Trump ex-lawyer pleads guilty to lying about Moscow tower project

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, mcambl61 said:

why is that? 

Because of Trump's long history of shady financial dealings and legal troubles, combined with the lying, bluster, and deflections offered by Trump and supporters, indicate Trump and family are very frightened of what Mueller will find.

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post has been removed. 

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, heybruce said:

The Steele dossier is only a small part of the evidence that justified the investigation.  Parts of the dossier have been verified, none of it has been disproven.

 

" For the first time, US investigators say they have corroborated some of the communications detailed in a 35-page dossier compiled by a former British intelligence agent, multiple current and former US law enforcement and intelligence officials tell CNN. As CNN first reported, then-President-elect Donald Trump and President Barack Obama were briefed on the existence of the dossier prior to Trump's inauguration. "   https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/russia-dossier-update/index.html

 

" Overall, while some allegations of the dossier have been corroborated,^[19] others remain unverified.^[20] Some may require access to classified information for verification. "   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier

 

Of course no matter how often you explain this to a Trumpie, they refuse to accept the truth.

 

2 hours ago, mcambl61 said:

thank you for another condescending insult, 

 

what parts have been verified precisely? and how have they been "verified"?

 

so basically we are to believe that a unverified, unvetted dossier paid for by the opposing political party has to be taken as a legitimate source of unbiased, factual information with no ill intent and completely innocent of rumours and innuendos, then fed through the state dept and the FBI /DOJ to people sympathetic to this same political party. 

 

well of course, only the best intentions and integrity here. 

 

 

If you read my entire post, you will see I cited a reference for my claim that parts of the dossier have been verified.  If you want to know the specifics of the verification, then get the appropriate security clearances, convince the intelligence agencies you have a need to know, then ask them.

 

As for the rest of your post; just more unsubstantiated conspiracy theory stuff.  I won't bother to answer.

Edited December 2, 2018 by heybruce

[riclag]

14 hours ago, heybruce said:

 

If you read my entire post, you will see I cited a reference for my claim that parts of the dossier have been verified.  If you want to know the specifics of the verification, then get the appropriate security clearances, convince the intelligence agencies you have a need to know, then ask them.

 

As for the rest of your post; just more unsubstantiated conspiracy theory stuff.  I won't bother to answer.

 

I have read your references and they all have either "accusations",

" not confirmed",  "intercepted conversations of foreigners,did not comment on or confirm any alleged conversations between Russians or US citizens", "not corroborated". None of those negatives are a verification of the dossier. 

The intel are the same people(Comey,Brennan and Clapper) that have no credibility other then a conspiracy theory  . Steele can't be believed because of his reported disdain and contempt of PT

Edited December 3, 2018 by riclag

[Srinivas]

22 minutes ago, riclag said:

 

I have read your references and they all have either "accusations",

" not confirmed",  "intercepted conversations of foreigners,did not comment on or confirm any alleged conversations between Russians or US citizens", "not corroborated". None of those negatives are a verification of the dossier. 

The intel are the same people(Comey,Brennan and Clapper) that have no credibility other then a conspiracy  . Steele can't be believed because of his disdain and contempt of PT

yep and all referencing each other and yahoo and buzfeed articles they contributed to. 

Also here is one of the charts from oig report of all fbi to reporter comms.

 

 

[heybruce]

36 minutes ago, riclag said:

 

I have read your references and they all have either "accusations",

" not confirmed",  "intercepted conversations of foreigners,did not comment on or confirm any alleged conversations between Russians or US citizens", "not corroborated". None of those negatives are a verification of the dossier. 

The intel are the same people(Comey,Brennan and Clapper) that have no credibility other then a conspiracy theory  . Steele can't be believed because of his reported disdain and contempt of PT

Some people need to have things spelled out for them:

 

"US investigators say they have corroborated some of the communications detailed in a 35-page dossier compiled by a former British intelligence agent, multiple current and former US law enforcement and intelligence officials tell CNN."

"...it relates to conversations between foreign nationals. The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals. Sources would not confirm which specific conversations were intercepted or the content of those discussions due to the classified nature of US intelligence collection programs."   https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/russia-dossier-update/index.html

 

"...the intelligence community takes the allegations seriously and is investigating them.^{[14][15][16][17]}

In May 2018, former career intelligence officer James Clapper stated that "more and more" of the dossier had been validated over time.^[18] Overall, while some allegations of the dossier have been corroborated,^[19] others remain unverified.^[20] Some may require access to classified information for verification.^{[21][22] "} 

"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier

 

If you want further details, get the clearances. 

 

If you want a description of how intelligence works from a 30 year CIA veteran who finds the dossier largely credible, read this:   https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/09/a-lot-of-the-steele-dossier-has-since-been-corroborated.html

 

If you insist every intelligence professional that tells you things you don't want to believe is the enemy, then there is no hope for you.

[riclag]

11 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Some people need to have things spelled out for them:

 

"US investigators say they have corroborated some of the communications detailed in a 35-page dossier compiled by a former British intelligence agent, multiple current and former US law enforcement and intelligence officials tell CNN."

"...it relates to conversations between foreign nationals. The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals. Sources would not confirm which specific conversations were intercepted or the content of those discussions due to the classified nature of US intelligence collection programs."   https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/russia-dossier-update/index.html

 

"...the intelligence community takes the allegations seriously and is investigating them.^{[14][15][16][17]}

In May 2018, former career intelligence officer James Clapper stated that "more and more" of the dossier had been validated over time.^[18] Overall, while some allegations of the dossier have been corroborated,^[19] others remain unverified.^[20] Some may require access to classified information for verification.^{[21][22] "} 

"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier

 

If you want further details, get the clearances. 

 

If you want a description of how intelligence works from a 30 year CIA veteran who finds the dossier largely credible, read this:   https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/09/a-lot-of-the-steele-dossier-has-since-been-corroborated.html

 

If you insist every intelligence professional that tells you things you don't want to believe is the enemy, then there is no hope for you.

I have read your original references,Ok those are all unproven!!  The intel are all conflicted conspiracy theory ,that have been tainted with pay offs between the FBI and reporters. There is no verified evidence of the dossier,zilch  .All of those links are accusations ,uncorroborated, as I said in my 217 post 

[mcambl61]

17 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Some people need to have things spelled out for them:

 

"US investigators say they have corroborated some of the communications detailed in a 35-page dossier compiled by a former British intelligence agent, multiple current and former US law enforcement and intelligence officials tell CNN."

"...it relates to conversations between foreign nationals. The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals. Sources would not confirm which specific conversations were intercepted or the content of those discussions due to the classified nature of US intelligence collection programs."   https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/russia-dossier-update/index.html

 

"...the intelligence community takes the allegations seriously and is investigating them.^{[14][15][16][17]}

In May 2018, former career intelligence officer James Clapper stated that "more and more" of the dossier had been validated over time.^[18] Overall, while some allegations of the dossier have been corroborated,^[19] others remain unverified.^[20] Some may require access to classified information for verification.^{[21][22] "} 

"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier

 

If you want further details, get the clearances. 

 

If you want a description of how intelligence works from a 30 year CIA veteran who finds the dossier largely credible, read this:   https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/09/a-lot-of-the-steele-dossier-has-since-been-corroborated.html

 

If you insist every intelligence professional that tells you things you don't want to believe is the enemy, then there is no hope for you.

innuendos and assumptions with zero actual peoples names and sources with vague terms like "some" and "If you want further details, get the clearances."

not one person on the record, so yeah, it simply must validate the outcome my bias desires...because I want it to be true and if you disagree with me you are not an intelligent person like I am.

[heybruce]

1 minute ago, mcambl61 said:

well if you think so, then it simply must be an adequate reason to open an investigation into everything from years ago having nothing to do with an election.

Trump defied convention and refused to release his tax returns or put his holdings in a blind trust.  There is no way of telling if any of his financial dealings from "years ago" are still active, but his campaign rhetoric ("wouldn't it be wonderful if we could be friends with Russia"), his insistence on greatly watering down rhetoric in the Republican Party platform during the convention regarding support for Ukraine against Russian military incursion, and his activities in Moscow up until the campaign were legitimate cause for concern.

 

Now we learn that his financial dealings with Russia, which represent a clear conflict of interest, were going on well into the campaign.  Of course there have been many obvious conflicts of interest going on since the election, but no point in getting too far off topic.

[mcambl61]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Trump defied convention and refused to release his tax returns or put his holdings in a blind trust.  There is no way of telling if any of his financial dealings from "years ago" are still active, but his campaign rhetoric ("wouldn't it be wonderful if we could be friends with Russia"), his insistence on greatly watering down rhetoric in the Republican Party platform during the convention regarding support for Ukraine against Russian military incursion, and his activities in Moscow up until the campaign were legitimate cause for concern.

 

Now we learn that his financial dealings with Russia, which represent a clear conflict of interest, were going on well into the campaign.  Of course there have been many obvious conflicts of interest going on since the election, but no point in getting too far off topic.

there is simply nothing but assumptions and unfounded innuendos in your statements, again, still.

[heybruce]

6 minutes ago, riclag said:

I have read your original references,Ok those are all unproven!!  The intel are all conflicted conspiracy theory ,that have been tainted with pay offs between the FBI and reporters. There is no verified evidence of the dossier,zilch  .All of those links are accusations ,uncorroborated, as I said in my 217 post 

 

3 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

innuendos and assumptions with zero actual peoples names and sources with vague terms like "some" and "If you want further details, get the clearances."

not one person on the record, so yeah, it simply must validate the outcome my bias desires...because I want it to be true and if you disagree with me you are not an intelligent person like I am.

Clearly you read what you wanted to into the sources referenced and refused to let your initial assumptions be challenged. 

 

Funny how people who insist that intelligence be an exact science (it never is) when investigating Trump will accept hair brained conspiracy theories from ridiculous sources if it tells them things they want to believe.

[heybruce]

Yeah, I read that the US Intelligence Agencies agree that Russia has meddled and continues to meddle in the US and believe it.  I read about financial dealings between the Trump family and Russia that no one attempts to deny and that clearly represent a conflict of interest and believe it.

 

You read stuff in Breitbart and from other sources about wild conspiracy theories and believe it.

 

We are definitely very different.

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

Steele can't be believed because of his reported disdain and contempt of PT

So, then, according to this tidbit of wisdom, 45 can’t be believed because of his disdain for the truth. Have I got that right?

[Srinivas]

4 minutes ago, mikebike said:

So, then, according to this tidbit of wisdom, 45 can’t be believed because of his disdain for the truth. Have I got that right?

Steeles report has been paid for by FusionGps via Perkins Coie via Dnc and Clinton after the republican primaries.

Prior to that he was hired by gop.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/fbi-releases-documents-showing-payments-trump-dossier-author-steele-n897506

 

 

[riclag]

9 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

Clearly you read what you wanted to into the sources referenced and refused to let your initial assumptions be challenged. 

 

Funny how people who insist that intelligence be an exact science (it never is) when investigating Trump will accept hair brained conspiracy theories from ridiculous sources if it tells them things they want to believe.

I read what you gave and continue to give ,uncorroborated,accusations backed by sources who have been  tainted by kick backs , between reporters and FBI,according to the inspector general !  The intel  and the news,especially left bias news sources aren't a reliable source for the verification of any of the dossier! But I do understand that you nor anyone else can prove or verify anything other than the author(Steele). When 1 plus 1 equals 2 ,please let us debate that.    

[mikebike]

2 minutes ago, Srinivas said:

Steeles report has been paid for by FusionGps via Perkins Coie via Dnc and Clinton after the republican primaries.

Prior to that he was hired by gop.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/fbi-releases-documents-showing-payments-trump-dossier-author-steele-n897506

 

 

Huh? Relevance to my post?

[Srinivas]

2 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Huh? Relevance to my post?

relevance being, trusting reports paid for by political opposition written by private intel agents with proven disdain for target of report.

as per conversation thread.

not an attack, just adding back ground source.

[mikebike]

12 minutes ago, Srinivas said:

relevance being, trusting reports paid for by political opposition written by private intel agents with proven disdain for target of report.

as per conversation thread.

not an attack, just adding back ground source.

Ok. So nothing to do with my post.

[candide]

Interesting that Trump and Trumpists are so vehemently arguing against this investigation. If he is innocent, there is no reason to be excited, he will come clean out of it. What they call conspiracy theories would be proven unfounded. Stopping investigations would only strenghthen these so-called conspiracy theories.

Or is it that...?

[Srinivas]

9 minutes ago, candide said:

Interesting that Trump and Trumpists are so vehemently arguing against this investigation. If he is innocent, there is no reason to be excited, he will come clean out of it. What they call conspiracy theories would be proven unfounded. Stopping investigations would only strenghthen these so-called conspiracy theories.

Or is it that...?

im not arguing for stopping it.  just think its for optics by the opposition with the help of msm.

In that regard (optics), it would no good for it to be stopped prior to report.

interesting article take on Meullers plan

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/robert-mueller-plan-trump-russia-investigation-report-not-case/

 

Edited December 3, 2018 by Srinivas

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, mcambl61 said:

"i read that"....

 

and therefore it must be true, while telling others what they read is not true.

 

yeah we certainly are different

Yeah, I read sources with a long history of factual, objective reporting:  The Economist, BBC news app, Reuters, AP, Bloomberg, etc.  I get very little news from television.

 

You read sources such as Breitbart and others, too obscure for me to remember (was Infowars one of them?), sources that feed you the conspiracy theories you apparently relish.

 

We agree that we are different.

[heybruce]

24 minutes ago, Srinivas said:

im not arguing for stopping it.  just think its for optics by the opposition with the help of msm.

In that regard (optics), it would no good for it to be stopped prior to report.

interesting article take on Meullers plan

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/robert-mueller-plan-trump-russia-investigation-report-not-case/

 

So long as we all agree that the investigation should be allowed to continue and the report made public, we are in agreement on the important thing.

[johnnybangkok]

Whilst all of you Trump fans are arguing semantics over how this investigation started (I don't have a strong opinion but I'm inclined to go with what the intelligence agencies have said), surely not even you guys can argue that the investigation has validity with 33 indicted already - five of which were former Trump advisers! 

You can argue causality but surely you cannot deny validity.

 

[Con Queso]

 

Conflict of interest isn't illegal.

 

And smoke isn't fire, wherever we look in this administration, smoke has lead to fire.   And while money itself isn't illegal and "follow the money" might be apocryphal, it's a good way to root-out illegalities.

[Con Queso]

Isn't it enough that Fox "News" has debunked this nonsense?  

 

Fox News anchor Shep Smith annihilates his network's favorite Hillary Clinton 'scandal,' the Uranium One deal

 

 

[johnnybangkok]

To be honest it’s getting a bit embarrassing to debate you guys now. 

I mean you’re just soooo predictable. 

The usual deflection, whataboutism (yes there is now a word to describe what you do, it’s got THAT obvious) false flags, you name it. Nothing is. new stuff. It’s All conspiracy hocum that is so easily refuted it’s embarrassing because when all else fails, your stock answer is; 

 but, but Hilary!!!

 

I supposed that’s what happens when you have to excuse the inexcusable day after day.  

[Srinivas]

 

So long as we all agree that the investigation should be allowed to continue and the report made public, we are in agreement on the important thing.

Unless Meuller is found to be withholding exculpatory evidence

or found to have extreme conflict of interest, the investigation should not be impeded.

If declassification of fisa docs prove the investigating premise to be false, then

there is a case to be made for ending investigation. 

Absent above legal arguments , it will proceed.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/12/02/actually_mueller_appears_to_be_exonerating_trump.html

[Opl]

"A lengthy new document compiled by Just Security’s Ryan Goodman offers a complete look at all of the lies that President Donald Trump and his associates have made about their dealings with Russian officials. The lies documented in the list include former Trump “fixer” Michael Cohen falsely claiming that the Trump Tower Moscow project ended in January 2016; former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos lying about meeting with a Russian agent who was peddling dirt on Hillary Clinton; former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s lies to the FBI about discussions he’d had with the Russian embassy; and conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi, who lied to investigators about his attempts to contact WikiLeaks at the behest of Roger Stone."

 

https://fr.scribd.com/document/394786653/Perjury-Chart-Trump-Associates-Lies-False-Or-Misleading-Statements-on-Russia-to-Federal-Authorities#from_embed

 

Edited December 3, 2018 by Opl

[heybruce]

 

Unless Meuller is found to be withholding exculpatory evidence

or found to have extreme conflict of interest, the investigation should not be impeded.

If declassification of fisa docs prove the investigating premise to be false, then

there is a case to be made for ending investigation. 

Absent above legal arguments , it will proceed.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/12/02/actually_mueller_appears_to_be_exonerating_trump.html

Is there any reason to think Mueller is withholding exculpatory evidence?

Is there any evidence to think that Republican Mueller has a conflict of interest?

Much has been made of a small part of the justification of one FISA warrant, but is there any reason to think that is the only justification for the investigation?

 

Trump's dealings with Russia go back decades; he was obviously looking to make money there and understood that Russia was a "who you know" country.  His "let's be friends with Russia" campaign and his insistence that strong pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia statements be taken out of platform of the Republican Convention, along with his defiance of established precedent and refusal to reveal his tax returns or put his holdings in a blind trust, are all suspicious as hell.

 

There is also the lying, not only from Trump, the habitual liar, but from his inner circle who appear to have been lying to protect him.  That is the topic of this thread.

 

Who wouldn't want these things investigated?  Other than Trump cult followers who idolizes their hero, right or wrong.

Edited December 3, 2018 by heybruce

[Srinivas]

 

Is there any reason to think Mueller is withholding exculpatory evidence?

Is there any evidence to think that Republican Mueller has a conflict of interest?

Much has been made of a small part of the justification of one FISA warrant, but is there any reason to think that is the only justification for the investigation?

 

Trump's dealings with Russia go back decades; he was obviously looking to make money there and understood that Russia was a "who you know" country.  His "let's be friends with Russia" campaign and his insistence that strong pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia statements be taken out of platform of the Republican Convention, along with his defiance of established precedent and refusal to reveal his tax returns or put his holdings in a blind trust, are all suspicious as hell.

 

There is also the lying, not only from Trump, the habitual liar, but from his inner circle who appear to have been lying to protect him.  That is the topic of this thread.

 

Who wouldn't want these things investigated?  Other than Trump cult followers who idolizes their hero, right or wrong.

 

All "these things" are being investigated.

I stated UNLESS the above cases are made and proven there is no argument about ending this investigation.

I'm waiting for John Hubers, Comey , L.Lynch testimony, which seems have been postponed due to Bush funeral this week.