Yep, desperation
It Begins: Journalists start admitting Trump-Russia conspiracy was a fabricated lie
- Thread starter artichoke
- Start date
It doesn't appear "bogus" to anyone with a brain and a sense of ethics.
To someone with a brain and an ethical backbone...it appears as still up the air.
We will find out at some point...but we haven't gotten there yet.
You can prove a negative.
Well...maybe YOU cannot, but that has to do with your intellectual deficiencies.
But if someone wants to prove a negative and has some intelligence...they can, providing the negative is not too universal.
Superfreak
Verified User
While I agree the FBI likely lied to get the FISA warrant, your point above is forgetting that spies have been turned before. The possibility that Russia found out about Page and then flipped him is always a possibility. The possibility that he was working with the Russians prior to the FBI is also a possibility. So just because he worked with the FBI, does not mean he wasn't also working with the Russians, before, after or during 2013-2016.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
If Page is guilty of something, charge him.
If someone lied to the FISA court, charge them.
Superfreak
Verified User
Mueller will eventually show what he has as evidence. But I agree, if there is evidence of guilt somewhere, charge whomever it is.
I wouldn't say bogus, yet to be proven, yes, but the mere oddity of having so many people important to the Trump campaign also having suspicious relationships with top level Russians does merit continuing examination.
Mueller isn't out to prove "collusion," it is not even a crime, but rather if there exists any evidence of coordination between the campaign and Russians, and unless one is gullible enough to actually think that meeting in Trump Tower was about adoptions, he has already raised enough questions to merit his continuation
within 6 months after he worked with the FBI? Why would Putin recruit someone like that?
It's would be perfect setting himself up for Page to become a double agent.
More important why would the FBI take incidental contact with Russians and make that into a "foreign agent"
Especially when Page was just working for the FBI?
Superfreak
Verified User
Again, he could have already been working with the Russians prior, he could have been flipped during, he could have been recruited after. All are possibilities. I do not think they are likely, but dismissing them is not appropriate.
Superfreak
Verified User
Suspicious relationships? what is suspicious about them? Please enlighten.
lol.. so he was working with the Russian and at the same time being a UC for the FBI? do you have ANY indication of that? Recall Page has been going to Moscow for years on legit business.
I just addressed your point of being recruited afterwards.
There is absolutely no reference of this in the FISA either. In terms of the FISA, yes your plot needs to be dismissed
Superfreak
Verified User
No, I do not. I am stating that we do not know. I am stating it is not likely. I am stating that however unlikely, it is not valid to dismiss the unlikely.
then you might as well FISA every American who has incidental contact with Russians as "could be" spies.
Certainly the FBI can do normal surveillance of anyone that travels to Russia. But the FISA is what we are talking about
The fact the Trump campaign and the Putin regime colluded is not seriously in question. We know for certain that it happened. It has been admitted that top officials in the Trump campaign (the candidate's son, son-in-law, and campaign chair) conspired to meet in secret with people they understood to be Russian agents, for the express purpose of receiving assistance from the Putin regime during the campaign. That's collusion. There's simply no question about it, at this point, as much as Trump apologists like Woodward would like to redefine the word to mean something else. As for the question of how much of the Steele Dossier is correct and how much isn't, that's obviously a totally different question.
Kamala Trump
Verified User
yes it is seriously in question, you retarded trick.
How so? You're aware of the infamous Trump Tower meeting, right? You know that it was attended by three of the top people in Trump's campaign, right? You're aware that we have documentary evidence proving that at the time they agreed to the meeting, they knew they'd be meeting with people acting as Russian agents, expressly for the purpose of receiving information as part of the Russian government's efforts on behalf of the Trump campaign, right? If that doesn't meet the definition of collusion, what definition are you using, exactly?
Veselnitskaya was described as a "Russian government attorney". That is not a GRU actor/agent.
And taking a meeting is not a collusion ( use the term conspiracy). since that was the end of it.
Opposition research is not an in kind campaign violation either
Kamala Trump
Verified User
mueller has nothing.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
I’ll go a step farther and say if Mullet doesn’t come up with collusion ‘the investigation’ should be subject to another SP—regardless of what they find on Trump.
Yes. An agent is, by definition "a person who acts on behalf of another person or group." Veselnitskaya was known to be acting on behalf of the Russian government, and thus was known to be a Russian agent, at the time.
Collusion is "a secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others." In this case, it was definitely secret, it was definitely cooperation, and it was directed at receiving valuable information for a political campaign from a foreign government (it's illegal under US campaign finance law to receive anything of value for a campaign from a foreigner). Using standard definitions, it was definitely collusion. But, if you have some other definition of collusion you're working with, I'd be interested to know what it is, specifically.
Opposition research can, of course, be a campaign violation, when it's a thing of value provided by a foreign government to assist a campaign.
Think of it this way: Would it be illegal if the Clinton campaign had purchased hundreds of reams of paper from a Venezuelan-government-run business, at market prices, to print campaign literature on? No, it wouldn't, since in that case it was just an ordinary market transaction, and the national source of the commodity makes no difference. But what if the Venezuelan government had given the Clinton campaign hundreds of thousands of dollars of paper free of charge, in order to help her win the campaign? Well, now it's a campaign finance violation, since that's functionally no different than if they'd just handed her the money and she later bought the paper from elsewhere.
In the same sense, if the Trump team paid someone to do opposition research, at free market prices, that wouldn't be a campaign finance violation, regardless of the nationality of the worker. But if the Russian government DONATED that valuable opposition research to the Trump campaign, in order to help him win his campaign, that's a campaign violation. That's what the Trump campaign was conspiring to do: to meet secretly with agents of the Putin regime in order to solicit valuable donations of opposition information to the campaign, as part of Russia's efforts to get Trump elected. That was a campaign violation. And it was collusion.