Senate has uncovered no direct evidence of conspiracy between Trump campaign and Russia

"If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don't have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia," said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, in an interview with CBS News last week."

'Nuff said

[deleted]

And, sadly, who winds up paying for the loser's crying towel - the American people.

The only benefit?

We now know who is willing to rip this nation and government to shreds if they don't get what they think they are entitled to....

We know what we are fighting, the only question left is how far they want to take it.....

Putting someone in office that was completely outside the political mainstream has really made them come out of their hidey holes hasn't it...

Was anyone actually expecting the Republican controlled Senate investigation to come to any truthful conclusions when it comes to their own Presidents campaign conspiring with a foreign country? We know the Russians stole both parties emails, release only the negative stuff on the DNC, hacked 22 state election systems with voter data, spent $1.25 million a month on social media ads targeting specific US voter demographics with pro-Trump and anti-Hillary propaganda, and we have Trumps own words during the campaign when he told Maria Butina that he didn't see any need for the sanctions against Russia, then asked them at another rally to find Hillary's emails, specifically requesting their help, then we have Putin himself admitting he did help Trump:

“President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?”

“Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.–Russia relationship back to normal.”

Do we really need a signed agreement between the two spelling out the tit for tat, the help in the election for a removal of sanctions and a shredding of the Magnitsky act, to conclude that there was coordination and likely conspiracy? With what we know publicly, we can conclude that the Trump campaign did in fact ask Russia for dirt on Hillary which does amount to aid in the campaign, and Russia did comply by providing that dirt though not directly but through a third party, Wikileaks, that Trump and his campaign touted regularly at rallies. 

"I love WikiLeaks!" DJT - October 10, 2016

Would Nixon not have been impeached if he had given Brezhnev a wink and a nod talking about not seeing any need to be enemies with Russia or even asked them at a televised rally "Hey Brezhnev, if you're listening, how about you find some dirt on the Democrats" and then Russian operatives break into the Watergate hotel and steal DNC documents and correspondence and release them anonymously to the press? Would Nixon have been considered an innocent bystander to such illegal activity that aided him if they couldn't find an actual recording of Nixon on the phone asking Brezhnev for help?

"Trump publicly urged the Russians to find Clinton's missing emails."

Those facts are beyond dispute. But they also have been known for some time — and have not seemed to change Trump's political standing.

You do know that the Magnitsky Act was for human rights abuses, right?  Not even applicable.

"The Magnitsky Act, formally known as the Russia and Moldova Jackson–Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012, is a bipartisan bill passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama in December 2012, intending to punish Russian officials responsible for the death of Russian tax accountant Sergei Magnitsky in a Moscow prison in 2009.

Since 2016 the bill, which applies globally, authorizes the US government to sanction those who it sees as human rights offenders, freezing their assets, and ban them from entering the U.S."

But they also have been known for some time — and have not seemed to change Trump's political standing.

Trump's ratings are as low as they can go without eating into his deplorables. How can they change?

Oh please, Goodtime, don't give any facts.  You know how they are avoided at all costs.

You know how they are avoided at all costs

Indeed. On BOTH sides, not just one.

Concur - don't ever remember a Congress that has been so dysfunctional and prone to lying 'bout anything and everything.

How can they change?

people who worried trump was not conservative enough in 2018, will vote trump in 2020

 and...

people who are now worried the left has lost its damn mind, will vote trump in 2020 or stay home

also...

the democrat party will be toast after the next two yrs of the those responsible for the last two yrs of bs going thru the same meat grinder they put trump thru.... "to the full extent of the law"

it will all start with criminal charges for fisa abuse and will end with obamas admin.

enjoy

You do know that the Magnitsky Act was for human rights abuses, right?  Not even applicable.

Yes, I know exactly what it is, how is it not "applicable"? It was specifically mentioned in the Trump tower meeting as a want by the Russians in return for the dirt on Hillary they claimed to have. That's what the whole "Russian adoptions" smoke screen was about, trying to claim that's what they talked about because it was part of the conversation, the Russians had blocked adoptions from Russia in retaliation for the Magnitsky act. If it were repealed Russia would reciprocate and open up adoptions again.

" they also have been known for some time — and have not seemed to change Trump's political standing"

It has with everyone with at least an ounce of ethics or morals in their bodies. 59% disapprove of the job Trump has done, only 37% approve of Trumps job as President. https://news.gallup.com/poll/203207/trump-job-approval-weekly.aspx 

And even though the daily Rasmussen poll got a bump and hit 50% approval among likely voters today, it wasn't the first time their daily tracker spiked, he hit 51% back in October and 51% a day in May of 2018 for a day before falling back down to 43% which is where he was just a week ago. If you take anything from a daily tracker look at the average, which is at about 46% approval among likely voters.

rasmussenreports

[Removed]

Those facts are beyond dispute. But they also have been known for some time — and have not seemed to change Trump's political standing.

Yes we know that y'all gave Trump a pass. 

You do know that the Magnitsky Act was for human rights abuses, right? Not even applicable.

The Magnitsky Act IS applicable since there are 18 Russians on the list and Vlad isn't getting anything from them now that they are stuck in Russia. The Global Magnitsky Act froze Vlad's kickbacks. 

BTW, did you note that DP wasn't ONLY talking about the Magnitsky Act? 

the help in the election for a removal of sanctions and a shredding of the Magnitsky act

Rasmussen Reports poll has Trump at 52 per cent approval among likely voters, his best showing in 23 months and a higher number than his winning edge in 2016

Rasmussen is an outlier and always has been. Reuters has Trump at 38% approval. 

Oh please, Goodtime, don't give any facts. You know how they are avoided at all costs.

Oh please let's DO give the facts. That 52% was for 2/11/2019, ONE DAY. 

Do you know that the original FISA warrant obtained to spy on Carter Page was obtained with documents from Hillary Clinton's campaign.

I know the Steele dossier, much of which has been verified, none of which has been disproved, was used in conjunction with other evidence presented to a judge who approved a completely legal and frankly very warranted FISA warrant to watch Carter Page, an admitted stooge for the Russians. I really couldn't give a flying fornicate about who started to pay Steele for the investigation (was a Republican group) or who later took over paying for the opposition research using a perfectly legal means to do so.

Do you assume any opposition research done by an opposing side is automatically invalid because of who asked for it? If that was the case, why bother hiring anyone to do any research at all? Why not just make it all up yourself and save the money? Why? Because that's nonsense and not what opposition research is.

Why not try to refute any actual claims made in the dossier instead of just trying to ditch it based on who ended up finishing paying for it? Oh, that's right, if you did that you'd have to address the HUGE implication and facts it contains instead of trying to just throw the baby out with the bath water because you claim Hillary dipped a pinky into it. So try again if you like, dismiss it point by point if you want, but stop being so ridiculously lazy by just saying "Hillary Clinton" and expecting that to be some universal defense. That may work in wannabe confederate hollars where the name "Hillary" is a curse word, but it doesn't work on those with any sort of actual education.

Give me a point by point of what has been verified!

SO glad you asked (knowing in advance you're going to reject what you asked for):

here are excerpts from the dossier that correspond with details contained in official documents.

The dossier   reports :

Over the period March-September 2016 a company called [redacted] and its affiliates had been using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct “altering operations” against the Democratic Party leadership. Entities linked to one [redacted] were involved and he and another hacking expert, both recruited under duress by the FSB, [redacted] were significant players in this operation.

Additionally, it   reports : 

the Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing email messages, emanating from the Democratic National Committee (DNC), to the Wikileaks platform.  The reason for using Wikileaks was "plausible deniability" and the operation had been conducted with the full knowledge and support of Trump and senior members of his campaign team.

The   indictment   of 12 officers of the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff (GRU) corroborates these allegations from Steele’s sources. In particular, the indictment   alleges :

3. Starting in at least March 2016, the Conspirators used a variety of means to hack the email accounts of volunteers and employees of the U.S. presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton (the “Clinton Campaign”), including the email account of the Clinton Campaign’s chairman.             

4. By in or around April 2016, the Conspirators also hacked into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (“DCCC”) and the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”). The Conspirators covertly monitored the computers of dozens of DCCC and DNC employees, implanted hundreds of files containing malicious computer code (“malware”), and stole emails and other documents from the DCCC and DNC.

5. By in or around April 2016, the Conspirators began to plan the release of materials stolen from the Clinton Campaign, DCCC, and DNC.

6. Beginning in or around June 2016, the Conspirators staged and released tens of thousands of the stolen emails and documents. They did so using fictitious online personas, including “DCLeaks” and “Guccifer 2.0.”  

7. The Conspirators also used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release additional stolen documents through a website maintained by an organization ([Wikileaks]), that had previously posted documents stolen from U.S. persons, entities, and the U.S. government. The Conspirators continued their U.S. election-interference operations through in or around November 2016.  

The indictment further   alleges :

On or about August 15, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, wrote to a person who was in regular contact with senior members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, “thank u for writing back … do you find anyt[h]ing interesting in the docs I posted?” On or about August 17, 2016, the Conspirators added, “please tell me if I can help u anyhow … it would be a great pleasure to me.” On or about September 9, 2016, the Conspirators, again posing as Guccifer 2.0 referred to a stolen DCCC document posted online and asked the person, “what do u think of the info on the turnout model for the democrats entire presidential campaign.” The person responded, “[p]retty standard.”

Trump advisor Roger Stone   publicly acknowledged   that he had communicated with Guccifer 2.0 and was likely the unnamed individual to whom the indictment refers.

While the GRU indictment does not provide any additional detail on communications between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Guccifer 2.0 or Wikileaks, the draft   statement of offense   for Jerome Corsi does. Corsi, an author connected to Stone, publicly released the draft statement on Nov. 27, 2018.

The document   states :

CORSI said that in the summer of 2016 an associate ([Roger Stone]) who CORSI understood to be in regular contact with senior members of the Trump Campaign, including with then-candidate Donald J. Trump, asked CORSI to get in touch with [Wikileaks] about materials it possessed relevant to the presidential campaign that had not already been released.

…

[A]fter [Stone] asked CORSI to get in touch with [Wikileaks], CORSI did not decline the request as he stated in the interview. Instead, CORSI contacted an individual who resided in London, England (“overseas individual”) to pass on [Stone’s] request to learn about materials in [Wikileaks’] possession that could be relevant to the presidential campaign. CORSI thereafter told [Stone] that [Wikileaks] possessed information that would be damaging to then-candidate Hillary Clinton and that [Wikileaks] planned to release damaging information in October 2016.

a. On or about July 25, 2016, [Stone] sent an email to CORSI with the subject line, “Get to [Wikileaks founder Julian Assange].” The body of the message read: “Get to [Assange] [a]t Ecuadorian Embassy in London and get the pending [Wikileaks] emails … they deal with [the Clinton Foundation], allegedly.” On or about the same day, CORSI forwarded [Stone’s] email to the overseas individual.

b. On or about July 31, 2016, [Stone] emailed CORSI with the subject line, “Call me MON.” The body of the email read in part that the overseas individual should see [Assange].”

c. On or about August 2, 2016, CORSI responded to [Stone] by email. CORSI wrote that he was currently in Europe and planned to return in mid-August. CORSI stated: “Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps. One shortly after I’m back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very damaging …. Time to let more than [Clinton Campaign chairman John Podesta] be exposed as in bed w enemy if they are not ready to drop HRC [Hillary Rodham Clinton.] That appears to be the game hackers are now about. Would not hurt to start suggesting HRC old, memory bad, has stroke -- neither he nor she well. I expect that much of next dump focus, setting stage for Foundation debacle.”

In sum, the official record connects Russian intelligence—behind the guise of Guccifer 2.0—to Wikileaks and, to a lesser extent, to Stone. It also connects Corsi and Stone to Wikileaks. It does not, however, corroborate the statement in the dossier that the Russian intelligence “operation had been conducted with the full knowledge and support of Trump and senior members of his campaign team.” Put another way, Mueller and his team have not yet alleged or asserted in public filings that individuals associated with the Trump campaign knew that Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian intelligence cover and that the documents in Wikileaks’s possession came from Russian government hackers.

To date, the communications that draw the clearest line between the Russian government, hacked documents and the Trump campaign are detailed not in court filings, but rather in  emails   between Donald Trump Jr. and Rob Goldstone, a British-born former tabloid reporter and entertainment publicist. Trump Jr. released this correspondence in July 2017. In those emails, Goldstone wrote:

The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with [Aras Agalarov, an Azerbaijani-Russian billionaire property-developer] this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin [Agalarov].

Donald Trump Jr. responded,  "… [I]f it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer."

Aras Agalarov is connected,   in the dossier , to Trump’s interest in Russian real estate:

Two well-placed sources based in St. Petersburg … knew Trump had visited St. Petersburg on several occasions in the past and had been interested in doing business deals there involving real estate. The local business/political elite figure reported that Trump had paid bribes there to further his interests but very discreetly and only through affiliated companies, making it very hard to prove.

…

The two St. Petersburg figures cited believe an Azeri business figure, Araz Agalarov (with offices in Baku and London) had been closely involved with Trump in Russia and would know most of the details of what the Republican presidential candidate had got up to there.

Another report in the dossier   adds a layer : “The Kremlin’s cultivation operation on Trump also had comprised offering him various lucrative real estate development business deals in Russia, especially in relation to the ongoing 2018 World Cup soccer tournament. However, so far, for reasons unknown, Trump had not taken up any of these.”

That leads us to the material in the   criminal information   and   sentencing memorandum for Michael Cohen—Trump’s former attorney—filed by the Special Counsel’s Office in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. These documents relate to Cohen’s false statements to Congress regarding attempted Trump Organization business dealings in Russia. The details buttress Steele’s reporting to some extent, but mostly run parallel, neither corroborating nor disproving information in the dossier. They do, however, contradict the president’s many public statements on the matter.

The statement of information explains Cohen’s role in pursuing a deal to get a Trump-branded building in Moscow, in the midst of the presidential campaign. In July 2016, in an   interview   with a local TV news affiliate in Florida, then-candidate Trump said: “I mean I have nothing to do with Russia. I don’t have any jobs in Russia. I’m all over the world but we’re not involved in Russia.” But, as the statement of information in Cohen’s case   reveals , Cohen and others within the Trump Organization were actively working on the Trump Tower Moscow project as late as June 2016:

1. The Moscow Project was discussed multiple times within the [Trump Organization] and did not end in January 2016. Instead, as late as approximately June 2016, COHEN and [Felix Sater, a Russian-American businessman and associate of President Trump] discussed efforts to obtain Russian governmental approval for the Moscow Project. COHEN discussed the status and progress of the Moscow Project with [Trump] on more than the three occasions COHEN claimed to the Committee, and he briefed family members of [Trump] within the Company about the project.
2. COHEN agreed to travel to Russia in connection with the Moscow Project and took steps in contemplation of [Trump’s] possible travel to Russia. COHEN and [Sater] discussed on multiple occasions traveling to Russia to pursue the Moscow Project.

1. COHEN asked [Trump] about the possibility of [Trump] traveling to Russia in connection with the Moscow Project , and asked a senior campaign official about potential business travel to Russia. (Emphasis added.)

Later, the document   reports , "in or around January 2016, COHEN received a response from the office of [Dmitry Peskov], the Press Secretary for the President of Russia, and spoke to a member of that office about the Moscow Project."

Thus, the statement of information from Mueller’s office details substantial efforts by the Trump Organization to engage in business in Russia and to coordinate with the Russian government. But it does not allege election-related outreach. Additional details on that front, do, however, come in the special counsel’s   sentencing memorandum :

The defendant also provided information about attempts by other Russian nationals to reach the campaign. For example, in or around November 2015, Cohen received the contact information for, and spoke with, a Russian national who claimed to be a “trusted person” in the Russian Federation who could offer the campaign “political synergy” and “synergy on a government level.” The defendant recalled that this person repeatedly proposed a meeting between [Trump] and the President of Russia. The person told Cohen that such a meeting could have a “phenomenal” impact “not only in political but in a business dimension as well,” referring to the Moscow Project, because there is “no bigger warranty in any project than consent of [Putin].” Cohen, however, did not follow up on this invitation.

The footnote accompanying the above text explains, "The defendant explained that he did not pursue the proposed meeting, which did not take place, in part because he was working on the Moscow Project with a different individual who Cohen understood to have his own connections to the Russian government."

While this builds on the general theme from the Steele dossier of Russian interest in helping Trump’s campaign, it does not indicate that this was a two-way street. Even with the additional detail from the Cohen documents, certain core allegations in the dossier related to Cohen—which, if true, would be of utmost relevance to Mueller’s investigation—remain largely unconfirmed, at least from the unredacted material. Specifically, the dossier reports that there was well-established, continuing cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin; that Cohen played a central role in the coordination of joint efforts; and that he traveled to Prague to meet with Russian officials and cut-outs. At most, one could speculate—and it would be just speculation—about what Mueller’s team means when they   say   Cohen “provided the [Special Counsel’s Office] with useful information concerning certain discrete Russia-related matters core to its investigation that he obtained by virtue of his regular contact with [Trump Organization] executives during the campaign.”

On Cohen’s substantial role in a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin related to the election, the dossier   states :

[A] Kremlin insider highlighted the importance of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, in the ongoing secret liaison relationship between the New York tycoon’s campaign and the Russian leadership. Cohen’s role had grown following the departure of Paul Manafort as Trump’s campaign manager in August 2016. Prior to that Manafort had led for the Trump side.”

 …

According to the Kremlin insider, Cohen now was heavily engaged in a cover up and damage limitation operation in the attempt to prevent the full details of Trump’s relationship with Russia being exposed.

Additionally, according to the   dossier , Cohen attended one or more meetings with Russian interlocutors in Prague in late August 2016, accompanied by three colleagues. Steele’s sources indicated that Cohen met with Russian Presidential Administration Legal Department officials to discuss how to:

contain further scandals involving Manafort’s commercial and political role in Russia/Ukraine and to limit the damage arising from exposure of former Trump campaign foreign policy advisor, Carter Page’s secret meetings with Russian leadership figures the prior month.” The overall objective had been “to sweep it all under the carpet and make sure no connections could be fully established or proven.”

The reporting   continues :

One of their main Russian interlocutors was Oleg Solodukhin operating under Rossotrudnichestvo [a Russian federal government agency that conducts cultural exchange activities] cover.… [T]he agenda comprised questions on how deniable cash payments were to be made to hackers who had worked in Europe under Kremlin direction against the Clinton campaign and various contingencies for covering up these operations and Moscow’s secret liaison with the Trump team more generally.

Again, the current public official record does not affirmatively corroborate the assertion that Cohen spearheaded, even for a short time, efforts by the Trump team to obtain unlawful election assistance from the Russian government. But neither does the absence of such detail mean that the dossier is false. For what it’s worth, Cohen   strenuously denied   ever traveling to Prague, though that denial preceded his guilty plea and (spotty) cooperation with the government.

Paul Manafort makes a few appearances in the dossier, including those described above. One report from July 2016   says :

Speaking in confidence to a compatriot in late July 2016, Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership. This was managed on the Trump side by the Republican candidate’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter Page, and others as intermediaries.

Elsewhere, Steele   reports   that former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych “confided in Putin that he did authorize and order substantial kick-back payments to Manafort as alleged but sought to reassure him that there was no documentary trail left behind which could provide clear evidence of this.”

The official record supports this second allegation: Manafort’s work for, and bankrolling by, Yanukovych is at the core of the criminal charges against him—conduct he has admitted. The   superseding indictment   filed by Mueller’s office in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia goes into extensive detail about Manafort’s ties to Yanukovych and other Ukrainian political and business interests, but in short:

1. Defendant PAUL J.  MANAFORT, JR. (MANAFORT) served for years as a political consultant and lobbyist.  Between at least 2006 and 2015, MANAFORT, through companies he ran, acted as an unregistered agent of a foreign government and foreign political parties. Specifically, he represented the Government of Ukraine, the President of Ukraine (Victor Yanukovych, who was President from 2010 to 2014), the Party of Regions (a Ukrainian political party led by Yanukovych), and the Opposition Bloc (a successor to the Party of Regions after Yanukovych fled to Russia in 2014).
2. MANAFORT generated tens of millions of dollars in income as a result of his Ukraine work. From approximately 2006 through 2017, MANAFORT, along with others including Richard W. Gates III (Gates), engaged in a scheme to hide the Ukraine income from United States authorities, while enjoying the use of the money.

Manafort’s ties to Ukraine are relevant to the Russia investigation, as most readers will know, because he worked closely with an individual— Konstantin Kilimnik , a named co-conspirator in the superseding indictment against Manafort and a   star player   in Mueller’s submission last week regarding Manafort’s breach of his plea deal—suspected of ties to Russian intelligence. Manafort and Kilimnick worked on behalf of pro-Russian parties and lobbied within the United States to advance what were not merely Ukrainian interests, but Russian interests as well. Among those interests,   according to the dossier , were “sidelin[ing] Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue,” “deflect[ing] attention away from Ukraine,” and   building   political support in the U.S. for “lift[ing] Ukraine-related western sanctions against Russia.”

The Kremlin also pursued that last interest through, among others, Trump’s campaign advisor and first national security advisor, Michael Flynn. Flynn   pleaded guilty   in December 2017 to one count of making materially false statements to the FBI, in violation of   18 USC § 1001(a) , and is due to be sentenced on Dec. 18. Among the things he lied about to the Special Counsel’s Office were his   discussions   with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak about the Trump administration’s intent to lift sanctions:

During the interview, FLYNN falsely stated that he did not ask Russia’s Ambassador to the United States (“Russian Ambassador”) to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed on Russia. FLYNN also falsely stated that he did not remember a follow-up conversation in which the Russian Ambassador stated that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of FLYNN’s request.

 

The dossier does not allege significant communications between Flynn and Kremlin-affiliated individuals during the campaign—as it does for Manafort, Cohen and Carter Page—but does remark upon Flynn’s   visit to Moscow   in December 2015. Steele   reports :

[A] Kremlin official involved in US relations commented on aspects of the Russian operation to date. Its goals had been three-fold—asking sympathetic US actors how Moscow could help them; gathering relevant intelligence; and creating and disseminating compromising information (‘kompromat’). This had involved the Kremlin supporting various US political figures, including funding indirectly their recent visits to Moscow. S/he named a delegation from Lyndon Larouche; presidential candidate Jill Stein of the Green Party; Trump foreign policy advisor Carter Page; and former DIA Director Michael Flynn, in this regard and as successful in terms of perceived outcomes.

The   redacted addendum   to the sentencing memorandum filed by Mueller’s team in Flynn’s case   explains   that Flynn has cooperated extensively with the Special Counsel’s Office and provided information relevant to at least three different investigations: one criminal investigation, about which all information is redacted; the special counsel’s investigation into interactions between Russian government figures and the Trump campaign; and a third, completely redacted investigation. With respect to the special counsel’s investigation, the addendum   notes   that Flynn “assisted the [Special Counsel’s Office’s] investigation on a range of issues, including interactions between individuals in the Trump Transition Team and Russia,” and other topics which are redacted. This indicates that the relevant information Flynn is providing to Mueller’s team is not limited to the post-election discussions about sanctions relief about which he previously lied.

Notably absent from the dossier is any reference to George Papadopoulos, another Trump campaign foreign policy advisor   who pleaded   guilty last fall to lying to the FBI about his contacts during the campaign with individuals tied to the Russian government and recently served a   12-day sentence   after proving himself   unhelpful   to the Special Counsel’s Office. (He was sentenced to 14 days but was released two days early, prior to a weekend.) The   statement of offense   asserts that over the first half of 2016, Papadopoulos had multiple in-person interactions and email communications with several individuals connected to the Russian government or whom Papadopoulos believed were connected to the Russian government, including a London-based professor,   later identified as Joseph Mifsud ; a female Russian national who was introduced as a relative of Russian president Vladimir Putin; the Russian ambassador in London; and an individual claiming to be affiliated with the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In April 2016, Papadopoulos learned from the professor that the Russians possessed “dirt” on Hillary Clinton, in the form of thousands of her emails. Over the course of approximately five months, strongly encouraged by his contacts, Papadopoulos aggressively pursued a meeting between Trump and/or senior campaign officials with Russian government officials. He communicated the idea and his progress on a number of occasions to various high-ranking Trump campaign officials. When interviewed by the FBI in January 2017 in the course of its investigation into Russian interference into the 2016 election, Papadopoulos lied about the extent, timing and nature of his communications with these individuals.

Again, Papadopoulos is not mentioned in the Steele dossier. We revisit his case because it resonates with one of the themes of the dossier, which is the extensive Russian outreach effort to an array of individuals connected to the Trump campaign. Steele’s sources reported on alleged interactions between Carter Page and Russian officials, but Papadopoulos’s conduct would have fit right in. In any event, Papadopoulos is noteworthy as the first figure in the Trump campaign—as far as we know—approached and informed by Russian proxies that the Russian government had obtained Clinton’s emails.

To conclude, we return to Carter Page, about whom there is a great deal in the dossier. We will not recount the details here because the allegations have not been corroborated in filings by Mueller’s team. The only nod at confirmation we have from an official source is a heavily-redacted   memorandum   from the House intelligence committee minority. In it, Ranking Member Schiff describes the FBI’s wholly independent basis for investigating Page’s long-established connections to Russia, aside from the Steele dossier, and emphasizes that the Justice Department possessed information “obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele’s reporting” with respect to Page.

As we noted, our interest is in assessing the Steele dossier as a raw intelligence document, not a finished piece of analysis. The Mueller investigation has clearly produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele’s reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials.

However, there is also a good deal in the dossier that has not been corroborated in the official record and perhaps never will be—whether because it’s untrue, unimportant or too sensitive. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier, we believe, holds up well so far. But surely there is more to come from Mueller’s team. We will return to it as the public record develops.

Topics: 

• Donald Trump ,  
• The Russia Connection

You beat me to it, thanks.

"I love WikiLeaks!" DJT - October 10, 2016 Would Nixon not have been impeached if he had given Brezhnev a wink and a nod talking about not seeing any need to be enemies with Russia or even asked them at a televised rally "Hey Brezhnev, if you're listening, how about you find some dirt on the Democrats" and then Russian operatives break into the Watergate hotel and steal DNC documents and correspondence and release them anonymously to the press? Would Nixon have been considered an innocent bystander to such illegal activity that aided him if they couldn't find an actual recording of Nixon on the phone asking Brezhnev for help?

And it's pretty much common knowledge that the main focus of Muellar over the last year or so has been to connect T-rump to Assange/Guccifer in any way possible.... even to the point of getting people to perjure themselves to do it....

Democrats hate Assange almost as much as they hate T-rump and manufacturing a way to get them both would be the apple in their pie....

And, now that this report is coming out, what's going to happen to those who were "forced" to purge themselves?

Excellent question. I don't know.

Forced/coerced guilty pleas have been entered and without direct and convincing proof of the conspiracy to trash them, they will forever remain trashed....

Politics is a very nasty, vicious business

I guess my primary thought was over Gen Flynn who "lied" to the subcommittee to stop them from going after his son.

Well the judge did offer him the chance to refute the guilty plea, based upon the clear entrapment issue, but also warned that in doing so, all the threats that were made come back on the table....

So he decided to go thru with it..... Seems to me like a "he made his bed so he will lay in it" kind of thing....

Threats against family are a powerful coercion tactic..... they tried the same with Corsi, another personage the democrats hate, but it didn't work cause he had the foresight to recognize what they were doing. And he went against their orders to keep it secret and filed his own complaint against them using their coercion as the evidence.... Then published it on the internet......

The shame is once you make the deal and go thru with it your guilty, you admitted you were, and whether or not you were actually guilty is irrelevant to that legal determination. 

Definitely Flynn got the shaft, and once he was trapped his first reaction was to fight, but then the serious threats against his son forced his hand.

I don't know any father including me who wouldn't fall on his sword to protect his family....

A good man got shafted in the pursuit of political revenge....

Democrats hate Assange

Didn't they Luv's him and Wikileaks during the George W. Bush Years ?

even to the point of getting people to perjure themselves to do it....

Link? 

Democrats hate Assange almost as much as they hate T-rump

Are you saying that the GOP like and respect Assange? 

and manufacturing a way to get them both would be the apple in their pie....

Or they can just play the tape...

even to the point of getting people to perjure themselves to do it....

And how, please do tell, does he "get" them to perjure themselves?  (This ought to be hilarious)

And how, please do tell, does he "get" them to perjure themselves?  (This ought to be hilarious

Really, nobody can perjure themselves if they simply tell the truth.

And how, please do tell, does he "get" them to perjure themselves?

That was my first thought. 

(This ought to be hilarious)

Yup!

I guess my primary thought was over Gen Flynn who "lied" to the subcommittee to stop them from going after his son.

What 'subcommittee' are you talking about 1st? 

Well the judge did offer him the chance to refute the guilty plea, based upon the clear entrapment issue, but also warned that in doing so, all the threats that were made come back on the table.... So he decided to go thru with it..... Seems to me like a "he made his bed so he will lay in it" kind of thing....

Total BS NWM. HERE is the exchange about the alleged 'entrapment':

The judge: Do you believe the FBI had a legal obligation to warn Mr.
Flynn that lying to the FBI was a federal crime?

Kelner, the defense lawyer: No, your honor.

The judge: Was it your contention that Mr. Flynn was entrapped by the FBI?

Kelner: No, your honor.

Judge: Do you believe Mr. Flynn`s rights were violated by the fact that he didn`t have a lawyer present for the interview?

Kelner: No, your honor.

Judge: Do you believe his rights were violated by the fact he may have been dissuaded by not having a lawyer present for the interview?

Kelner: No, your honor.

Judge: Is it your contention that any misconduct by any member of the FBI raises any degree of doubt that Mr. Flynn intentionally lied to the FBI?

Kelner: No, your honor.  

Note that ALL of that was answered by the Defense attorney, NOT Flynn. All of those questions were about Flynn's lawyers 'plea for leniency' filing in which they made STUPID insinuations that they were forced to abandon right quick. 

It was when the Judge went over the charges and was asking Prosecutors how many other things Flynn COULD have been charged with and how much more time Flynn COULD have gotten. 

The Judge asked Flynn more than once questions like this one: 'On the basis of what I`ve got in front of me, you want me to sentence you today?'

The Judge FINALLY convinced Flynn that maybe he should go have a talk to his lawyers because if he insisted on being sentence on that day, it was NOT going to go well for him. They came back after their chat and asked for a continuance of sentencing. 

So I don't know where you got your idea of 'threats that were made come back on the table' but it's utter bullshit. 

even to the point of getting people to perjure themselves to do it....

Link?

Really?  So you're saying that folks aren't allowed or able to form their own OPINIONS based on information available?

Really?  So you're saying that folks aren't allowed or able to form their own OPINIONS based on information available?

You made an assertion 1st. You haven't made any information available. Are you saying that you are incapable of providing the information that folk need to form their own OPINIONS?  

Since you stepped up, provide a link to who perjured themselves in order 'to connect T-rump to Assange/Guccifer' and who got them to do so? 

I did put the info up once, and then I took it down.....

I realized that people like you wouldn't believe it anyway, even if it was being held in your hand.....

Place like this doesn't deserve the truth...

Besides arent you one of those people that keep saying "I'm not going to do your research for you?"

You want to know, look it up... it's still available. If you really want to know, you will find it......

It's so available that if you claim to not be able to find it is an admission that you didn't bother to look...

I did put the info up once, and then I took it down.....

Your claim that you already posted the evidence is one of convenience and evasion IMHO.

I realized that people like you wouldn't believe it anyway, even if it was being held in your hand.....

So you're saying it's unsubstantiated and unconvincing. Got ya. 

Place like this doesn't deserve the truth...

Wow NWM. That comment refutes quite a bit of your Kumbaya posts in other seeds. One wonders why you bother with NT since you view it as so undeserving of truth. 

Besides arent you one of those people that keep saying "I'm not going to do your research for you?"

Actually, NO. 

You want to know, look it up... it's still available. If you really want to know, you will find it......

'It' WHAT NWM. Your assertion was nebulous. 

It's so available that if you claim to not be able to find it is an admission that you didn't bother to look...

That's NOT how this shit works NWM and you KNOW it. You made an assertion and YOU have the burden of proof.

You participated in that thread remember? 

PROVE your assertion NWM. 

Warning to the both of you.

Stop talking about each other and talk about the topic. Only warning before tickets. 

If a person makes an assertion, the person questioning that assertion, or the information contained therein, has the responsibility of disproving that assertion - not the other way around.

Interesting that twice now, they make assertions and you cut me off....

You know Perrie I did post that info, You and a few others that were being aware know I took it down....

And it is readily available.....

And of course we are dealing with an individual that doesn't provide any of their own info just trashes everyone else......

Do I need to go back to who I used to be? before I mellowed out?

The new ToS and CoC and biased moderation would have me booted in a single posting......

I'm getting tired of the attacks and tired of being the one that gets hit for their bullshite......

Why don't you hit them publicly every once in a while.....

Disprove my points of contention - quit trying to bully me or anyone else into proving your points.

I don't need to make any "information available" to you or anyone else on how I form my opinions.  That information is public and is posted on many, many, many sites.  If you disagree, SHOW YOUR PROOF as to why you "BELIEVE" my personal opinion, which is based on publicly available information, is incorrect.

If you disagree, SHOW YOUR PROOF as to why you "BELIEVE" my personal opinion, which is based on publicly available information, is incorrect.

EXACTLY!

 the same demands they make they can't operate under...

If a person makes an assertion, the person questioning that assertion, or the information contained therein, has the responsibility of disproving that assertion - not the other way around.

Utter BS 1st. 

Read this:

thenewstalkers

Here is my synopsis: 

thenewstalkers

I think what TiG is saying is that a claim carries with is a burden of proof, an opinion does not and just because you disagree with either doesn't mean you hold the opposite position.

Oh and BTFW, you should note that I wasn't 'questioning that assertion'. I asked for a link that gives PROOF of the assertion. 

Disprove my points of contention

What points are those 1st? 

I don't need to make any "information available" to you or anyone else on how I form my opinions.

Nor have I asked you for any. I asked for a link that supports an assertion of FACT, not opinion. 

That information is public and is posted on many, many, many sites.

That is irrelevant to THIS discussion in THIS forum. 

If you disagree, SHOW YOUR PROOF as to why you "BELIEVE" my personal opinion, which is based on publicly available information, is incorrect.

Where did I say I 'disagree' with anything other than your claim that no one has the burden of proof for a claim 1st? 

Again, I asked for a link to support NWM's claim that someone was 'getting people to perjure themselves' in order to 'connect T-rump to Assange/Guccifer'. NWM made that assertion and now conveniently claims that 'this place' isn't worthy of the truth.

You claim that I have the burden to prove NWM's claim is false. I totally disagree and based on the interactions of a plethora of members on NT, most members understand that the burden of proof is on the member making the assertion. 

This concept is well known and I'll provide a source for MY assertion that even you will accept: 

In polite debate, the person making an assertion carries the burden of proof — after all, no debate can begin unless the person provides ground for debate. Without evidence provided, an assertion can generally be rejected out of hand.

conservapedia

"That information is public and is posted on many, many, many sites.

That is irrelevant to THIS discussion in THIS forum." 

Why is it irrelevant?

Why is it irrelevant?

Because if you make an assertion HERE you have the burden of proof HERE. 

Was anyone actually expecting the Republican controlled Senate investigation to come to any truthful conclusions when it comes to their own Presidents campaign conspiring with a foreign country?

Are you referring to the Democrat led "investigation" based on a fabricated dossier (oh sorry, opposition research) to obtain what could be seen as illegal FISA warrants?

An investigation with more conflicts of interest than any previous investigations?

Cry me a river.

Jeremy - they aren't what "could be seen" - they were absolutely totally illegal and false documents as verified by the Senate Judicial Committee if I'm not mistaken.

if I'm not mistaken.

You are mistaken. None of the dossier has been proved false, much has been verified and the rest simply remains unproven, not disproved.

thehill

nymag

You using Clapper as a source. Really? 

thehill

washingtonexaminer

realclearpolitics

usatoday

Try using someone that hasn't perjured himself to Congress and lied repeatedly to the media.

Try using someone that hasn't perjured himself to Congress and lied repeatedly to the media.

So I guess that means we can't use any statements from Republicans or their liar-in-chief anymore either. I'd trust Clapper long before I trusted a single piece of shit Trump appointee who has simply sucked up to the most worthless undeserved narcissist in human history.

Are you referring to the Democrat led "investigation" based on a fabricated dossier (oh sorry, opposition research) to obtain what could be seen as illegal FISA warrants?

Are you referring to the FISA warrant that was approved by 4 different Judges, ALL of whom were nominated by GOP Presidents and ALL of whom were put on the FISA court by John Roberts? 

based on a fabricated dossier (oh sorry, opposition research

The GOP initially paid for that research.

Huh, I hadn't seen that. Good catch.  But I wonder about the semantics of this:

Though the former spy, Christopher Steele, was hired by a firm that was initially funded by the Washington Free Beacon, he did not begin work on the project until after Democratic groups had begun funding it.

Was that just because Trump was clearly going to be the candidate before he had a chance to start working on it?  I have to head out so I didn't read the article in depth, I'll check later.  Thanks!

None of the dossier has been proved false

LMAO!  Have you been paying attention at all?  NONE of it was proven as fact.  And Clapper?  Give me a break.  You'd have more credibility using a National Inquirer source.

Yes a FISA warrant that was based on the false information in the opposition research dossier that was never proven to be factual where information was withheld from those very 4 judges.

Initially.  But it was the DNC that ran with it bringing about the witch hunt.

Proof please.

Oh and PLEASE don't cite the FISA warrant itself because it's so heavily redacted it's IMPOSSIBE to tell WTF it was based on. 

Try using someone that hasn't perjured himself to Congress and lied repeatedly to the media.

Well that eliminates most of Trump Cabinet and his eldest son. 

None of it has been proven?

Try this:

Carter Page DID have secret meetings with Sechin.

The Kremlin DID actively seek to influence the election in Trump's favor, and they DID target swing state voters and young people.

Trump DID maintain ties to Agalarov.

All of their criticism of the dossier is based on their unfounded claim that it was a hit job by Steele, paid for by the DNC.

Multiple suits in multiple countries have been filed against Steele. Not one has gone anywhere. 

The thing they desperately need to ignore it that Steele DID NOT KNOW WHO was paying him. Steele had no idea the DNC was involved. 

The FIRST US government official that Steele revealed a summary of the dossier to was John McCann. John McCann gave it to the FBI. 

They also desperately try to ignore the FACT that the dossier was NEVER released by the DNC and Clinton didn't know about it or it's content until AFTER it was published by Buzzfeed. 

The thing they desperately need to ignore it that Steele DID NOT KNOW WHO was paying him. Steele had no idea the DNC was involved.

And even if he had known .. so what?  Just because they're so partisan that they couldn't possibly be unbiased doesn't mean that everyone else is like them.  Some of us are more ethical.  When I get paid to write something, I write what the facts prove, not what the person paying me wants to hear. 

And even if he had known .. so what?

Yet you know as well as I that it's all about tribalism. They dismiss sources if they so much as 'lean' left, they dismiss posits from anyone that doesn't have their lips locked on Trump's butt. They make the unfounded assumption that those on the left are motivated purely by party and will never accept that anyone on the left acts in good faith. They also assume, as they do with Steele and Fusion GPS, that anyone who reports anything negative about Trump has a tribal motivation. 

It blinds them to facts and merely entrenches the electorate more every day. Unless and until we can agree on FACTS, it will be impossible to have a cogent debate about policy. 

Unless and until we can agree on FACTS, it will be impossible to have a cogent debate about policy. 

So true.  And without moving the goalposts ... as has happened so many times during this investigation.  Now they're down to claiming there was no collusion by Trump himself, which may or may not be true - we don't know yet.  But somehow they claim they DO know, when they couldn't possibly know.  I find it very interesting that so many Trump cronies have lied about their Russian contacts.  I can't claim it definitely means Trump was involved, although it makes it more likely. 

It's the hypocrisy and double standard that is the worst.  "Lock her up" without due process, while ignoring all the outcomes so far from this investigation.

I find it very interesting that so many Trump cronies have lied about their Russian contacts. I can't claim it definitely means Trump was involved, although it makes it more likely.

What it DOES prove is that Trump sycophants have NO intention of holding Trump responsible for what went down in his campaign. Trump's campaign was TINY in comparison to most, so he had far fewer people to vet and 'supervise'. Yet we have incontrovertible evidence that the vast majority of his 'inner circle' were dealing in some way with Russians and as you pointed out, felt the need to LIE about those dealings. Were talking about upwards of 100 contacts. 

I'm old enough to remember that hair on fire GOP reaction to one sentence from Obama to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev.

Since Carter, the GOP has done everything in their power to demand that Presidents answer for any and every action taken under them, whether before or after they were inaugurated. 

Now suddenly and conveniently, that standard is null and void. 

Senate Has Uncovered No Direct Evidence Of Conspiracy Between Trump Campaign And Russia

Of course not!

No, they didn't, no matter what Fox may have told you.

I see the far right is in the process of moving the goalposts again. 

Originally it was to determine if the Trump campaign colluded ( Trump's word not mine ) with the Russian government in assisting Trump to win the election.

Now apparently it has to be Trump himself personally leading everyone into the collusion personally, instead of merely being a part of the conspiracy.

Next it will only be valid if Trump personally colluded only with Putin personally.

And, of course, you are giving Mark Warner, a DEMOCRAT, the kiss off 'cause he doesn't meet your standards?

Well, they will piss on any one that doesn't hold to their pre-conclusion....

The Dems/Liberals in government only have one goal - get rid of Trump, no matter how many lies you have to tell to do it.

The Dems/Liberals in government only have one goal - get rid of Trump, no matter how many lies you have to tell to do it.

Now that is funny, telling lies about the master liar...frickin' hilarious. Do you know that the master liar was once fined $250,000 for....LYING...

Too funny. 

Pelosi got fined that much for saying "You have to vote on it to read it"??  Or the previous President's "You can keep your doctor/Don't worry - pre-existing conditions don't matter."???

Excusing the master liar, LOL too funny. Are you aware of what he was fined for 1st?

BTW, how much were Pelosi and Obama fined? any record of it.

Absolutely zero, nada, nothing - but, hey, that's the way the political Democrats work, right?

I'm not worried 'bout what Trump did when he was 12 or 46 or 60.  I'm more concerned with what he's doing NOW and its impact on me, my family and friends.

The man, I have no warmth for - but the results of what he has done and is doing as President - different story - in most cases.  He just needs to stay out of Indian territory.

He just needs to stay out of Indian territory.

Well the fine was directly involved with Indian country. And currently he isn't staying out of Indian territory. So there ya go...

Absolutely zero, nada, nothing - but, hey, that's the way the political Democrats work, right?

They didn't break a law so what would they be fined for. In Trumps case he did break a law...Pretty simple really. 

And, of course, you are giving Mark Warner, a DEMOCRAT, the kiss off 'cause he doesn't meet your standards?

Never even a mention of his name, poor attempt at deflection.

He just needs to stay out of Indian territory.

Too late 1st. Ask the Tohono O’odham.

The security issue of the Tohono Nation occurred way before Trump.

The security issue of the Tohono Nation occurred way before Trump.

The Eminent Domain and sovereignty issues with the Tohono Nation are occurring RIGHT NOW under Trump. 

And they have been going on FOR A VERRRRYYYYY LONG TIME.

"Historically, the O’odham inhabited an enormous area of land in the southwest, extending South to Sonora, Mexico, north to Central Arizona (just north of Phoenix, Arizona), west to the Gulf of California, and east to the San Pedro River. This land base was known as the Papagueria and it had been home to the O’odham for thousands of years.

From the early 18th Century through to the present, the O’odham land was occupied by foreign governments. With the independence of Republic of Mexico, O’odham fell under Mexican rule. Then, in 1853, through the Gadsden Purchase or Treaty of La Mesilla, O’odham land was divided almost in half, between the United States of America and Mexico.

According to the terms of the Gadsden Purchase, the United States agreed to honor all land rights of the area held by Mexican citizens, which included the O’odham, and O’odham would have the same constitutional rights as any other United States citizen. However, the demand for land for settlement escalated with the development of mining and the transcontinental railroad. That demand resulted in the loss of O’odham land on both sides of the border.

Following the Plan de Iguala, O’odham lands in Mexico continued to decrease at a rapid rate. In 1927, reserves of lands for indigenous peoples, were established by Mexico. Today, approximately nine O’odham communities in Mexico lie proximate to the southern edge of the Tohono O’odham Nation, a number of which are separated only by the United States/Mexico border."

tonation-nsn

2016 Tohono O’odham Nation. All rights reserved.

Since you're equivocating, I guess you don't mind what Trump is doing in Indian country. 

 "Is anybody really surprised by this?"

I reckon, maybe, about 30% of the population

but, then again, anyone who believes the lefts paid for propaganda deserves to be left behind in class.

how many people will be surprised when senior officials go down for fisa abuse?

how many people will be surprised at what becomes public info from those trials?

and where it all goes after that?

"to the fullest extent of the law"

the future is not looking too bright for the left and some neo-cons

cheers

After two years and 200 interviews, the Senate Intelligence Committee is approaching the end of   its investigation into the 2016 election, having uncovered no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to   both Democrats and Republicans   on the committee.

Fear not, America ... Superman Schiff is determined to find something ... anything ... that could possibly tie Trump to Russia even if he has to set up a costly investigation into when Trump was in grammar school.

Fear not, America ... Superman Schiff is determined to find something ... anything ... that could possibly tie Trump to Russia even if he has to set up a costly investigation into when Trump was in grammar school.

Laugh on Jasper, remember Mueller isn't finished yet and, he has a whole bunch more evidence to go through before he's done.

At some point you are going to have to let go of this fiction. She lost, get over it and move on.

Bwahahahahahahahaha, you think this is about Hillary? Jeez BF, I thought you knew me better than that. What the Senate investigation found isn't even half of what Mueller is finding, all of the arrests and, convictions have been because of the Mueller investigation, not the Senate investigation or, the House investigation, it's Mueller's investigation that everyone is waiting on, it's Mueller's investigation that no one wants ended too soon and, it's Mueller's investigation that is going to have the most detail, since it is his investigation that is actually getting to the truth of the matter. Hillary lost the electoral college "vote" but, she won the popular vote, which means Trump wasn't popular during the election and, he sure isn't popular now. Both his campaign managers and, the assistant campaign manager have been arrested, one has been convicted, the assistant campaign manager has turned states evidence, Trumps personal lawyer has turned states witness, Roger Stone is looking at the rest of his life behind bars and, things aren't looking good for Trumps buddy Pecker, the owner of AMI and, The National Enquirer seems to be going broke and, has just killed his deal with Mueller by trying to blackmail Bezos.

All roads lead to Hillary butthurtitits.

It seems to only be the Trump supporters and, Trump himself who still have Hillary on the mind, I mean he's even stolen her campaign slogan. Talk about sad.

Am so glad that you have all the information that no one else in the world has Galen.  Mueller isn't even "HINTING" about what's going on.  What I'm impressed with is that his "people" can and do keep their mouths shut - totally unlike Trump's or the Dems people who are the biggest blabber mouths in DC.

When you get some actual facts about what Mueller is thinking - well - doubt it will ever happen.

No, Trump didn't "steal" her campaign slogan.  Trump would never go around shouting and singing "I'm a Loser" (by the Beatles) for all the world to hear.

No, Trump didn't "steal" her campaign slogan.  Trump would never go around shouting and singing "I'm a Loser" (by the Beatles) for all the world to hear.

Here, try reading this, it should make it clearer.

huffingtonpost

Does "Stronger together" ring a bell?

Mueller isn't even "HINTING" about what's going on.  What I'm impressed with is that his "people" can and do keep their mouths shut - totally unlike Trump's or the Dems people who are the biggest blabber mouths in DC

Sure Mueller has been giving hints for the past two years, you just have to open your eyes and, see it.

The full list of known indictments and plea deals in Mueller’s probe
1) George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, was arrested in July 2017 and pleaded guilty in October 2017 to making false statements to the FBI. He got a 14-day sentence.
2) Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chair, was indicted on a total of 25 different counts by Mueller’s team, related mainly to his past work for Ukrainian politicians and his finances. He had two trials scheduled, and the first ended in a conviction on eight counts of financial crimes. To avert the second trial, Manafort struck a plea deal with Mueller in September 2018 (though Mueller’s team said in November that he breached that agreement by lying to them). 3) Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide and Manafort’s longtime junior business partner, was indicted on similar charges to Manafort. But in February 2018 he agreed to a plea deal with Mueller’s team, pleading guilty to just one false statements charge and one conspiracy charge.
4) Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December 2017 to making false statements to the FBI.
5-20) 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. The companies involved are the Internet Research Agency, often described as a “Russian troll farm,” and two other companies that helped finance it. The Russian nationals indicted include 12 of the agency’s employees and its alleged financier, Yevgeny Prigozhin.
21) Richard Pinedo: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments, and has agreed to cooperate with Mueller. He was sentenced to 6 months in prison and 6 months of home detention in October 2018.
22) Alex van der Zwaan: This London lawyer pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Rick Gates and another unnamed person based in Ukraine. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail and has completed his sentence.
23) Konstantin Kilimnik: This longtime business associate of Manafort and Gates, who’s currently based in Russia, was charged alongside Manafort with attempting to obstruct justice by tampering with witnesses in Manafort’s pending case last year.
24-35) 12 Russian GRU officers: These officers of Russia’s military intelligence service were charged with crimes related to the hacking and leaking of leading Democrats’ emails in 2016.
36) Michael Cohen: In August 2018, Trump’s former lawyer pleaded guilty to 8 counts — tax and bank charges, related to his finances and taxi business, and campaign finance violations — related to hush money payments to women who alleged affairs with Donald Trump, as part of a separate investigation in New York (that Mueller had handed off). But in November, he made a plea deal with Mueller too, for lying to Congress about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.
37) Roger Stone: In January 2019, Mueller indicted longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone on 7 counts. He accused Stone of lying to the House Intelligence Committee about his efforts to get in touch with WikiLeaks during the campaign, and tampering with a witness who could have debunked his story.
Finally, there is one other person Mueller initially investigated, but handed over to others in the Justice Department to charge: Sam Patten. This Republican operative and lobbyist pleaded guilty to not registering as a foreign agent with his work for Ukrainian political bigwigs, and agreed to cooperate with the government.
That’s the full list, but we’ll delve into the charges in a bit more detail below.

vox

And your source for this bit of information? He's pretty much leaving the wrap up to underlings.

If Mueller was almost done why would he ask for an extension of the grand jury for another 6 months?

cbsnews

He just indicted Roger Stone.

cnn

Mueller is still questioning Rick Gates, Michael Cohen and, now he has David Pecker by his AMI.

He might need longer than the 6 months extension he was granted.

I can't understand why Trump supporters refuse to ask themselves why so many people in the Trump campaign have lied about their involvement with Russia.

I can't understand why Trump supporters refuse to ask themselves why so many people in the Trump campaign have lied about their involvement with Russia.

The same thing happened during Watergate, what was being said during that time, especially by people like my father was, "They all do it, so what." No, they all don't do it.

WOW - and not a one incriminating Trump - just his advisors/workers.

Great job Galen - great job.

Could be that all of them found out the Russians would actually pay to conduct business with them?  I mean, after all, they were all mostly millionaires before the campaign from their business dealings/under dealings with a very broad specter of commercialism.

I can't understand why Trump supporters refuse to ask themselves why so many people in the Trump campaign have lied about their involvement with Russia.

Because they have been entrapped, they tried to do it to Corsi also and he publicly revealed their tactics, why do you think Corsi has fallen off the radar? Oh why was Corsi called into the probe?

He in investigative journalist, written over 20 books being critical of Obama and Hillary, 8 of them NYT best sellers. they want his sources and he refused to give them up.

the Muellar investigation is nothing but a hit piece designed to effectuate an overthrow of a sitting president. They are using the same tactics that Hillary advocated while she was a part of the Nixon investigating team. Entrap people and get them to lie to get at Nixon...

It was the same reason judge Sirica was forced to fire her.... (she was lucky to keep her law license)

Trash enough people with threats and eventually you will find someone that will give you what you want.

why would he ask for an extension of the grand jury for another 6 months?

1.  Job Security

2.  He hasn't found anything yet (remember he was to find collusion with Russia)

3.  It pushes the investigation into the next presidential election cycle.

4.  When he finally releases his findings during the election cycle, even if the finding is no collusion, he can travel the networks doing interviews about his investigation for mega bucks and campaign for anyone but Trump.

Because they have been entrapped, they tried to do it to Corsi also and he publicly revealed their tactics, why do you think Corsi has fallen off the radar? Oh why was Corsi called into the probe?

He in investigative journalist, written over 20 books being critical of Obama and Hillary, 8 of them NYT best sellers. they want his sources and he refused to give them up.

the Muellar investigation is nothing but a hit piece designed to effectuate an overthrow of a sitting president.

Well for an investigation that 'is nothing but a hit piece' they got it right about Stone and Corsi.

Corsi was all over the media confirming the content connected to him [Person 1] in the Stone indictment just 2 weeks ago. Corsi stated that he expected to be subpoenaed and would let the chips fall where they may. 

BTW, I already proved that Flynn wasn't 'entrapped'. 

Fail. 

It was the same reason judge Sirica was forced to fire her.... (she was lucky to keep her law license)

Utter bullshit and debunked long ago...

Hillary Clinton didn't even work for Judge Sirica. Sheesh!

Because they have been entrapped

They weren't entrapped.  No government agents induced them to have these Russian contacts, or to lie about them.  And clearly these crimes weren't things they would have been unlikely or unwilling to commit.  Hell, Manafort kept lying even AFTER his deal.

WOW - and not a one incriminating Trump - just his advisors/workers.

I wonder how many of those demanding direct evidence of Trumps involvement had no problem believing Hillary or the Clintons were somehow behind a dozen or more supposed assassinations because people loosely in their orbit over forty years have died. The Clintons didn't even have the half dozen of direct subordinates or people running their campaigns indicted, arrested, convicted or pleading guilty yet conservatives jumped at the thought of Hillary murdering Seth Rich and likely many still believe it regardless of any evidence to the contrary. They believe they know the character of Hillary and thus believe her capable of any criminal act.

Well the same is true for most of us on the left, we recognize the character of Donald Trump and know he is capable of any criminal act, he has no morals, no ethics, and he DID surround himself with criminals as is now proving true with dozens of indictments, guilty pleas and convictions of his top advisors and campaign staff. If John Podesta had been indicted, arrested and convicted for lying to investigators, how many of you conservatives would be saying "Well that has nothing to do with Hillary, that's on him, they didn't prove she knew anything that John was up to during the campaign..."?

Can you really believe you'd come to that conclusion? And if it wasn't just John Podesta but half a dozen of her campaign staff and advisors arrested and convicted along with dozens of enemy foreign government operatives that her campaign staff had dozens of contacts with during the campaign, don't you think the conservatives might be furiously and justifiably chanting "Lock her up!"? I mean they chanted "Lock her up!" without a single one of her campaign staff or anyone in her immediate orbit or herself ever being indicted with any crime and that was after dozens of partisan Republican investigations into everything Republicans could think of to throw at her.

So, with their constant hypocritical defense of Trump his sycophant followers prove where their loyalty lay, and it's not with the constitution, it's not with the ideals of our founders, it's not with justice, but it resides with the most narcissistic liar the white house has ever known which is no small feat having housed such liars as Richard Nixon. Even knowing everything I know about Nixon and having lived through his resignation and humiliation, and listening to all the Nixon tapes, I'd still vote for Nixon over Trump (were that the only options) because as dishonest as Nixon was, I believe he ultimately did have Americas interests at heart, he even founded the EPA. This is something I do not believe of Donald Trump, he believes everyone should bow down to him, to be loyal to him, not to the American ideals envisioned by our founders. Trumps dream for America was inadvertently expressed after one of his visits to North Korea,

“(Kim Jong Un) is the head of a country, and I mean, he’s the strong head, don’t let anyone think anything different, He speaks and his people sit up at attention. I want my people to do the same.”

That's Trumps dream for America and anyone supporting him is agreeing to being a sycophant slave like the North Korean people who are forced to bow to their leader or he'll execute them or their families, something Trump obviously admires. Kim Jong Un would have no power if he weren't enabled by many people around him, the generals and local leaders who support his reign because of the power he gives them over their fellow citizens, and Trump would have no power without his enablers and a base of voters who have admitted they would continue to support him if he shot someone in the street, which is what leaders like Kim Jong Un have literally done but doesn't lose support from his enablers either.

Thankfully we have a strong constitution that will prevent Trump and his sycophants from completely destroying our nation. He will be held in check and his followers will gnash their teeth as their leader will blame everyone but himself when he gets kicked out of office in the largest landslide vote in American history, and a partisan Republican Senate investigation being derailed by his Trump loyalists won't be able to stop it.

Because they have been entrapped

If a husband cheats on his wife and she finds out because of a missent text that was meant for his mistress so his wife confronts him later that night and asks "Are you cheating on me?", and not knowing about the mis-text the Husband proclaims his innocence, "No! Of course not honey, I'd never do that to you, I promise!", was the husband "entrapped"?

I'm just trying to figure out what your definition of "entrapment" is. It wasn't that investigators went out and hired Russians to make those advances to Trump and his campaign, they weren't dangling a Trump Hotel deal in Russia trying to get him to surreptitiously pursue financial ties with Russian billionaires who, by definition now in Russia are Putin's underlings and operatives. The Russian government is no more than a massive mob operation with Putin as the king pin, they are a democracy in name only with sham election after sham election and government control of the media. No American investigators have any ability to control what these Russian mafia were offering Trump and his campaign in return for removal of sanctions, removal of the Magnitsky act and a better financial relationship for the Russian mafia dons. So how anyone could conclude "entrapment" is beyond me, unless of course they were being intentionally obtuse so as to keep defending the indefensible.

Entrapment: noun - the action of tricking someone into committing a crime in order to secure their prosecution

Trump and his campaign staff weren't "tricked" into committing any crime, they knowingly committed the crime of lying to investigators in an attempt to cover up what they likely knew would be a crime if found out. Otherwise, why lie?

WOW - and not a one incriminating Trump - just his advisors/workers.

Man 1st, I thought you were better than this, you forgot the key word in your post,

"WOW-and, not a one incriminating Trump YET - just his advisors/workers."

Now, ask yourself a question, Trump has always been a "hands on businessman" so, why would he let people in his campaign do things that he didn't authorize or, know about?

Because they have been entrapped, they tried to do it to Corsi also and he publicly revealed their tactics, why do you think Corsi has fallen off the radar? Oh why was Corsi called into the probe?

Corsi hasn't been off the radar, he's been on MSNBC several times.

msnbc

1.  Job Security

no

2.  He hasn't found anything yet (remember he was to find collusion with Russia)

no

3.  It pushes the investigation into the next presidential election cycle.

no

4.  When he finally releases his findings during the election cycle, even if the finding is no collusion, he can travel the networks doing interviews about his investigation for mega bucks and campaign for anyone but Trump.

He has never done this why would he start now? Besides, in case you haven't kept up on who Mueller is, he is a registered Republican, not a Democrat but, you are right about one thing, I don't think he will be singing Trumps praises after this is over.

As far as Mueller going after him? he has....

The entrapment lie failed.... Corsi was smarter....

Is Corsi going to cover for any one? Hell no that is not what an investigative reporter does, the chips WILL fall where they may....

But Corsi will probably turn out to be the most honest of them all....

And write the biggest book of his writing career when it is all said and done.....

They were speculating that Corsi was the connection between T-rump and the Wikileaks release. that's why they wanted him, they tried to coerce him with the whole lies to the committee thing but he got them to agree to allow him to revise his statements after consulting his records. Which he did so they cannot get him for lying. Besides lying, and keeping it secret would also violate the law. pleading guilty would be a lie and he has a stock traders license, in which he is bound by law to report any convictions of guilty pleas.... there goes secrecy out the window. Cause he would have to turn in his license, a powerful incentive NOT to lie.....

Corsi covered his ass very well mind you so he is no longer a person they are going after, but he is a person they can use to make others nervous....

Which it seems they are doing to great effect. 

BUT.....

They still haven't connect T-rump to anything..... They still haven't proven collusion, and I'll take the lawyers judgement over your political sides judgment every single time. Especially on a board such as this with people who refuse to prove their claims.... Probably cause they can't all they can do is rehash that which has already judged as non collusion in relation to T-rump.......

So right now they are hammering everyone with minor crap in their background/closet, nothing coming even close to proving what the special prosecutor was commissioned for.....

And, to unseat a sitting president, they NEED a smoking gun, Not a smocking gun, a REAL smoking gun.....

And, to unseat a sitting president, they NEED a smoking gun, Not a smocking gun, a REAL smoking gun.....

I'm not discounting anything that you said but, don't you think that since Mueller has asked for and, gotten an extension of the Grand Jury that there just might be more to come even after Stones arrest? Mueller in spite of what a lot of you think isn't a political person, he is a cop and, all he wants is the evidence, wherever it goes he will go with it and, whatever it brings to light he will show it, when it is time, just as he has been doing since being assigned to this by Trump appointees.

I'm sure they are going to stretch it out as long as they can. This is one point that so far, hasn't been considered in everyones railing against Mueller...... Mueller is a republican, a staunch republican.

The easiest way to make this work for the republicans is to cream as many as he can, put the fear of god into them for as long as he can. Why might one ask? cause if doing this does not come up with anything connecting T-rump to to any illegal activities, there is no way the democrats can say there is a cover-up or failure to investigate. If he does connect something, ANYTHING to T-rump he will be considered a hero, if he can't after turning the whole administration inside out and upside down, he will also be a hero, to the republicans by making the Democrats claiming collusion look like whiney bratty fools that can't accept that they lost....

All T-rump has to do is remain clear of any actual wrongdoing.  It's a double edged sword.....

And right now, Liberals have hung all their hopes on him actually connecting T-rump with anything, and refuse to see the possibility that he might not be able to...

Cause if he doesn't, they (the hard core democrats) lose in the eyes of the people massively.... A huge embarrassment to the party of no.

Mueller might be doing this as intensely as he is to save T-rump......

If he does connect something, ANYTHING to T-rump he will be considered a hero, if he can't after turning the whole administration inside out and upside down, he will also be a hero, to the republicans by making the Democrats claiming collusion look like whiney bratty fools that can't accept that they lost....

Why is it that ya'all forget that it was you who for eight years couldn't accept that you lost twice to Barack Obama and, that he was and, is still more popular than Donald Trump?

All T-rump has to do is remain clear of any actual wrongdoing.  It's a double edged sword.....

Not really, there are many things that haven't come out yet concerning the campaign and, who exactly was giving the orders to talk to the Russians, the Turks and, the Ukrainians.

And right now, Liberals have hung all their hopes on him actually connecting T-rump with anything, and refuse to see the possibility that he might not be able to...

Yep, he might not be able to but, if I was a betting person I would say that isn't going to happen. They thought the same thing during Watergate but, Nixon was found to be just as dirty as his men were and, he had to resign.

Cause if he doesn't, they (the hard core democrats) lose in the eyes of the people massively.... A huge embarrassment to the party of no.

I don't think so, there are other things that concern our party that have nothing to do with Trump or, Mueller but, you have to ask, if Trump wasn't guilty of something why has he tried so hard for the past two years to discredit the FBI, the DOJ and, Robert Mueller? If Trump wasn't guilty of something connected to Russia why has he not been more supportive of finding out how the Russians messed with our elections?

They still haven't connect T-rump to anything.....

Other than the campaign finance violations...

Especially on a board such as this with people who refuse to prove their claims....

Like this claim NWM:

And it's pretty much common knowledge that the main focus of Muellar over the last year or so has been to connect T-rump to Assange/Guccifer in any way possible.... even to the point of getting people to perjure themselves to do it....

Still waiting after 2 days for you to prove that claim...

Why is it that ya'all forget that it was you who for eight years couldn't accept that you lost twice to Barack Obama and, that he was and, is still more popular than Donald Trump?

You been around here for 8 years? No, how can you claim that I couldn't accept Obama as president? when the fact is (if you ask anyone that was around back then) I predicted Obama's wins in both elections before the conventions.... the first one was easy, the second one I predicted that if Mittsey was the republican candidate that Obama would get a second term.... well before the election, before the conventions in fact. 

If Ron Paul had been the candidate? Obama would not have had a second term....

Get back to me when you know what your talking about in reference to what I have said/done.

Still waiting after 2 days for you to prove that claim

And I'm not going to do your research for you.....

I posted it once, and then took it down.... It's available if you want it. (but we all know you really don't, it just your way of disposing of something without actually having to prove it wrong)

[Deleted]

Fuck that shit.... You claim it's wrong you prove it's wrong.... You make the argument that Tig's Burden of Proof article establishes the right of your argument, actually, it establishes the WRONG of your tactic.....

But don't let that stop ya.... [Deleted]

If Ron Paul had been the candidate? Obama would not have had a second term....

Ron Paul announced his candidacy for POTUS on May 13, 2011. 

And I'm not going to do your research for you.....
I posted it once, and then took it down.... It's available if you want it. (but we all know you really don't, it just your way of disposing of something without actually having to prove it wrong)

Yet you decry 'people who refuse to prove their claims'.

Hypocrisy.

I'll stop there NWM because as you know, the RA has already warned about talking to each other rather than about the topic. 

Support your claim about the topic. 

Ron Paul announced his candidacy for POTUS on May 13, 2011. 

[Deleted]

You aware I was an alternate Paul elector to the convention? I was there when Boehner was reading the results of the vote to change the convention rules from the teleprompter? Mittsey HAD to win on the first vote cause if he didn't Paul would have had the vote led for the candidacy.... So they changed the fucking rules....

[Deleted]

Maybe you aught to take Perrie's advice yourself and stop typing to me...

Maybe you aught to take Perrie's advice yourself and stop typing to me...

My comment wasn't about YOU, it was about Ron Paul. 

No, how can you claim that I couldn't accept Obama as president? when the fact is (if you ask anyone that was around back then) I predicted Obama's wins in both elections before the conventions.... the first one was easy, the second one I predicted that if Mittsey was the republican candidate that Obama would get a second term.... well before the election, before the conventions in fact.  If Ron Paul had been the candidate? Obama would not have had a second term....

It would seem to me that you have been and, maybe I'm wrong here but, you have been shining praises on Trump for the past two years, that puts you in the minority called Trump supporters, I believe that the total number of real Trump supporters is somewhere around 30%, I would put you in the ones who show up when he accidentally does something right and, his polls shoot up to 40%.

Now, as far as the other thing, disrespecting Obama, if you re-read what I wrote it was just this, "Why is it that ya'all forget that it was you who for eight years couldn't accept that you lost twice to Barack Obama and, that he was and, is still more popular than Donald Trump?" I know it's kind of generalizing but, it would take to long to write separating everyone who does this or, that so, I put ya'all together, I've been lumped with Liberals and, Progressive and, while I'm liberal in some areas, I'm not in others and, in some things I'm progressive but, in others I'm not so, deal with it like I do.

The president could be a purple people eater from pluto for all I care, as long as he was duly elected by the people of the United States he is the president. He deserves some respect.

When he is right in my opinion he is right, when he is wrong he is wrong....

T-rump is an ass, but sometimes he is right, Obama was also an ass, and he was right sometimes also. 

They were/are both wrong quite a bit.... Unfortunately.

I always thought it was best to look at what they do, not what they say....

And yeah, my political position considered, Obama was more wrong that T-rump is...... 

And yeah I deal with it, everyday. Doesn't make me a Trumpster......

Although that being said, I AM a very proud "Deplorable"

Deplorable being defined as anyone who refused to go along with dear Hillary, the biggest crook in history....

You want a surprise? I would have voted for Bernie is he was the nominee...... (and I said so several times)

He deserves some respect.

Respect is earned not given, Trump hasn't earned any respect.

"No contract signed in blood...…………………" 

Follow the money. 

The Trump has been 'broke arse' for almost two decades.  When the Trump blew through the 'old man's money'...………...the collaboration began.

If he had just wisely invested the money daddy gave him to finance his whole miserable life, he wouldn't have had to run for 'president' and pay back Putin.  

No further more involved.

Perhaps the Senate isn't looking?

The US special counsel,Robert Mueller, disclosed for the first time on Friday that his office has evidence of communications between Roger Stone and WikiLeaks related to the release of hacked Democratic party emails.

The above is from the Guardian, but it's been reported in several news articles since yesterday afternoon.