Senate has uncovered no direct evidence of conspiracy between Trump campaign and Russia
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
WASHINGTON — 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.
But investigators disagree along party lines when it comes to the implications of a pattern of contacts they have documented between Trump associates and Russians — contacts that occurred before, during and after Russian intelligence operatives were seeking to help Donald Trump by leaking hacked Democratic emails and attacking his opponent, Hillary Clinton, on social media.
"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.
Burr was careful to note that more facts may yet be uncovered, but he also made clear that the investigation was nearing an end.
"We know we're getting to the bottom of the barrel because there're not new questions that we're searching for answers to," Burr said.
Democratic Senate investigators who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity did not dispute Burr's characterizations, but said they lacked context.
"We were never going to find a contract signed in blood saying, 'Hey Vlad, we're going to collude,'" one Democratic aide said.
The series of contacts between Trump's associates, his campaign officials, his children and various Russians suggest a campaign willing to accept help from a foreign adversary, the Democrats say.
By many counts, Trump and his associates had more than 100 contacts with Russians before the January 2017 presidential inauguration.
"Donald Trump Jr. made clear in his messages that he was willing to accept help from the Russians," one Democratic Senate investigator said. "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.
Democrats and other Trump opponents have long believed that special counsel Robert Mueller and Congressional investigators would unearth new and more explosive evidence of Trump campaign coordination with Russians. Mueller may yet do so, although Justice Department and Congressional sources say they believe that he, too, is close to wrapping up his investigation.
House Republicans announced last year they had found no evidence of collusion, but their report came under immediate criticism as a highly partisan product that excluded Democrats. Now in power, House Democrats recently announced an expanded probe that will go beyond the 2016 election to examine whether any foreign government has undue financial influence on Trump or his family. And New York federal prosecutors are pursuing their own criminal inquiry related to hush-money payments to women. The investigations into Donald Trump, therefore, are far from over.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has been conducting the sole bipartisan inquiry, led by Burr and ranking Democrat Mark Warner of Virginia. The committee has sifted through some 300,000 documents, investigators tell NBC News, including classified intelligence shedding light on how the Russians communicated about their covert operation to interfere in the 2016 election.
U.S. intelligence agencies assess that the operation began as an effort to sow chaos and morphed into a plan to help Trump win. It included the hacking and leaking of embarrassing Democratic emails and the use of bots, trolls and fake accounts on social media to boost Trump, criticize Democrat Hillary Clinton and exacerbate political differences.
Predictably, Burr's comments led Trump to tweet that he had been fully vindicated, which is not the case.
"Senator Richard Burr, The Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, just announced that after almost two years, more than two hundred interviews, and thousands of documents, they have found NO COLLUSION BETWEEN TRUMP AND RUSSIA!" Trump tweeted Sunday. "Is anybody really surprised by this?"
Democratic Senate investigators say it may take them six or seven months to write their final report once they are done with witness interviews. They say they have uncovered facts yet to be made public, and that they hope to make Americans more fully aware of the extent to which the Russians manipulated the U.S. presidential election with the help of some Trump officials, witting or unwitting.
The report, Democrats say, will not be good for Trump.
But they also made clear they haven't found proof of their worst fear: That the president formed a corrupt pact with Russia to offer sanctions relief or other favorable treatment in return for Russian help in the election.
After it recently emerged in court documents that Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort shared campaign polling data with a man the FBI says is linked to Russian intelligence, Warner called that the most persuasive evidence yet of coordination.
"This appears as the closest we've seen yet to real, live, actual collusion," he said on CNN.
No evidence has emerged, however, linking the transfer of polling data to Trump. Also unclear in court documents is Manafort's motive for sharing the information. Facing more than a decade in prison for bank and tax fraud, he has not been accused by Mueller of any crimes related to the 2016 election.
Burr, in the CBS interview, said the motivations behind the Trump campaign's interactions with Russians were in some cases impossible to discern.
"There's an awful lot of connections of all these people," he said. "They may not be connections that are tied to 2016 elections in the United States, but just the sheer fact that they have a relationship — it may be business. It may be Russian intelligence. It may be they're all on the payroll of Oleg Deripaska," he added, referring to a Russian oligarch tied to Putin who had business dealings with Manafort.
The final Senate report may not reach a conclusion on whether the contacts added up to collusion or coordination with Russia, Burr said.
Democrats told NBC News that's a distinct possibility.
"What I'm telling you is that I'm going to present, as best we can, the facts to you and to the American people," Burr told CBS. "And you'll have to draw your own conclusion as to whether you think that, by whatever definition, that's collusion."
Article is LOCKED by moderator [smarty_function_ntUser_get_name: user_id or profile_id parameter required]
Who is online
57 visitors
"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."
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.
Indeed. On BOTH sides, not just one.
Damn it Charlie, JR has repeatedly said Trump's approval rating would never get above 48%. You're going to cause him to have another nervous breakdown.
Concur - don't ever remember a Congress that has been so dysfunctional and prone to lying 'bout anything and everything.
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
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.
[Removed]
Yes we know that y'all gave Trump a pass.
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?
Rasmussen is an outlier and always has been. Reuters has Trump at 38% approval.
Oh please let's DO give the facts. That 52% was for 2/11/2019, ONE DAY.
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.
SO glad you asked (knowing in advance you're going to reject what you asked for):
You beat me to it, thanks.
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.
Former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn has expressed concern about the potential legal exposure of his son, Michael Flynn Jr., who, like his father, is under scrutiny by special counsel Robert Mueller, multiple sources familiar with the matter tell CNN.
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....
Didn't they Luv's him and Wikileaks during the George W. Bush Years ?
Link?
Are you saying that the GOP like and respect Assange?
Or they can just play the tape...
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.
That was my first thought.
Yup!
What 'subcommittee' are you talking about 1st?
Total BS NWM. HERE is the exchange about the alleged 'entrapment':
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?
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...
Your claim that you already posted the evidence is one of convenience and evasion IMHO.
So you're saying it's unsubstantiated and unconvincing. Got ya.
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.
Actually, NO.
'It' WHAT NWM. Your assertion was nebulous.
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.
EXACTLY!
the same demands they make they can't operate under...
Utter BS 1st.
Read this:
Here is my synopsis:
Oh and BTFW, you should note that I wasn't 'questioning that assertion'. I asked for a link that gives PROOF of the assertion.
What points are those 1st?
Nor have I asked you for any. I asked for a link that supports an assertion of FACT, not opinion.
That is irrelevant to THIS discussion in THIS forum.
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.
That is irrelevant to THIS discussion in THIS forum."
Why is it irrelevant?
Because if you make an assertion HERE you have the burden of proof HERE.
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.
You are mistaken. None of the dossier has been proved false, much has been verified and the rest simply remains unproven, not disproved.
You using Clapper as a source. Really?
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 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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well the fine was directly involved with Indian country. And currently he isn't staying out of Indian territory. So there ya go...
They didn't break a law so what would they be fined for. In Trumps case he did break a law...Pretty simple really.
Never even a mention of his name, poor attempt at deflection.
Too late 1st. Ask the Tohono O’odham.
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."
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Here, try reading this, it should make it clearer.
Does "Stronger together" ring a bell?
Sure Mueller has been giving hints for the past two years, you just have to open your eyes and, see it.
If Mueller was almost done why would he ask for an extension of the grand jury for another 6 months?
He just indicted Roger Stone.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Utter bullshit and debunked long ago...
Hillary Clinton didn't even work for Judge Sirica. Sheesh!
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.
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.
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?
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?
Corsi hasn't been off the radar, he's been on MSNBC several times.
no
no
no
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.....
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......
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?
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.
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.
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?
Mueller might be doing this as intensely as he is to save T-rump......
Other than the campaign finance violations...
Like this claim NWM:
Still waiting after 2 days for you to prove that claim...
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.
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]
Ron Paul announced his candidacy for POTUS on May 13, 2011.
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.
[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...
My comment wasn't about YOU, it was about Ron Paul.
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)
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 above is from the Guardian, but it's been reported in several news articles since yesterday afternoon.