1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Still drinking the Fox News kool-aid.  The investigation into Russian interference and possible involvement of the Trump campaign was based on much more than the Steele dossier, and enough of the dossier was verified by other intelligence for it to be taken somewhat seriously.

 

The DOJ defying the courts, the DOJ defying congress, the Treasury defying congress, Trump claiming executive privilege for everything, including stuff that happened before he was President; these are constitutional crisis things.

well bruce, I don't drink kool aid. It is reassuring to know you have personally seen the clear verified sources about the mystical "verified intelligence" used to start the surveillance. What was this magical verification of "enough of the dossier" you are referring to? is it from John Dean?

 

so taking bogus information "somewhat seriously" is now good enough to open surveillance?

 

but keep up the outrage 

26 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

well bruce, I don't drink kool aid. It is reassuring to know you have personally seen the clear verified sources about the mystical "verified intelligence" used to start the surveillance. What was this magical verification of "enough of the dossier" you are referring to? is it from John Dean?

 

so taking bogus information "somewhat seriously" is now good enough to open surveillance?

 

but keep up the outrage 

Right.  Next you'll state that you don't wear blinders.  Once again, the investigation was begun before the Steele dossier came out and for legitimate reasons. 

 

I can't coherently select three sentences and stay in TV fair use rules, so you'll have to read a little.  Not everything can be reduced to a sound-bite or baseball cap.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/us/politics/crossfire-hurricane-trump-russia-fbi-mueller-investigation.html

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/01/what-we-know-about-genesis-russia-investigation/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6feddf2e1d9c

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

4 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

well bruce, I don't drink kool aid. It is reassuring to know you have personally seen the clear verified sources about the mystical "verified intelligence" used to start the surveillance. What was this magical verification of "enough of the dossier" you are referring to? is it from John Dean?

 

so taking bogus information "somewhat seriously" is now good enough to open surveillance?

 

but keep up the outrage 

Right.  Next you'll state that you don't wear blinders.  Once again, the investigation was begun before the Steele dossier came out and for legitimate reasons. 

 

I can't coherently select three sentences and stay in TV fair use rules, so you'll have to read a little.  Not everything can be reduced to a sound-bite or baseball cap.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/us/politics/crossfire-hurricane-trump-russia-fbi-mueller-investigation.html

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/01/what-we-know-about-genesis-russia-investigation/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6feddf2e1d9c

sorry, a NYtimes article laying out their version of events and the motives behind them is not a verifiable source.

 

But as more classified information gets released and the IG report comes, if you still think those year old articles have any verified facts showing actual crimes, then you can rest assured impeachment will begin.

 

if, on the other hand there is information that counters the narrative in the article, will you still be crying for impeachment?

5 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

sorry, a NYtimes article laying out their version of events and the motives behind them is not a verifiable source.

 

But as more classified information gets released and the IG report comes, if you still think those year old articles have any verified facts showing actual crimes, then you can rest assured impeachment will begin.

 

if, on the other hand there is information that counters the narrative in the article, will you still be crying for impeachment?

What about a Republican memo?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunes_memo

7 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

sorry, a NYtimes article laying out their version of events and the motives behind them is not a verifiable source.

 

But as more classified information gets released and the IG report comes, if you still think those year old articles have any verified facts showing actual crimes, then you can rest assured impeachment will begin.

 

if, on the other hand there is information that counters the narrative in the article, will you still be crying for impeachment?

Ok, you don't want to believe a world class newspaper that doesn't support your preferred views.  What is yous source that the investigation was based solely on the Steele dossier, or that the dossier has been totally discredited?

 

I seriously doubt that new information will discredit either of the two articles, but if credible new information is revealed (not cherry-picked biased information) I will reconsider my conclusions.  Will you?

Russia is certainly dangerous but China is much more Dangerous.  Watch Gen. Spalding's lecture.  He is sharp and lays it out clearly.

well, to prove that the investigation was based on the Steele Dossier and that the Dossier was convincingly discredited, the information to support those claims would have to be cherry-picked, wouldn't it?

Troll posts using unapproved sources and replies removed.  

7 hours ago, heybruce said:

14 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

sorry, a NYtimes article laying out their version of events and the motives behind them is not a verifiable source.

 

But as more classified information gets released and the IG report comes, if you still think those year old articles have any verified facts showing actual crimes, then you can rest assured impeachment will begin.

 

if, on the other hand there is information that counters the narrative in the article, will you still be crying for impeachment?

Ok, you don't want to believe a world class newspaper that doesn't support your preferred views.  What is yous source that the investigation was based solely on the Steele dossier, or that the dossier has been totally discredited?

 

I seriously doubt that new information will discredit either of the two articles, but if credible new information is revealed (not cherry-picked biased information) I will reconsider my conclusions.  Will you?

world class? world class bias yes.

 

The FBI went to a FISA court in late October 2016, dossier in hand, to justify surveillance. Of their source Christopher Steele, the FBI says in the warrant application that “Source #1 [Steele] has been compensated [REDACTED] by the FBI and the FBI is unaware of any derogatory information pertaining to Source #1.” The warrant was granted on October 21st. We know from an interview conducted just ten days prior it was a lie that the FBI was “unaware” of any “derogatory information” pertaining to Steele. In fact, they had no shortage of reasons to find him uncredible. 

 

If there is actual verifiable evidence of wrong doing, then it should be acted upon, regardless of who it is. 

This also applies to govt agencies and the people who were in charge of them.

 

 

world class? world class bias yes.
 
The FBI went to a FISA court in late October 2016, dossier in hand, to justify surveillance. Of their source Christopher Steele, the FBI says in the warrant application that “Source #1 [steele] has been compensated [REDACTED] by the FBI and the FBI is unaware of any derogatory information pertaining to Source #1.” The warrant was granted on October 21st. We know from an interview conducted just ten days prior it was a lie that the FBI was “unaware” of any “derogatory information” pertaining to Steele. In fact, they had no shortage of reasons to find him uncredible. 
 
If there is actual verifiable evidence of wrong doing, then it should be acted upon, regardless of who it is. 
This also applies to govt agencies and the people who were in charge of them.
 
 

Sent from my SM-A500F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

3 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

world class? world class bias yes.

 

The FBI went to a FISA court in late October 2016, dossier in hand, to justify surveillance. Of their source Christopher Steele, the FBI says in the warrant application that “Source #1 [Steele] has been compensated [REDACTED] by the FBI and the FBI is unaware of any derogatory information pertaining to Source #1.” The warrant was granted on October 21st. We know from an interview conducted just ten days prior it was a lie that the FBI was “unaware” of any “derogatory information” pertaining to Steele. In fact, they had no shortage of reasons to find him uncredible. 

 

If there is actual verifiable evidence of wrong doing, then it should be acted upon, regardless of who it is. 

This also applies to govt agencies and the people who were in charge of them.

The Russia investigation was based on much more than just the Steele dossier.  That has been explained.  You keep coming back to the Steele dossier because, by using selective blindness, you can claim it has no merit.  Even if that were true, the investigation was justified and necessary. 

 

Yes, the Steele dossier was part of the justification of the FISA warrant, but only part. 

 

"The so-called dossier formed only a smart part of the evidence used to meet the legal burden of establishing "probable cause" that Page was an agent of Russia."

"The released documents contain dozens of pages that are entirely blacked out. People who have read them, including Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, say they contain secret evidence establishing ties between Page and Russians — evidence that goes beyond what was included in the dossier compiled by Christopher Steele."   https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/why-team-trump-wrong-about-carter-page-dossier-secret-warrant-n893666

5 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

“Source #1 [Steele] has been compensated [REDACTED] by the FBI and the FBI is unaware of any derogatory information pertaining to Source #1.

What are the other sources? I mean, if there is a #1, there must be at least a #2, and possibly even #3, #4.....

1 hour ago, candide said:

7 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

“Source #1 [Steele] has been compensated [REDACTED] by the FBI and the FBI is unaware of any derogatory information pertaining to Source #1.

What are the other sources? I mean, if there is a #1, there must be at least a #2, and possibly even #3, #4.....

yes, circular references to "news" articles...

 

there was plenty of reference to number 2 though

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

7 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

world class? world class bias yes.

 

The FBI went to a FISA court in late October 2016, dossier in hand, to justify surveillance. Of their source Christopher Steele, the FBI says in the warrant application that “Source #1 [Steele] has been compensated [REDACTED] by the FBI and the FBI is unaware of any derogatory information pertaining to Source #1.” The warrant was granted on October 21st. We know from an interview conducted just ten days prior it was a lie that the FBI was “unaware” of any “derogatory information” pertaining to Steele. In fact, they had no shortage of reasons to find him uncredible. 

 

If there is actual verifiable evidence of wrong doing, then it should be acted upon, regardless of who it is. 

This also applies to govt agencies and the people who were in charge of them.

The Russia investigation was based on much more than just the Steele dossier.  That has been explained.  You keep coming back to the Steele dossier because, by using selective blindness, you can claim it has no merit.  Even if that were true, the investigation was justified and necessary. 

 

Yes, the Steele dossier was part of the justification of the FISA warrant, but only part. 

 

"The so-called dossier formed only a smart part of the evidence used to meet the legal burden of establishing "probable cause" that Page was an agent of Russia."

"The released documents contain dozens of pages that are entirely blacked out. People who have read them, including Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, say they contain secret evidence establishing ties between Page and Russians — evidence that goes beyond what was included in the dossier compiled by Christopher Steele."   https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/why-team-trump-wrong-about-carter-page-dossier-secret-warrant-n893666

yeah, adam schiff says it, so that must be true.

but yet years of investigation did not find this "secret evidence"

and Page has never been charged of ANYTHING, ever.

 

but you will still keep on with the nonsensical theory regardless.

THAT is selective blindness bruce.

 

and then you keep parroting "the investigation was justified and necessary"

all from the people who were behind it of course, what else would they say.

17 hours ago, candide said:

What about a Republican memo?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunes_memo

Not just the Nunes memo. There's also the report of the House Intelligence Committee. The report was released when the Republicans still controlled the committee. They also found that the investigation began with Papadapoulos.

https://static01.nyt.com/files/2018/us/politics/20180427 Intelligence Committee Report.pdf#page=57

You'll find that you won't get an answer. I have repeatedly brought up the fact that Peter Strzok who right wingers allege conspired to destroy Trump's candidacy, never leaked anything about the investigation before the election. Never gotten a response yet.

6 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

yeah, adam schiff says it, so that must be true.

but yet years of investigation did not find this "secret evidence"

and Page has never been charged of ANYTHING, ever.

 

but you will still keep on with the nonsensical theory regardless.

THAT is selective blindness bruce.

 

and then you keep parroting "the investigation was justified and necessary"

all from the people who were behind it of course, what else would they say.

I can easily document far more Trump lies than Adam Schiff lies, so yes, I find Schiff much more credible.

 

Read the Mueller report, it will tell you about the unclassified evidence of Russian meddling.

 

Lot's of people are watched for suspicious behavior and not charged.  Sometimes they are not guilty of anything, sometimes they are guilty but it's impossible to gather sufficient evidence to prosecute, and sometime they are guilty but useful for catching others who are guilty of greater crimes.

 

The Russian government interfered in the US election while candidate Trump was running a "let's be friends with Russia" campaign and lied about not having business interests in Russia.  That alone is enough to justify the investigation.  For more details, read the Mueller report.

A post violating Fair Use Policy has been removed.  

 

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

I can easily document far more Trump lies than Adam Schiff lies, so yes, I find Schiff much more credible.

 

Read the Mueller report, it will tell you about the unclassified evidence of Russian meddling.

 

Lot's of people are watched for suspicious behavior and not charged.  Sometimes they are not guilty of anything, sometimes they are guilty but it's impossible to gather sufficient evidence to prosecute, and sometime they are guilty but useful for catching others who are guilty of greater crimes.

 

The Russian government interfered in the US election while candidate Trump was running a "let's be friends with Russia" campaign and lied about not having business interests in Russia.  That alone is enough to justify the investigation.  For more details, read the Mueller report.

Russia has been interfering in US affairs, hacking, and spying for a very long time. It is rapidly getting worse and action is badly needed. Compare how often you hear Democrat leaders discussing what the country can do to fix the problem verses "get Trump".

 

Many have argued since WWII that better relations with Russia would benefit the West, and the West has tried to develop better relations with Russia more than once since the cold war. The Russian government and Putin in particular have been obstacles. Meanwhile your fascination Trump has put more pressure on Putin's sandboxes around the globe than a few recent presidents, and severely embarrassed Putin and his S200/300 missiles in Syria.  But the Democrats go on endlessly with "Trump/Russia!".

 

So what if someone said we should have better relations with Russia, we should. (My Mom told me that in 1955) Do you think we shouldn’t?

 

 

18 minutes ago, rabas said:

Russia has been interfering in US affairs, hacking, and spying for a very long time. It is rapidly getting worse and action is badly needed. Compare how often you hear Democrat leaders discussing what the country can do to fix the problem verses "get Trump".

 

Many have argued since WWII that better relations with Russia would benefit the West, and the West has tried to develop better relations with Russia more than once since the cold war. The Russian government and Putin in particular have been obstacles. Meanwhile your fascination Trump has put more pressure on Putin's sandboxes around the globe than a few recent presidents, and severely embarrassing Putin and his S200/300 missiles in Syria.  But the Democrats go on endlessly with "Trump/Russia!".

 

So what if someone said we should have better relations with Russia, we should. (My Mom told me that in 1955) Do you think we shouldn’t?

 

The Soviet Union/Russia has been interfering in US affairs for as long as anyone can remember.  However the 2016 election reached a whole new level of interference that can be proven and presents a real threat to democracy.  Trump shows no interest in changing that.  In fact, he has stated he believes Putin's denials over his own intelligence services.

 

How has Trump put more pressure on Russia than recent Presidents?  Don't count the sanctions that Congress passed over Trump's objections.

 

Democrats have done much more than "Trump/Russia", in fact the Democratic House has passed many worthwhile bills that were sent to the Senate, where they are ignored.  Why aren't Trump fans complaining about the lack of action from the Senate?  https://thehill.com/homenews/house/83059-senate-sitting-on-290-house-bills

 

We should have better relations with a Russia that behaves better.  Better relations after the Russian occupation of parts of Ukraine, military support for Syria, assassinations in the UK, etc. would be rewarding bad behavior.  I don't think we should do that.

 

Most important, better relations with Russia after its interference in the 2016 election and the election of Russia's preferred candidate would be rewarding their attack on US democracy.  Do you support that?

26 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The Soviet Union/Russia has been interfering in US affairs for as long as anyone can remember.  However the 2016 election reached a whole new level of interference that can be proven and presents a real threat to democracy.  Trump shows no interest in changing that.  In fact, he has stated he believes Putin's denials over his own intelligence services.

 

The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore. The US and Russia have no significant geopolitical differences anymore and in fact are natural allies. And it is laughable that you think $100,000 in Facebook ads (whose purpose is still very much in question given a large portion of them ran either after the election or during the primaries) constitutes "a whole new level of interference". The serious interference in our election seems to have come from the UK via Operation Crossfire Hurricane and the shady work of former British Spy Christopher Steele and friends. And I'd agree that Trump has in fact been quite slow in getting to the bottom of that, though the appointment of Attorney General seems to have changed the game a bit. 

 

Hopefully we will have all this sorted out and serious sanctions imposed against the UK by the end of the year. 

3 hours ago, usviphotography said:

The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore. The US and Russia have no significant geopolitical differences anymore and in fact are natural allies. And it is laughable that you think $100,000 in Facebook ads (whose purpose is still very much in question given a large portion of them ran either after the election or during the primaries) constitutes "a whole new level of interference". The serious interference in our election seems to have come from the UK via Operation Crossfire Hurricane and the shady work of former British Spy Christopher Steele and friends. And I'd agree that Trump has in fact been quite slow in getting to the bottom of that, though the appointment of Attorney General seems to have changed the game a bit. 

 

Hopefully we will have all this sorted out and serious sanctions imposed against the UK by the end of the year. 

 

"Facts first: While there is evidence that the Obama administration struggled with how to deal with Russia's election meddling, it did make attempts to get Russia to stop, and also to tell the American public about what the Russians were up to. Those attempts appear to have had little to no impact on Russia's behavior, and the public did not fully grasp the extent of the meddling until well after the election".

"Republicans and some Democrats have criticized the Obama administration for not doing enough to thwart Russian election interference, but is it accurate to claim they did "nothing"?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/02/politics/fact-check-trump-claims-obama-did-nothing-russia/index.html

 

It fits the MSM and dems narrative to put the blame on the current POTUS. The MSM got the liberals and left believing  that Mr. Trump is Vlads water boy!When all the while it was  his predecessors responsibility.  

1 hour ago, riclag said:

 

"Facts first: While there is evidence that the Obama administration struggled with how to deal with Russia's election meddling, it did make attempts to get Russia to stop, and also to tell the American public about what the Russians were up to. Those attempts appear to have had little to no impact on Russia's behavior, and the public did not fully grasp the extent of the meddling until well after the election".

"Republicans and some Democrats have criticized the Obama administration for not doing enough to thwart Russian election interference, but is it accurate to claim they did "nothing"?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/02/politics/fact-check-trump-claims-obama-did-nothing-russia/index.html

 

It fits the MSM and dems narrative to put the blame on the current POTUS. The MSM got the liberals and left believing  that Mr. Trump is Vlads water boy!When all the while it was  his predecessors responsibility.  

Obama was well aware that anything he did regarding the election would be painted as interference by Trump, Fox News, and the usual collection of conspiracy theorists.  He asked Mitch McConnell to participate with him in a bipartisan response and was rejected:

 

"Though Obama stumped for Clinton around the country, the administration didn’t want to open him up to attacks that he unfairly used intelligence to undermine Trump’s campaign, the Post reported."

"Instead, top White House officials gathered key lawmakers—leadership from the House and Senate, plus the top Democrats and Republicans from both houses’ intelligence and homeland security committees—to ask for a bipartisan condemnation of Russia’s meddling. The effort was stymied by several Republicans who weren’t willing to cooperate, including, reportedly, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell."  https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/12/why-didnt-obama-reveal-intel-about-russias-influence-on-the-election/510242/

 

It seems Republicans aren't that concerned with election interference by Russia.

5 hours ago, usviphotography said:

The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore. The US and Russia have no significant geopolitical differences anymore and in fact are natural allies. And it is laughable that you think $100,000 in Facebook ads (whose purpose is still very much in question given a large portion of them ran either after the election or during the primaries) constitutes "a whole new level of interference". The serious interference in our election seems to have come from the UK via Operation Crossfire Hurricane and the shady work of former British Spy Christopher Steele and friends. And I'd agree that Trump has in fact been quite slow in getting to the bottom of that, though the appointment of Attorney General seems to have changed the game a bit. 

 

Hopefully we will have all this sorted out and serious sanctions imposed against the UK by the end of the year. 

Everyone knows the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore.  Government interference in other countries affairs have continued from the Soviet Union into Russia.  Wasn't that clear?

 

I'm tired of spoon-feeding the deniers about the extent of Russian interference in the election.  I know you won't read the whole report, so just skip to page 26 of the Mueller report.  https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/f5fe536c-81bb-45be-86e5-a9fee9794664/note/a8d336ef-e98d-4a08-987d-b4c154b22700.pdf

 

Now why don't you give us factual information, using credible sources, about the degree of election interference done by Crossfire Hurricane?

 

As a troll you are far to obvious; you are blatantly pro-Russian.  Wishing for sanctions on the UK is way over the top.

16 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Not just the Nunes memo. There's also the report of the House Intelligence Committee. The report was released when the Republicans still controlled the committee. They also found that the investigation began with Papadapoulos.

https://static01.nyt.com/files/2018/us/politics/20180427 Intelligence Committee Report.pdf#page=57

You'll find that you won't get an answer. I have repeatedly brought up the fact that Peter Strzok who right wingers allege conspired to destroy Trump's candidacy, never leaked anything about the investigation before the election. Never gotten a response yet.

i did give an answer, but it got deleted....

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/12/george-papadopoulos-says-mueller-report-shows-i-wa/

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

8 hours ago, usviphotography said:

The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore. The US and Russia have no significant geopolitical differences anymore and in fact are natural allies. And it is laughable that you think $100,000 in Facebook ads (whose purpose is still very much in question given a large portion of them ran either after the election or during the primaries) constitutes "a whole new level of interference". The serious interference in our election seems to have come from the UK via Operation Crossfire Hurricane and the shady work of former British Spy Christopher Steele and friends. And I'd agree that Trump has in fact been quite slow in getting to the bottom of that, though the appointment of Attorney General seems to have changed the game a bit. 

 

Hopefully we will have all this sorted out and serious sanctions imposed against the UK by the end of the year. 

Everyone knows the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore.  Government interference in other countries affairs have continued from the Soviet Union into Russia.  Wasn't that clear?

 

I'm tired of spoon-feeding the deniers about the extent of Russian interference in the election.  I know you won't read the whole report, so just skip to page 26 of the Mueller report.  https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/f5fe536c-81bb-45be-86e5-a9fee9794664/note/a8d336ef-e98d-4a08-987d-b4c154b22700.pdf

 

Now why don't you give us factual information, using credible sources, about the degree of election interference done by Crossfire Hurricane?

 

As a troll you are far to obvious; you are blatantly pro-Russian.  Wishing for sanctions on the UK is way over the top.

while we are at it, give us factual information about the degree and effect "Russia" had on "stealing" the election. not theories

as to how it have may changed votes, actual facts. 

 

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Obama was well aware that anything he did regarding the election would be painted as interference by Trump, Fox News, and the usual collection of conspiracy theorists.  He asked Mitch McConnell to participate with him in a bipartisan response and was rejected:

 

"Though Obama stumped for Clinton around the country, the administration didn’t want to open him up to attacks that he unfairly used intelligence to undermine Trump’s campaign, the Post reported."

 

"Instead, top White House officials gathered key lawmakers—leadership from the House and Senate, plus the top Democrats and Republicans from both houses’ intelligence and homeland security committees—to ask for a bipartisan condemnation of Russia’s meddling. The effort was stymied by several Republicans who weren’t willing to cooperate, including, reportedly, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell."  https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/12/why-didnt-obama-reveal-intel-about-russias-influence-on-the-election/510242/

 

It seems Republicans aren't that concerned with election interference by Russia.

Such a smooth transition of power, Aye !

"Still, some Democratic members of Congress and some former Obama administration officials -- privately at least -- have criticized Obama for not doing enough to thwart the Russian election interference campaign"

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/02/politics/fact-check-trump-claims-obama-did-nothing-russia/index.html

 

The still means even though,Even though Obama has never admitted publicly , he could of warned the Transition team,but that would of given away the scheme,that Mr Barr is looking into . 

11 hours ago, heybruce said:

18 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

yeah, adam schiff says it, so that must be true.

but yet years of investigation did not find this "secret evidence"

and Page has never been charged of ANYTHING, ever.

 

but you will still keep on with the nonsensical theory regardless.

THAT is selective blindness bruce.

 

and then you keep parroting "the investigation was justified and necessary"

all from the people who were behind it of course, what else would they say.

I can easily document far more Trump lies than Adam Schiff lies, so yes, I find Schiff much more credible.

 

Read the Mueller report, it will tell you about the unclassified evidence of Russian meddling.

 

Lot's of people are watched for suspicious behavior and not charged.  Sometimes they are not guilty of anything, sometimes they are guilty but it's impossible to gather sufficient evidence to prosecute, and sometime they are guilty but useful for catching others who are guilty of greater crimes.

 

The Russian government interfered in the US election while candidate Trump was running a "let's be friends with Russia" campaign and lied about not having business interests in Russia.  That alone is enough to justify the investigation.  For more details, read the Mueller report.

well, here is a vacuous assumption without a shred of credibility:

 

"while candidate Trump was running a "let's be friends with Russia" campaign and lied about not having business interests in Russia.  That alone is enough to justify the investigation."

 

it takes more than an opinion or assumption to justify an investigation, unless you hate the person you want investigated of course.

55 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

i did give an answer, but it got deleted....

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/12/george-papadopoulos-says-mueller-report-shows-i-wa/

Papadopoulos claims he did nothing wrong and the Mueller report completely vindicates him.  What a surprise.  I couldn't make out what part of the report it is that he thinks vindicates him.

40 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

while we are at it, give us factual information about the degree and effect "Russia" had on the "stealing" the election. not theories

as to how it have may changed votes, actual facts. 

 

Do you want to rerun the election without Russian interference to see what changes?  That is the only way to "prove" how much or how little impact Russia had.

 

According to Facebook, Russia, through the IRA, made 80,000 posts that reached 29 million people.  I can't prove that this changed the election outcome, and you can't prove it didn't. 

 

I maintain that this kind of Russian interference needs to be prevented in future elections.  What do you think?

 

 

27 minutes ago, riclag said:

Such a smooth transition of power, Aye !

"Still, some Democratic members of Congress and some former Obama administration officials -- privately at least -- have criticized Obama for not doing enough to thwart the Russian election interference campaign"

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/02/politics/fact-check-trump-claims-obama-did-nothing-russia/index.html

 

The still means even though,Even though Obama has never admitted publicly , he could of warned the Transition team,but that would of given away the scheme,that Mr Barr is looking into . 

Some Democrats are criticizing Obama's actions in hindsight.  So what?

 

What evidence do you have that Obama didn't warn the transition team?  What scheme do you think he was protecting?  Why do you think Trump would have accepted such a warning?  He was, and may still be, in full blown denial about Russian interference.