U.S. charges Russians with 2016 U.S. election tampering to boost Trump

[Srikcir]

10 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

He refuses to release his tax returns because they will show records of the Russian business transactions

You make some good connections but probably not in #2. You imply honesty in allegedly straight forward financial transactions. That's rarely the case in money laundering schemes and more so with Trump's propensity for misdirection, dishonesty and greed.

The more likely scenario is that his federal tax returns reflected (fake?) loans from Deutsche Bank (subpoenaed by Mueller and previously fined for money laundering), Russian oligarchy-owned defunct Cyprus FBME Bank (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/24/fbi-investigates-russian-linked-cyprus-bank-accused-of-money-laundering) and possibly other foreign-owned banks/foreign "investors" serving as quasi capital fund conduits for Trump's personal use ( https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/17/world/middleeast/trumps-business-ties-in-persian-gulf-raise-questions-about-his-allegiances.html , https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/us/politics/trumps-business-ties-to-middle-east-precede-him.html , http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-azerbaijan-hotel-linked-with-corruption-iran-2017-3 ). 

It's also more likely that public scrutiny (aka MSM) of Trump's tax returns will reveal possible sham of reported business transactions, perhaps even to the lowest level of impropriety (ie., deduction as a business expense of shell companies to facilitate hush money payments to Clifford, etc.). 

But IRS has shared "information" with special counsel Robert Mueller.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/26/politics/special-counsel-irs-russia-probe-information-sharing/index.html

Mueller has the key to Door #2.

 

[Berkshire]

19 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

You make some good connections but probably not in #2. You imply honesty in allegedly straight forward financial transactions. That's rarely the case in money laundering schemes and more so with Trump's propensity for misdirection, dishonesty and greed.

The more likely scenario is that his federal tax returns reflected (fake?) loans from Deutsche Bank (subpoenaed by Mueller and previously fined for money laundering), Russian oligarchy-owned defunct Cyprus FBME Bank (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/24/fbi-investigates-russian-linked-cyprus-bank-accused-of-money-laundering) and possibly other foreign-owned banks/foreign "investors" serving as quasi capital fund conduits for Trump's personal use ( https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/17/world/middleeast/trumps-business-ties-in-persian-gulf-raise-questions-about-his-allegiances.html , https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/us/politics/trumps-business-ties-to-middle-east-precede-him.html , http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-azerbaijan-hotel-linked-with-corruption-iran-2017-3 ). 

It's also more likely that public scrutiny (aka MSM) of Trump's tax returns will reveal possible sham of reported business transactions, perhaps even to the lowest level of impropriety (ie., deduction as a business expense of shell companies to facilitate hush money payments to Clifford, etc.). 

But IRS has shared "information" with special counsel Robert Mueller.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/26/politics/special-counsel-irs-russia-probe-information-sharing/index.html

Mueller has the key to Door #2.

 

I think it likely that Trump believes he has hidden his tracks with respect to the money laundering and Russian connection.  At least in a legal sense.  His financial handlers and lawyers have probably told him that much.  But with Mueller and his money laundering experts going through all this, Trump will get nailed.  They will see through all the BS.  In a legal sense, there's probably enough technicalities and legal loopholes that Trump the "citizen" may be able to weasel out of it with just a fine.  But Trump the POTUS?  Even the Republican Congress will have a hard time covering-up for Trump on this one.

[bendejo]

Just stumbled across this goody regarding George Soros.

 

https://www.snopes.com/was-snopes-busted-ties-to-soros/

 

 

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

"The two Senators may not lie, but they will be highly selective in the information they release, and will present opinions as fact."

 

Senators Grassley and Graham were very specific in their memo about what was in the FBI's FISA court applications, as per the quotes I posted. Either they are lying, or they are presenting fact. Their memo about what was in the court applications isn't partial information, nor does it leave anything of substance out if they are being truthful, as can be seen by the way that it's worded.

 

 "Steele's dossier, a collection of memos covering a period of months, matched with information the FBI had obtained from other sources."

 

According to anonymous (mostly anonymous Democrat) sources in unverified media articles you have linked.

 

"As I've pointed out repeatedly, some of his information has been confirmed, some remains unconfirmed, none has been discredited."

 

None of it has been confirmed, except by anonymous sources in media articles. Senators Grassley and Graham have confirmed that the only 'verification' provided to the first FISA court application was the Yahoo News article planted by Steele himself.

 

"Unless you can prove he has lied, you have committed libel."

 

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/4/fbi-authorized-christopher-steele-payments-dossier/

 

"The FBI officially authorized payments to Christopher Steele, who wrote the infamous Trump-Russia dossier, but then fired the former British spy for lying to agents about his covert leaks to the news media."

 

"Can you provide a source for your claim that "Steele himself admitted in a British court that some of his information was false."?"

 

Here's one of any number:

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/25/christopher-steele-admits-dossier-charge-unverifie/

 

"Yes, the type of warrant obtained on Carter Page, the FISA warrant, is used for investigating security issues.  What is your point?"

 

My point is that the FBI didn't apply for a simple warrant to spy on Carter Page, they applied for a special warrant which allowed them to spy on anyone with current and previous connections to him, including the Trump election campaign.

 

"Page was of interest to the FBI because he met with known Russian intelligence officers.  Surveillance indicates that the Russians regarded him largely as a potentially useful idiot, but idiots can be of tremendous use to the intelligence community.   https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/us/politics/carter-page-trump-russia.html"

 

And Page was brought to the FBI's attention by reporting his meeting with suspected Russian spies to the US authorities.

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

The Republicans are in the middle of fending off a politically motivated legal assault on their government.

 

Steele is a "respected" ex-British spy who hasn't been on the front line in twenty years. The FBI sacked him for lying, and he is currently embroiled in a libel case in the UK, where he has had to admit that much of his 'information' is unverified.

It's like debating a brick wall.

 

The Graham-Grassley memo is a one-sided collection of carefully selected facts designed for political cover.  No matter how many times you praise the information and the credentials of the two Republican politicians who released it, I and others will not accept its conclusions until we get the other side of the debate.

 

Your obsession with anonymous sources (gee, I wonder why spies don't want to reveal their sources) shows you will not accept the results of standard intelligence methods when you don't like those results.

 

You insist that Steele (who wasn't paid by the FBI and therefore didn't work for the FBI) is untrustworthy because he leaked his information to the press after he became alarmed with lack of action taken against a serious threat to US security.  I assume you are even more appalled by Trump deliberately releasing classified information for political purposes, or, in the case of highly classified foreign intelligence shown to Russian ambassadors, just to show off.

 

BTW, your Washington Times sources says nothing about Steele lying to a British court.  It also uses the same selective use of words favored by Trumpies; saying that because parts of the dossier are unverified, the entire dossier is unverified.  The dossier is a collection of intelligence information collected from Steele's sources inside Russia.  Parts have been verified by US intelligence sources, parts have not, none have been disproven.  How many times must I post that?

 

Regarding your claim that the Republicans are fighting off a politically motivated attack, I wonder how you would have reacted if the Democrats made the same claim about the FBI publicly investigating Clinton's emails.  Do you think that the FBI keeping the Russia investigation secret during the campaign and the Clinton investigation public was political?

 

Now, after many deflection posts that have nothing to do with this topic, do you have anything to post about the US charges against Russian trolls?

Edited February 19, 2018 by heybruce

[riclag]

10 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

"Can you provide a credible source that says that the sole verification of the Steele dossier was a Yahoo News article?  I thought not."

 

From the memo by Sen Chuck Grassley and Sen Lindsey Graham in the article I linked:

 

"The bulk of the application consists of allegations against Page that were disclosed to the FBI by Mr. Steele and are also outlined in the Steele dossier. The application appears to contain no additional information corroborating the dossier allegations against Mr. Page, although it does cite to a news article that appears to be sourced to Mr. Steele’s dossier."

 

"The National Review article argues that Steele was not a credible source, and the FISA court was not made aware of the political origins of the evidence.  Both are wrong."

 

On political origins (again from the Grassley/Graham memo):

 

"The FBI noted to a vaguely limited extent the political origins of the dossier. In footnote 8 [of the first warrant application, apparently repeated in the subsequent applications] the FBI stated that the dossier information was compiled pursuant to the direction of a law firm who had hired an “identified U.S. person” — now known as Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS."

 

On Steele's credibility, from my linked article (to clarify, not from the Grassley/Graham memo):

 

"In late October 2016, shortly after the first warrant was issued, the FBI terminated its relationship with Steele because he lied to the Bureau about his contacts with the media. But the Justice Department did not report this to the FISA court. Instead, when the first warrant expired in January 2017, the FBI and Justice Department sought its renewal by, again, relying on the credibility of the guy they’d booted for lying. In another lawyerly footnote, they told the FISA court that Steele had been terminated not because he lied but because he was guilty of “unauthorized disclosure of information to the press.”

But that was not the half of it. Steele’s agreement with the FBI was that he would not communicate with the press. He made that agreement and then communicated with the press anyway — which showed he was unreliable, notwithstanding the FBI’s continued insistence to the contrary. He hadn’t just flouted the agreement by speaking to the press, though; he had clearly lied about doing so."

 

It's worth noting that Steele left Russia twenty years ago, after being exposed as a spy.

 

It's also worth noting that The Economist, Wikipedia and The New York Times (the sources of the links in the quoted post) have not seen the transcripts of the relevant FISA court hearings. Whereas Senators Grassley and Graham, as Chair of the Judiciary Committee and Chair of one of it's sub-committees respectively, have seen transcripts of the relevant FISA court hearings.

Thanks so much for the time and effort  you put into your very informative comment .Its apparent to me that releasing the fisa transcripts would expose those who have misled facts for political purposes to enhance their narrative .Once the IG office comes out with their report it will shed more light on the hypocrisy behind this investigation  

 

[Thaidream]

Bill and Hillary Clinton are as political as one gets but  at this point no clinton is President nor running for President so I am not interested in her emails or anything else surrounding her.

 

Donald Trump is POTUS.  He has access to the closest held American secrets and he seems to not understand what must be kept top secret and not shared.   He refuses to believe American Intelligence and the FBI and gives the impression he believes anything Vladimir Putin says.

 

There is evidence that Carter Page was under investigation for improper ties to Russia and we know that General  Flynn  has had 'discussions' with the Russians We also know that Donald Trump Jr had discussion with the Russians and the Steve Bannon actually felt that such meetings were 'treasonous'.

 

American Intelligence has determine that Russia has a programs(s) to affect American elections.  There have already been arrests of Russians in the US for election tampering. I still believe most of not all of the dossier is correct as its pieces and bits of information fit the mindset of Trump- especially the Golden Shower portion.  Trump seems to actually despise Obama as evidenced by trying to wipe out his legacy.

 

Trump himself is not smart enough to have courted the Russians but Putin and his operatives are smart enough to have compromised Trump and when he ran for President Putin must have felt that he won the lottery.  Are Trump supporters so blind that they cannot see that Russia Is attempting (and may have succeeded) to penetrate the highest office-the Presidency- 

 

At the very least- Trump is being played.  At the worst he is a traitor. The Mueller investigation is starting to close in on the truth. Even if Trump wasn't complicit in the Russian penetration and he waas an ignorant dupe- he is trying to stall the investigation and obstructing justice.

 

Once this is all over and the truth is known- it is time that the US Congress and State legislatures reform the American political process and get rid of the corruption that can actually purchase political  positions and even the Presidency.  It's a sad day when people sell their soul's to the devil 

[Khun Han]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

 

It's like debating a brick wall.

 

The Graham-Grassley memo is a one-sided collection of carefully selected facts designed for political cover.  No matter how many times you praise the information and the credentials of the two Republican politicians who released it, I and others will not accept its conclusions until we get the other side of the debate.

 

Your obsession with anonymous sources (gee, I wonder why spies don't want to reveal their sources) shows you will not accept the results of standard intelligence methods when you don't like those results.

 

You insist that Steele (who wasn't paid by the FBI and therefore didn't work for the FBI) is untrustworthy because he leaked his information to the press after he became alarmed with lack of action taken against a serious threat to US security.  I assume you are even more appalled by Trump deliberately releasing classified information for political purposes, or, in the case of highly classified foreign intelligence shown to Russian ambassadors, just to show off.

 

BTW, your Washington Times sources says nothing about Steele lying to a British court.  It also uses the same selective use of words favored by Trumpies; saying that because parts of the dossier are unverified, the entire dossier is unverified.  The dossier is a collection of intelligence information collected from Steele's sources inside Russia.  Parts have been verified by US intelligence sources, parts have not, none have been disproven.  How many times must I post that?

 

Regarding your claim that the Republicans are fighting off a politically motivated attack, I wonder how you would have reacted if the Democrats made the same claim about the FBI publicly investigating Clinton's emails.  Do you think that the FBI keeping the Russia investigation secret during the campaign and the Clinton investigation public was political?

 

Now, after many deflection posts that have nothing to do with this topic, do you have anything to post about the US charges against Russian trolls?

 

"It's like debating a brick wall."

 

For me, it's more akin to debating a recorded propaganda message.

 

You keep presenting allegations and pseudo facts from anonymous sources. I keep refuting them with actual facts from named sources. Then you repeat your allegations and pseudo facts from anonymous sources again. And round and round we go.

 

The only variation is when you go off on one of your rabid anti-Trump rants.

[Khun Han]

By the way, can we all make any claims we want to now, hiding behind 'unverified' and 'necessary anonymity'?

 

You just couldn't make this stuff up. Well, Trump-haters do, all the time. And if people aren't pliant enough to just accept their nonsense, they just get shouted down. Welcome to the world of the modern liberals. Welcome to 1984.

[Khun Han]

3 hours ago, riclag said:

Thanks so much for the time and effort  you put into your very informative comment .Its apparent to me that releasing the fisa transcripts would expose those who have misled facts for political purposes to enhance their narrative .Once the IG office comes out with their report it will shed more light on the hypocrisy behind this investigation  

 

 

Yes, and it's worth noting that the source of 'evidence' for the FISA court applications has continued to lie, to the point that he is now perjuring himself in a British court. His defence of a libel case brought against him is that claims in his dossier are unverified, and so the dossier was never meant to be published. Yet Steele is the person who got it published by leaking it to the press himself!

[Becker]

51 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

By the way, can we all make any claims we want to now, hiding behind 'unverified' and 'necessary anonymity'?

 

You just couldn't make this stuff up. Well, Trump-haters do, all the time. And if people aren't pliant enough to just accept their nonsense, they just get shouted down. Welcome to the world of the modern liberals. Welcome to 1984.

Well, boo-hoo little snowflake. Most people detest the thing you placed in the WH and to any sane person it's clear he so richly deserves all the hate he gets. Come on fast food and soda diet - do your job and put the traitor 6 ft under!

[Thaidream]

I am neither Democrat or Republican; liberal or conservative- I refuse to be labelled. During my decades of voting- I have voted for both sides of the aisle and also in the middle.

 

While I would never vote for Donald Trump as I Do not like his rhetoric or his divisive nature nor do I like his 'plans' for America- I wish him no ill. I actually tried to give him a chance to succeed. Unfortunately, he is indeed a failure- more divisive than I imagined; a racist; misogynist; homophobic and much more.

 

If the Mueller investigation clears Mr Trump than so be it. However, if Mueller finds Trump has committed Obstruction of Justice; broken the emolument section of the Us Constitution; collaborated with the Russians or any crime- the Trump supporters need to understand they, as Americans, cannot continue their support of a criminal. Trump must resign or be impeached and his supporters move on to the next President.

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, Becker said:

Well, boo-hoo little snowflake. Most people detest the thing you placed in the WH and to any sane person it's clear he so richly deserves all the hate he gets. Come on fast food and soda diet - do your job and put the traitor 6 ft under!

 

I didn't put anybody in the White House. I'm British.

 

And if I'd had a vote in the last presidential election, I wouldn't have used it, the choice was that poor.

Edited February 19, 2018 by Khun Han

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

"It's like debating a brick wall."

 

For me, it's more akin to debating a recorded propaganda message.

 

You keep presenting allegations and pseudo facts from anonymous sources. I keep refuting them with actual facts from named sources. Then you repeat your allegations and pseudo facts from anonymous sources again. And round and round we go.

 

The only variation is when you go off on one of your rabid anti-Trump rants.

I reference credible news sources.  You continue to ignore the fact that the memos you place so much faith in were created by highly biased individuals pushing an agenda.

 

Could you give examples of my "rabid anti-Trump rants"?

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Khun Han said:

By the way, can we all make any claims we want to now, hiding behind 'unverified' and 'necessary anonymity'?

 

You just couldn't make this stuff up. Well, Trump-haters do, all the time. And if people aren't pliant enough to just accept their nonsense, they just get shouted down. Welcome to the world of the modern liberals. Welcome to 1984.

Outside of intelligence reports, where have people been using unverified information and anonymity?  Aside from silly Trump claims such as he had the largest inauguration crowd in history, millions of illegal votes for Clinton, Obama wiretapped him, etc.   Trump is the king of unverified nonsense.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Yes, and it's worth noting that the source of 'evidence' for the FISA court applications has continued to lie, to the point that he is now perjuring himself in a British court. His defence of a libel case brought against him is that claims in his dossier are unverified, and so the dossier was never meant to be published. Yet Steele is the person who got it published by leaking it to the press himself!

Once again, what is your source that Steele lied to a British court?

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, riclag said:

Thanks so much for the time and effort  you put into your very informative comment .Its apparent to me that releasing the fisa transcripts would expose those who have misled facts for political purposes to enhance their narrative .Once the IG office comes out with their report it will shed more light on the hypocrisy behind this investigation  

 

It is hypocritical to investigate Russian interference in the US election?

 

Are you one of the Russian trolls that have been charged?

[Srikcir]

February 19, 2018:

Jared Kushner now under scrutiny by FBI in Russian probe.

https://www.msnbc.com/for-the-record-with-greta/watch/nbc-jared-kushner-under-fbi-scrutiny-in-russia-probe-953656387844

He may be soon "asked" for an interview. No tweets from POTUS Trump yet.

 

[Khun Han]

8 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I reference credible news sources.  You continue to ignore the fact that the memos you place so much faith in were created by highly biased individuals pushing an agenda.

 

Could you give examples of my "rabid anti-Trump rants"?

 

You reference what is, at best, speculation: anonymous sources, not asceratained proof.

 

I have pointed out to you that, because of the categorical way that Senators Grassley and Graham have worded their memo (they having read the relevant FISA court documents), makiing clear that nothing has been left out, they are either stating facts or lying. Which is it?

 

Steele has been proven beyond doubt to be an untrustworthy liar. Yet you continue to claim that he is a reliable source, and to hector anybody who points out the obvious about him.

 

Your rabid anti-Trump rants? Are you avvin a laff? They're all over the forum.

[Khun Han]

17 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Once again, what is your source that Steele lied to a British court?

 

The court case. Try following it - it's in the news. And then come back and apologise for your uninformed hectoring.

[heybruce]

10 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

You reference what is, at best, speculation: anonymous sources, not asceratained proof.

 

I have pointed out to you that, because of the categorical way that Senators Grassley and Graham have worded their memo (they having read the relevant FISA court documents), makiing clear that nothing has been left out, they are either stating facts or lying. Which is it?

 

Steele has been proven beyond doubt to be an untrustworthy liar. Yet you continue to claim that he is a reliable source, and to hector anybody who points out the obvious about him.

 

Your rabid anti-Trump rants? Are you avvin a laff? They're all over the forum.

I referenced credible news sources, you referenced biased politicians with an agenda.  How do you know what was omitted from the Grassley and Graham memo; have you seen the FISA court submission?

 

How many times have I challenged you to provide evidence that Steele lied, to the British court or anyone else?  Yet you still provide no source for your claim.

 

Another claim you can't defend.  If my anti-Trump rants are all over the forum, you will have no problem finding a few.

[heybruce]

9 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

The court case. Try following it - it's in the news. And then come back and apologise for your uninformed hectoring.

Oh, the court case!  The only court case in the news since, oh, forever.  Funny how you can't provide a link to this court case.

[metisdead]

An inflammatory personal attack post has been removed.  I would suggest the discussion continues in a civil manner:

 

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

[Srikcir]

7 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Oh, the court case!  The only court case in the news since, oh, forever.  Funny how you can't provide a link to this court case.

I've not followed the threads of the Steele discussion but maybe this link helps:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/05/christopher-steele-is-no-show-in-london-court-in-civil-case-over-dossier.html

[attrayant]

35 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

Steele has been proven beyond doubt to be an untrustworthy liar.

 

It seems to be very important to you that people not be liars. Why don't you apply that same standard to the only person named in the thread title?  That would at least get us back on topic.

[heybruce]

7 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

I've not followed the threads of the Steele discussion but maybe this link helps:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/05/christopher-steele-is-no-show-in-london-court-in-civil-case-over-dossier.html

That may be the court case that Khun Han is referring to, but it in no way supports his repeated claim that Steele is a liar or that he lied to a British court. 

 

Funny that Khun Han, who claims to be British, is so keen on discrediting a man who served over twenty years with MI6. 

 

Though not a funny as Trump supporters believing that he was the victim of an anti-Trump FBI agenda during the election, considering how the FBI's very public (against FBI policy) investigation of the Clinton emails gave the election to Trump.  When the election was in doubt the investigation was very publicly re-opened days before the election.  All the while the investigation of possible links between the Trump campaign and Russia was kept secret.

 

Clearly if the FBI had a political agenda, it was blatantly pro-Trump.  However the Trump conspiracy supporters want a paranoid conspiracy theory.  Accepting that any political agenda and illegal acts to support one candidate and harm the other were conducted to help their man just doesn't play to their need for paranoia.

[Silurian]

And thus begins the whitewashing of the whole Russia investigation. They are planning to do a blanket pardon to anyone involved with collusion with Russia and further more anyone caught up in the Mueller investigation. They are going to pardon the whole thing away. Justice is being served...or not.

 

Conservatives urge Trump to grant pardons in Russia probe

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/19/trump-russia-pardons-mueller-flynn-417094

 

Quote

“It’s kind of cruel what’s going on right now and the president should put these defendants out of their misery,” said Larry Klayman, a conservative legal activist. “I think he should pardon everybody — and pardon himself.”

 

Edited February 19, 2018 by Silurian

[heybruce]

1 minute ago, Silurian said:

And thus begins the whitewashing of the whole Russia investigation. They are planning to do a blanket pardon to anyone involved with collusion with Russia and further more anyone caught up in the Mueller investigation. They are going to pardon the whole thing away. Justice is being served...or not.

 

Conservatives urge Trump to grant pardons in Russia probe

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/19/trump-russia-pardons-mueller-flynn-417094

 

 

That could turn a Democrat wave in the upcoming election into a Democrat tidal wave. 

[Khun Han]

24 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

It seems to be very important to you that people not be liars. Why don't you apply that same standard to the only person named in the thread title?  That would at least get us back on topic.

 

Actually, it wouldn't get us back ontopic, because this thread isn't about Trump, as much as some people would like it to be.

[riclag]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

 

Why do continue to attack me ,I was giving thanks to another poster for their time and effort . Now your ,referring I'm a Russian troll and  in another comment accusing me of lying when I said that the steel report(opposition research reports) was used during the campaign period in a Fisa warrant.You want to make comments to me and about me, its ok but don't ridicule and insult  me with those insinuations.You and I disagree on many issues but I never insult you 

 

Me-Thanks so much for the time and effort  you put into your very informative comment .Its apparent to me that releasing the fisa transcripts would expose those who have misled facts for political purposes to enhance their narrative .Once the IG office comes out with their report it will shed more light on the hypocrisy behind this investigation  

 

 You-It is hypocritical to investigate Russian interference in the US election?

 

Are you one of the Russian trolls that have been charged?

 

 

[jcsmith]

2 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Actually, it wouldn't get us back ontopic, because this thread isn't about Trump, as much as some people would like it to be.

That was a nice way to sidestep the fact that you made a statement, refused to back it up with a source, and then when someone else gave you a source it didn't back up what you said.