by the wayside. The Times says that Christopher Steele, the ex-MI6 agent whose infamous, DNC and Clinton camp paid-for opposition research dossier turned “golden showers” into a household term, struck the FBI as “highly credible” because he had “helped agents unravel complicated cases” in the past. Perhaps. But the real reason is that he told agents what they wanted to hear, which is that the “Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years” with the “[a]im, endorsed by PUTIN, … [of] encourage[ing] splits and divisions in [the] western alliance” (which can be construed as a shrewd defensive move against a Western alliance massing troops on Russian borders.)

What else would one expect of people as “nasty” as these? In fact, the Steele dossier should have caused alarm bells to go off. How could Putin have possibly known five years before that Trump would be a viable presidential candidate? Why would high-level Kremlin officials share inside information with an ex-intelligence official thousands of miles away? Why would the dossier declare on one page that the Kremlin has offered Trump “various lucrative real estate development business deals” but then say on another that Trump’s efforts to drum up business had gone nowhere and that he therefore “had had to settle for the use of extensive sexual services there from local prostitutes rather than business success”? Given that the dossier was little more than “oppo research” commissioned and funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, why was it worthy of consideration at all?

The Rush to Believe
But all such questions disappeared amid the general rush to believe. The Times is right that the FBI slow-walked the investigation until Election Day. This is because agents assumed that Trump would lose and that therefore there was no need to rush. But when he didn’t, the mood turned to one of panic and fury.

Without offering a shred of evidence, the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper issued a formal assessment on Jan. 6, 2017, that “Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election … [in order] to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.” The “assessment” contains this disclaimer:

"The New Yorker reports that an ex-aide to John McCain hoped to persuade the senator to use the Steele dossier to force Trump to resign even before taking office. (The ex-aide denies that this was the case.)
When FBI Director James Comey personally confronted Trump with news of the dossier two weeks prior to inauguration, the Times says he “feared making this conversation a ‘J. Edgar Hoover-type situation,’ with the FBI presenting embarrassing information “to lord over a president-elect.”

But that is precisely what happened. When someone – most likely CIA Director John Brennan, now a commentator with NBC News – leaked word of the meeting and Buzzfeed published the dossier four days later, the corporate media went wild. Trump was gravely wounded, while Adam Schiff, Democratic point man on the House Intelligence Committee, would subsequently trumpet the Steele dossier as the unvarnished truth. According to the Times account, Trump was unpersuaded by Comey’s assurances that he was there to help. “Hours earlier,” the paper says, “…he debuted what would quickly become a favorite phrase: ‘This is a political witch hunt.’”

The Times clearly regards the idea as preposterous on its face. But while Trump is wrong about many things, on this one subject he happens to be right. The press, the intelligence community, and the Democrats have all gone off the deep end in search of a Russia connection that doesn’t exist. They misled their readers, they made fools of themselves, and they committed a crime against journalism. And now they’re trying to dodge the blame.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
(a) First of all, what's the difference between a spy INSIDE the organization (a "mole") versus a spy OUTSIDE of the organization (someone able to entrap Trump staffers)? In the end, the "intelligence community" was spying on a political campaign for the flimsiest of reasons (see below) in what appears to be a politically motived operation.

(c) More importantly, with the "intelligence community" dogging the campaign at its earliest stages, and the combined power of the CIA, NSA, FBI, and MI6 snooping into every electronic and human aspect of the Trump campaign, why has Mueller NOT YET found the smoking gun? Seriously, you would think that with all of that, the "investigation" would have been completed a long time ago. Instead, they've been spinning their wheels and wasting taxpayer money for over a year.

Here is a good summation of the state of "evidence" so far ...

Quote:

---

As months turn into nearly two years and no solid evidence emerges to nail Russia for nabbing Election 2016, some big Russiagate cheerleaders are starting to cover their tracks.

The best evidence that Russia-gate is sinking beneath the waves is the way those pushing the pseudo-scandal are now busily covering their tracks. ...

It’s Nobody’s Fault
The result is a late-breaking media chorus to the effect that it’s not the fault of the FBI that the investigation has dragged on with so little to show for it; it’s not the fault of Mueller either, and, most of all, it’s not the fault of the corporate press, even though it’s done little over the last two years than scream about Russia. It’s not anyone’s fault, evidently, but simply how the system works.

This is nonsense, and the gaping holes in the Times article show why.
The piece, written by Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman, and Nicholas Fandos and entitled “Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation,” is pretty much like everything else the Times has written on the subject, i.e. biased, misleading, and incomplete. Its main argument is that the FBI had no option but to step in because four Trump campaign aides had “obvious or suspected Russian ties.”

Flynn: With Stein at ‘The Dinner’ ‘At Putin’s Arm’
One was Michael Flynn, who would briefly serve as Donald Trump’s national security adviser and who, according to the Times, “was paid $45,000 by the Russian government’s media arm for a 2015 speech and dined at the arm of the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin.”

Another was Paul Manafort, who briefly served as Trump’s campaign chairman and was a source of concern because he had “lobbied for pro-Russia interests in Ukraine and worked with an associate who has been identified as having connections to Russian intelligence.”

A third was Carter Page, a Trump foreign-policy adviser who “was well known to the FBI” because “[h]e had previously been recruited by Russian spies and was suspected of meeting one in Moscow during the campaign.”

The fourth was George Papadopoulos, a “young and inexperienced campaign aide whose wine-fueled conversation with the Australian ambassador set off the investigation. Before hacked Democratic emails appeared online, he had seemed to know that Russia had political dirt on Mrs. Clinton.”

Seems incriminating, eh? But in each case the connection was more tenuous than the Times lets on. Flynn, for example, didn’t dine “at the arm of the Russian president” at a now-famous December 2015 Moscow banquet honoring the Russian media outlet RT. He was merely at a table at which Putin happened to sit down for “maybe five minutes, maybe twenty, tops,” according to Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein who was just a few chairs away. No words were exchanged, Stein says, and “[n]obody introduced anybody to anybody. There was no translator. The Russians spoke Russian. The four people who spoke English spoke English.”

The Manafort associate with the supposed Russian intelligence links turns out to be a Russian-Ukrainian translator named Konstantin Kilimnik who studied English at a Soviet military school and who vehemently denies any such connection. It seems that the Ukrainian authorities did investigate the allegations at one point but declined to press charges. So the connection is unproven.

Page Was No Spy
The same goes for Carter Page, who was not “recruited” by Russian intelligence, but, rather, approached by what he thought were Russian trade representatives at a January 2013 energy symposium in New York. When the FBI informed him five or six months later that it believed the men were intelligence agents, Page appears to have cooperated fully based on a federal indictment filed with the Southern District of New York. Thus, Page was not a spy pace the Times, but a government informant as ex-federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy has pointed out – in other words, a good guy, as the Times would undoubtedly see it, helping the catch a couple of baddies.

Papadopoulos
As for Papadopoulos, who the Times suggests somehow got advance word that WikiLeaks was about to dump a treasure trove of Hillary Clinton emails, the article fails to mention that at the time the conversation with the Australian ambassador took place, the Clinton communications in the news were the 30,000 State Department emails that she had improperly stored on her private computer. These were the emails that “the American people are sick and tired of hearing about,” as Bernie Sanders put it. Instead of spilling the beans about a data breach yet to come, it’s more likely that Papadopoulos was referring to emails that were already in the news – a possibility the Times fails to discuss.

FBI ‘Perplexed’
One could go on. But not only does the Times article get the details wrong, it paints the big picture in misleading tones as well. It says that the FBI was “perplexed” by such Trump antics as calling on Russia to release still more Clinton emails after WikiLeaks went public with its disclosure. The word suggests a disinterested observer who can’t figure out what’s going on. But it ignores how poisonous the atmosphere had become by that point and how everyone’s mind was seemingly made up.

By July 2016, Clinton was striking out at Trump at every opportunity about his Russian ties – not because they were true, but because a candidate who had struggled to come up with a winning slogan had at last come across an issue that seemed to resonate with her fan base. Consequently, an intelligence report that Russia was responsible for hacking the Democratic National Committee “was a godsend,” wrote Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes in Shattered, their best-selling account of the Clinton campaign, because it was “hard evidence upon which Hillary could start to really build the case that Trump was actually in league with Moscow.”

Not only did Clinton believe this, but her followers did as well, as did the corporate media and, evidently, the FBI. This is the takeaway from text messages that FBI counterintelligence chief Peter Strzok exchanged with FBI staff attorney Lisa Page.

Andrew McCarthy, who has done a masterful job of reconstructing the sequence, notes that in late July 2016, Page mentioned an article she had come across on a liberal web site discussing Trump’s alleged Russia ties. Strzok texted back that he’s “partial to any women sending articles about nasty the Russians are.” Page replied that the Russians “are probably the worst. Very little I finding redeeming about this. Even in history. Couple of good writers and artists I guess.” Strzok heartily agreed: “f***ing conniving cheating savages. At statecraft, athletics, you name it. I’m glad I’m on Team USA.”

This is the institutional bias that the Times doesn’t dare mention. An agency whose top officials believe that “f***ing conniving cheating savages” are breaking down the door is one that is fairly guaranteed to construe evidence in the most negative, anti-Russian way possible while ignoring anything to the contrary. So what if Carter Page had cooperated with the FBI? What’s important is that he had had contact with Russian intelligence at all, which was enough to render him suspicious in the bureau’s eyes. Ditto Konstantin Kilimnik. So what if the Ukrainian authorities had declined to press charges? The fact that they had even looked was damning enough.

Clapper: Bogus 'assessment'
The FBI thus made the classic methodological error of allowing its investigation to be contaminated by its preconceived beliefs.

---

It's called "confirmation bias" or "rush to judgment"

Quote:

---

Objectivity fell by the wayside. The Times says that Christopher Steele, the ex-MI6 agent whose infamous, DNC and Clinton camp paid-for opposition research dossier turned “golden showers” into a household term, struck the FBI as “highly credible” because he had “helped agents unravel complicated cases” in the past. Perhaps. But the real reason is that he told agents what they wanted to hear, which is that the “Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years” with the “[a]im, endorsed by PUTIN, … [of] encourage[ing] splits and divisions in [the] western alliance” (which can be construed as a shrewd defensive move against a Western alliance massing troops on Russian borders.)

What else would one expect of people as “nasty” as these? In fact, the Steele dossier should have caused alarm bells to go off. How could Putin have possibly known five years before that Trump would be a viable presidential candidate? Why would high-level Kremlin officials share inside information with an ex-intelligence official thousands of miles away? Why would the dossier declare on one page that the Kremlin has offered Trump “various lucrative real estate development business deals” but then say on another that Trump’s efforts to drum up business had gone nowhere and that he therefore “had had to settle for the use of extensive sexual services there from local prostitutes rather than business success”? Given that the dossier was little more than “oppo research” commissioned and funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, why was it worthy of consideration at all?

The Rush to Believe
But all such questions disappeared amid the general rush to believe. The Times is right that the FBI slow-walked the investigation until Election Day. This is because agents assumed that Trump would lose and that therefore there was no need to rush. But when he didn’t, the mood turned to one of panic and fury.

Without offering a shred of evidence, the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper issued a formal assessment on Jan. 6, 2017, that “Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election … [in order] to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.” The “assessment” contains this disclaimer:

"The New Yorker reports that an ex-aide to John McCain hoped to persuade the senator to use the Steele dossier to force Trump to resign even before taking office. (The ex-aide denies that this was the case.)
When FBI Director James Comey personally confronted Trump with news of the dossier two weeks prior to inauguration, the Times says he “feared making this conversation a ‘J. Edgar Hoover-type situation,’ with the FBI presenting embarrassing information “to lord over a president-elect.”

But that is precisely what happened. When someone – most likely CIA Director John Brennan, now a commentator with NBC News – leaked word of the meeting and Buzzfeed published the dossier four days later, the corporate media went wild. Trump was gravely wounded, while Adam Schiff, Democratic point man on the House Intelligence Committee, would subsequently trumpet the Steele dossier as the unvarnished truth. According to the Times account, Trump was unpersuaded by Comey’s assurances that he was there to help. “Hours earlier,” the paper says, “…he debuted what would quickly become a favorite phrase: ‘This is a political witch hunt.’”

The Times clearly regards the idea as preposterous on its face. But while Trump is wrong about many things, on this one subject he happens to be right. The press, the intelligence community, and the Democrats have all gone off the deep end in search of a Russia connection that doesn’t exist. They misled their readers, they made fools of themselves, and they committed a crime against journalism. And now they’re trying to dodge the blame.

---

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-19/its-over-biggest-russiagate-
cheerleaders-start-covering-their-tracks

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Wouldn't Trump's people celebrate this if they are innocent? "Great, you guys had "a mole" - so now you know we weren't up to anything bad, right?"

Nope. As always, they continue to act like the guiltiest people on the planet. Why are they so desperate to stop Mueller if they have nothing to hide?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I asked that libel lawyer to hold off because you idiots seemed to come to your senses.

Do I need to reactivate the process with her?

---

By all means kiki. Please, please, please do. Either that or shut the fuck up about it.


T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I asked that libel lawyer to hold off because you idiots seemed to come to your senses.

Do I need to reactivate the process with her?

Contact your lawyers for legal advice before you wade into the shit further.

SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
BREAKING: DoJ's Sarah Isgur Flores: The Department has asked the Inspector General to expand the ongoing review of the FISA application process to include determining whether there was any impropriety or political motivation in how the FBI conducted its counterintelligence...
https://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/statuses/998315694755328001

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JJ:
The so called mole is a professor from England and he had nothing to do with the campaign. He was someone who had contact with some on Trumps campaign. He became concerned with what he was witnessing so he contacted the FBI. He was technically an informant not an FBI mole.

Now, explain how that is wrong or nefarious, and why you guys never get anything right. What is it that's in your DNA that drives you to believe and spread lies? Or is it that you are just that stupid.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that, once again, sig and zerohedge are behind yet another fake news propaganda thead.

T

---

Fake News? So now you are saying that your hero Clap Clap Clap Clapper is lying? And lying to CNN?
You need to straighten out your lies - even you can't keep track of which lie you are telling from one moment to the next.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JJ:
The so called mole is a professor from England and he had nothing to do with the campaign. He was someone who had contact with some on Trumps campaign. He became concerned with what he was witnessing so he contacted the FBI. He was technically an informant not an FBI mole.

Now, explain how that is wrong or nefarious, and why you guys never get anything right. What is it that's in your DNA that drives you to believe and spread lies? Or is it that you are just that stupid.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that, once again, sig and zerohedge are behind yet another fake news propaganda thead.

T

---

Fake News? So now you are saying that your hero Clap Clap Clap Clapper is lying? And lying to CNN?
You need to straighten out your lies - even you can't keep track of which lie you are telling from one moment to the next.

---

That should be the slogan of today's Democratic Party.

"Hypocrisy to the Gills! We've lost track of so many lies to all the asses we're blowing smoke up that we don't even care anymore that our lies blatantly contradict each other countless times every day. Our voting base is so fucking stupid that they won't notice it anyway."

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
They didn't *wiretap* Trump, exactly. They merely surveilled everyone. And they didn't *plant a spy*, they merely *developed an informant* ... or three.

It's that kind of word-parsing that is making Clapper et al look bad.

I think a lot of Americans are thinking - you say po-TAH-to, I say bullshit.

SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
They didn't *wiretap* Trump, exactly. They merely surveilled everyone. And they didn't *plant a spy*, they merely *developed an informant* ... or three.

It's that kind of word-parsing that is making Clapper et al look bad.

I think a lot of Americans are thinking - you say po-TAH-to, I say bullshit.

---

No comrade. What the FBI did was surveil the Russian operatives trying to infiltrate the Trump campaign. They also warned the campaign they we aware the Russians were trying to do so.

The campaign was asked to report any attempt by the Russians to influence our elections. Instead the trump capaign lied about dozens of foreign contacts all attempting to influence the campaign for personal gain, including many contacts with the Russians.

I'll leave you with a link that shows all those whom Mueller has filed charges against and all those who plead guilty.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/03/whos-been-charged-by-muelle
r-in-russia-probe-so-far.html

T

Quote:

---

The campaign was asked to report any attempt by the Russians to influence our elections. Instead the trump capaign lied about dozens of foreign contacts all attempting to influence the campaign for personal gain, including many contacts with the Russians.

---

Quote:

---

So far, four former Trump campaign associates – Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Richard Gates and George Papadopoulos – have been charged, though none of the charges are directly related to any misconduct by the president's campaign.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:

---

The campaign was asked to report any attempt by the Russians to influence our elections. Instead the trump capaign lied about dozens of foreign contacts all attempting to influence the campaign for personal gain, including many contacts with the Russians.

---

Funny, your link had nothing to do with what you posted.

Here is the salient point from your link (let me reiterate - from your link)

Quote:

---

So far, four former Trump campaign associates – Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Richard Gates and George Papadopoulos – have been charged, though none of the charges are directly related to any misconduct by the president's campaign.

---

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/03/whos-been-charged-by-muelle
r-in-russia-probe-so-far.html

SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:

---

The campaign was asked to report any attempt by the Russians to influence our elections. Instead the trump capaign lied about dozens of foreign contacts all attempting to influence the campaign for personal gain, including many contacts with the Russians.

---

Funny, your link had nothing to do with what you posted.

Here is the salient point from your link (let me reiterate - from your link)

Quote:

---

So far, four former Trump campaign associates – Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Richard Gates and George Papadopoulos – have been charged, though none of the charges are directly related to any misconduct by the president's campaign.

---

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/03/whos-been-charged-by-muelle
r-in-russia-probe-so-far.html

---

They lied about their contacts with the Russians. And, my link was very relevant to the sentence before it. Try reading it next time instead of removing it from your response dummy.

Here it is again. "I'll leave you with a link that shows all those whom Mueller has filed charges against and all those who plead guilty."

T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:

---

The campaign was asked to report any attempt by the Russians to influence our elections. Instead the trump capaign lied about dozens of foreign contacts all attempting to influence the campaign for personal gain, including many contacts with the Russians.

---

Funny, your link had nothing to do with what you posted.

Here is the salient point from your link (let me reiterate - from your link)

Quote:

---

So far, four former Trump campaign associates – Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Richard Gates and George Papadopoulos – have been charged, though none of the charges are directly related to any misconduct by the president's campaign.

---

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/03/whos-been-charged-by-muelle
r-in-russia-probe-so-far.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:

---

The campaign was asked to report any attempt by the Russians to influence our elections. Instead the trump capaign lied about dozens of foreign contacts all attempting to influence the campaign for personal gain, including many contacts with the Russians.

---

Funny, your link had nothing to do with what you posted.

Here is the salient point from your link (let me reiterate - from your link)

Quote:

---

So far, four former Trump campaign associates – Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Richard Gates and George Papadopoulos – have been charged, though none of the charges are directly related to any misconduct by the president's campaign.

---

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/03/whos-been-charged-by-muelle
r-in-russia-probe-so-far.html

SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

---

You are being unfair. You cannot expect trolls to engage in coordination of links with which lie or delusion they are expousing at the moment. It is perplexing for them to even contemplate such a concept. You will confuse their tiny little minds.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
And yet, THUGGER'S link didn't even address his claim that: "The campaign was asked to report any attempt by the Russians to influence our elections. Instead the trump capaign lied about dozens of foreign contacts all attempting to influence the campaign for personal gain, including many contacts with the Russians."

Instead his source said this: "So far, four former Trump campaign associates – Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Richard Gates and George Papadopoulos – have been charged, though none of the charges are directly related to any misconduct by the president's campaign."

Not even close.

---

And again you lie and misrepresent others posts to suggest they are confused. I made two different points stupid. I only posted a link for one of them.

Here is a link to the other point I made since you are to stupid to find one for yourself.

The FBI warned Trump that Russia would try to infiltrate his campaign team
http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-warned-trump-russia-infiltrate-camp
aign-team-2017-12

T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JJ:
Trump has spent more visiting Mar-a-Lago than Mueller has on Russia probe

The president has repeatedly attacked the Mueller probe for racking up millions of dollars in expenditures, doing so most recently this week after the Justice Department reported that the special counsel's office had spent roughly $16.7 million on expenses in just over a year of investigation.

"A.P. has just reported that the Russian Hoax Investigation has now cost our government over $17 million, and going up fast. No Collusion, except by the Democrats!" Trump tweeted Friday.

But that number is dwarfed by the amount required to pay for the president's numerous trips to the "Winter White House," which Washington Post and Politico analyses have estimated to cost taxpayers on average between $1 million and $3 million dollars per trip.

As of Dec. 26, Trump had spent 39 days at Mar-a-Lago in 2017. Trump took his 17th trip to the property in April, according to Town and Country magazine.

Trump, who has been criticized for his frequent outings to Trump properties, particularly golf courses, has invoked his own criticism of Obama's golfing trips on numerous occasions. Trump surpassed the pace of Obama's golf outings, making 56 total trips so far compared to Obama's 37 at the same point in his presidency, according to Politifact.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-has-spent-more-visiting-
mar-a-lago-than-mueller-has-on-russia-probe/ar-AAy9vrT?ocid=spartanntp


T

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JJ:
Trump has spent more visiting Mar-a-Lago than Mueller has on Russia probe

The president has repeatedly attacked the Mueller probe for racking up millions of dollars in expenditures, doing so most recently this week after the Justice Department reported that the special counsel's office had spent roughly $16.7 million on expenses in just over a year of investigation.

"A.P. has just reported that the Russian Hoax Investigation has now cost our government over $17 million, and going up fast. No Collusion, except by the Democrats!" Trump tweeted Friday.

But that number is dwarfed by the amount required to pay for the president's numerous trips to the "Winter White House," which Washington Post and Politico analyses have estimated to cost taxpayers on average between $1 million and $3 million dollars per trip.

As of Dec. 26, Trump had spent 39 days at Mar-a-Lago in 2017. Trump took his 17th trip to the property in April, according to Town and Country magazine.

Trump, who has been criticized for his frequent outings to Trump properties, particularly golf courses, has invoked his own criticism of Obama's golfing trips on numerous occasions. Trump surpassed the pace of Obama's golf outings, making 56 total trips so far compared to Obama's 37 at the same point in his presidency, according to Politifact.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-has-spent-more-visiting-
mar-a-lago-than-mueller-has-on-russia-probe/ar-AAy9vrT?ocid=spartanntp

T

---

Where are the citations for this research?

I want to see whatever documents and proof there is that these expenditures are on the taxpayer dime.

This is something to be angry about if it is, but I see no evidence of it in this article.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JJ:
Trump has spent more visiting Mar-a-Lago than Mueller has on Russia probe

The president has repeatedly attacked the Mueller probe for racking up millions of dollars in expenditures, doing so most recently this week after the Justice Department reported that the special counsel's office had spent roughly $16.7 million on expenses in just over a year of investigation.

"A.P. has just reported that the Russian Hoax Investigation has now cost our government over $17 million, and going up fast. No Collusion, except by the Democrats!" Trump tweeted Friday.

But that number is dwarfed by the amount required to pay for the president's numerous trips to the "Winter White House," which Washington Post and Politico analyses have estimated to cost taxpayers on average between $1 million and $3 million dollars per trip.

As of Dec. 26, Trump had spent 39 days at Mar-a-Lago in 2017. Trump took his 17th trip to the property in April, according to Town and Country magazine.

Trump, who has been criticized for his frequent outings to Trump properties, particularly golf courses, has invoked his own criticism of Obama's golfing trips on numerous occasions. Trump surpassed the pace of Obama's golf outings, making 56 total trips so far compared to Obama's 37 at the same point in his presidency, according to Politifact.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-has-spent-more-visiting-
mar-a-lago-than-mueller-has-on-russia-probe/ar-AAy9vrT?ocid=spartanntp

T

---

Where are the citations for this research?

I want to see whatever documents and proof there is that these expenditures are on the taxpayer dime.

This is something to be angry about if it is, but I see no evidence of it in this article.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

According to obamagolfcount.com Bobo had 306 Golf Trips in 95 months. Which would average 38.5 per year. Or about 53 in the 16 months since Trump took Office. Such a big difference.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JJ:
Trump has spent more visiting Mar-a-Lago than Mueller has on Russia probe

The president has repeatedly attacked the Mueller probe for racking up millions of dollars in expenditures, doing so most recently this week after the Justice Department reported that the special counsel's office had spent roughly $16.7 million on expenses in just over a year of investigation.

"A.P. has just reported that the Russian Hoax Investigation has now cost our government over $17 million, and going up fast. No Collusion, except by the Democrats!" Trump tweeted Friday.

But that number is dwarfed by the amount required to pay for the president's numerous trips to the "Winter White House," which Washington Post and Politico analyses have estimated to cost taxpayers on average between $1 million and $3 million dollars per trip.

As of Dec. 26, Trump had spent 39 days at Mar-a-Lago in 2017. Trump took his 17th trip to the property in April, according to Town and Country magazine.

Trump, who has been criticized for his frequent outings to Trump properties, particularly golf courses, has invoked his own criticism of Obama's golfing trips on numerous occasions. Trump surpassed the pace of Obama's golf outings, making 56 total trips so far compared to Obama's 37 at the same point in his presidency, according to Politifact.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-has-spent-more-visiting-
mar-a-lago-than-mueller-has-on-russia-probe/ar-AAy9vrT?ocid=spartanntp


T

---

Where are the citations for this research?

I want to see whatever documents and proof there is that these expenditures are on the taxpayer dime.

This is something to be angry about if it is, but I see no evidence of it in this article.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JJ:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JJ:
Trump has spent more visiting Mar-a-Lago than Mueller has on Russia probe

The president has repeatedly attacked the Mueller probe for racking up millions of dollars in expenditures, doing so most recently this week after the Justice Department reported that the special counsel's office had spent roughly $16.7 million on expenses in just over a year of investigation.

"A.P. has just reported that the Russian Hoax Investigation has now cost our government over $17 million, and going up fast. No Collusion, except by the Democrats!" Trump tweeted Friday.

But that number is dwarfed by the amount required to pay for the president's numerous trips to the "Winter White House," which Washington Post and Politico analyses have estimated to cost taxpayers on average between $1 million and $3 million dollars per trip.

As of Dec. 26, Trump had spent 39 days at Mar-a-Lago in 2017. Trump took his 17th trip to the property in April, according to Town and Country magazine.

Trump, who has been criticized for his frequent outings to Trump properties, particularly golf courses, has invoked his own criticism of Obama's golfing trips on numerous occasions. Trump surpassed the pace of Obama's golf outings, making 56 total trips so far compared to Obama's 37 at the same point in his presidency, according to Politifact.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-has-spent-more-visiting-
mar-a-lago-than-mueller-has-on-russia-probe/ar-AAy9vrT?ocid=spartanntp


T

---

Where are the citations for this research?

I want to see whatever documents and proof there is that these expenditures are on the taxpayer dime.

This is something to be angry about if it is, but I see no evidence of it in this article.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

First, if it's fake then the White House will prove the reporting wrong because it, as you say is something for the taxpayer to be angry about.

Secondly, "Winter White House," which Washington Post and Politico analyses have estimated to cost taxpayers on average between $1 million and $3 million dollars per trip." As of Dec. 26, Trump had spent 39 days at Mar-a-Lago in 2017. Trump took his 17th trip to the property in April, according to Town and Country magazine.

They are not going to report some of the details because it would be redundant and boring. Besides, look at the numbers. Think about the security, plane, guests and so on. These numbers are real.

Hey, you really what a laugh. Look up what it is costing the taxpayer to protect Trump Towers. That'll make you laugh.

T

---