Do you think Trump will be impeached or forced to resign?

[Slip]

23 minutes ago, amvet said:

I think they just found out that the DNC paid for it.

I'm afraid you are mistaken.  Please see the following link from May 2017:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/10/qa-what-we-know-about-alleged-links-between-trump-and-russia

Quote

Last year, a political intelligence firm in Washington, Fusion GPS, hired Steele to investigate Trump’s dealings with Russia. The DNC paid for the work after its initial funder, a wealthy Jeb Bush supporter, dropped out.

Further, having had a chance to skim over the Vanity Fair link, I think you are being disingenuous saying "Orbis paid high level Russian ex generals with close ties to the Kremlin", and then misrepresenting that as the DNC paying the government of Russia.  Admittedly there is mention of one ex-general in the article but you are overstretching.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Slip
missed off half a word.

[amvet]

25 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

 

Maybe not. I found the passage. And contrary to your assertion that Russia was paid, it seems that one general suspected of being the source wound up suspiciously dead. And 3 other persons involved in the Cyber wing of Russia's intelligence service were arrested and charged with treason. And you call this paying Russia?

It is Russia.  Not quite the same as paying in old Blighty.  In any event the DNC paid for dirt or pee pee however you see it on Trump in Russia. 

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, amvet said:

Check Truman and Nixon's firing of special prosecutors. 

I was responding to the possible impeachment of Trump and presented a plausible scenario that could be a basis for Trump's impeachment that did not involve firing of special prosecutors. So your check suggestion is off base as a response.

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, amvet said:

It is Russia.  Not quite the same as paying in old Blighty.  In any event the DNC paid for dirt or pee pee however you see it on Trump in Russia. 

Paying something "in Russia" and "to Russia" are 2 very different things. Prepositions, even 2 letter ones,  may be small, but they do count.

And you conveniently ignore the apparently unhappy fate of Russians who were suspected of divulging information to Orbis.

Edited November 2, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[amvet]

25 minutes ago, Slip said:

I'm afraid you are mistaken.  Please see the following link from May 2017:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/10/qa-what-we-know-about-alleged-links-between-trump-and-russia

Further, having had a chance to skim over the Vanity Fair link, I think you are being disingenuous saying "Orbis paid high level Russian ex generals with close ties to the Kremlin", and then misrepresenting that as the DNC paying the government of Russia.  Admittedly there is mention of one ex-general in the article but you are overstretching.

You're probably right but as far as overstretching all of this investigation is not about what was released or truth or facts.  It is only about who the truth or facts or what was released that is hush hush it is only about who released it.  As if who tells the truth makes it clean or dirty.  Not that fact is good and fake is bad. 

[amvet]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

Paying something "in Russia" and "to Russia" are 2 very different things. Prepositions, even 2 letter ones,  may be small, but they do count.

And you are conveniently ignore the apparenly unhappy fate of Russians who were suspected of divulging information to Orbis.

Ya who knows?  Who killed the Russians and what for.  If you know I wouldn't' tell anyone.  DNC was looking for dirt and Trump was looking for facts.  Who provided them apparently was from the same country.  Should a foreign country publish the truth about a candidate?  I think Radio Free Europe tries to do that daily.  No?

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, amvet said:

Ya who knows?  Who killed the Russians and what for.  If you know I wouldn't' tell anyone.  DNC was looking for dirt and Trump was looking for facts.  Who provided them apparently was from the same country.  Should a foreign country publish the truth about a candidate?  I think Radio Free Europe tries to do that daily.  No?

Once again you are ignoring that this investigation's goal is not to determine the guilt or innocence of a a foreign country. It's about American citizens who may have broken the law by cooperating with that foreign country.

[Slip]

5 minutes ago, amvet said:

You're probably right but as far as overstretching all of this investigation is not about what was released or truth or facts.  It is only about who the truth or facts or what was released that is hush hush it is only about who released it.  As if who tells the truth makes it clean or dirty.  Not that fact is good and fake is bad. 

I'm sorry I don't understand what on earth you are trying to say here.  There is an investigation going on into the facts of the matter, more than one in fact, although the republicans are actively trying to sabotage the house and senate ones.  If you are trying to say that where information comes from in an investigation is irrelevant as long as it is credible and true, then I agree absolutely, and that is the basis on which the famously professional republican Mueller will be proceeding.  If the information comes from DNC oppo-research so what?

[ilostmypassword]

 

1 minute ago, Slip said:

I'm sorry I don't understand what on earth you are trying to say here.  There is an investigation going on into the facts of the matter, more than one in fact, although the republicans are actively trying to sabotage the house and senate ones.  If you are trying to say that where information comes from in an investigation is irrelevant as long as it is credible and true, then I agree absolutely, and that is the basis on which the famously professional republican Mueller will be proceeding.  If the information comes from DNC oppo-research so what?

Because Hillary!

[amvet]

3 minutes ago, Slip said:

I'm sorry I don't understand what on earth you are trying to say here.  There is an investigation going on into the facts of the matter, more than one in fact, although the republicans are actively trying to sabotage the house and senate ones.  If you are trying to say that where information comes from in an investigation is irrelevant as long as it is credible and true, then I agree absolutely, and that is the basis on which the famously professional republican Mueller will be proceeding.  If the information comes from DNC oppo-research so what?

Agree 100%

[EvenSteven]

3 hours ago, amvet said:

Did the DNC mention paying for the pee pee Steele dossier put together by Russian generals?

Irrelevant to Trump's impeachment.  And your link proves nothing in the way that the DNC or Hillary paid the Russian government for information on Trump.  Btw, basing your theory of the DNC paying ex- Russian officials for dirt by using Vanity Fair as a source of information is equivalent to citing Fox News or the tabloid press.  Those kinds of stories may sell copies of magazines and make great material for spy novels and Harlequin romance novels but they have zero credibility.

 

3 hours ago, amvet said:

Was the dirt on Clinton the fact that she destroyed emails that the Justice department required her to keep and stored emails on an insecure server and computer?

Irrelevant to Trump's impeachment.  The FBI looked into this matter four times and found ..... nothing.  How many more times do you have to repeat this nonsense?

 

3 hours ago, amvet said:

Did the Russians (Proved) plant any false news stories?  What were they?  I don't think the Russians did anything.

Huh?  Where have you been over the last several weeks?  Social media execs have been testifying at the investigation hearings with this evidence.  This is what happens when people live in a bubble of far right wing news.

 

3 hours ago, amvet said:

The FBI is trying to cover their incompetent buttocks

A new conspiracy theory?  lol  When the facts make you look guilty, the right wing strategy is to construct a conspiracy theory.

Edited November 2, 2017 by EvenSteven

[Andaman Al]

The only person I ever knew on this site with a propensity for hijacking threads like Amvet was UlyssesG............Hmmm I wonder.  Exactly the same characteristics as well, always defending Trump, an obsessive hatred of HRC and always denying to being a Trump supporter.

 

It does not matter who paid for the Trump dossier.  It was information 'stolen' from the Russians, not information gained by colluding with them. There is light years of difference. The funny thing is the Trump/Steele dossier will prove to show accurate criminal wrong doings by Trump and Trump supporters will try and use the provenance of the document to try and give Trump a free pass on his crimes. We live in strange strange times.

[amvet]

39 minutes ago, EvenSteven said:

Irrelevant to Trump's impeachment.  And your link proves nothing in the way that the DNC or Hillary paid the Russian government for information on Trump.  Btw, basing your theory of the DNC paying ex- Russian officials for dirt by using Vanity Fair as a source of information is equivalent to citing Fox News or the tabloid press.  Those kinds of stories may sell copies of magazines and make great material for spy novels and Harlequin romance novels but they have zero credibility.

 

Irrelevant to Trump's impeachment.  The FBI looked into this matter four times and found ..... nothing.  How many more times do you have to repeat this nonsense?

 

Huh?  Where have you been over the last several weeks?  Social media execs have been testifying at the investigation hearings with this evidence.  This is what happens when people live in a bubble of far right wing news.

 

A new conspiracy theory?  lol  When the facts make you look guilty, the right wing strategy is to construct a conspiracy theory.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigators met this past summer with the former British spy whose dossier on alleged Russian efforts to aid the Trump campaign spawned months of investigations that have hobbled the Trump administration.

CNN has learned that the FBI and the US intelligence community last year took the Steele dossier more seriously than the agencies have publicly acknowledged.

The committee cannot really decide the credibility of the dossier without understanding things like, who paid for it? Who are your sources and sub-sources?

 

Democrats started picking up the tab once Trump became the presumptive nominee in the spring.

 

 

Trump later told The New York Times in July that he took Comey's briefing on the dossier to be an attempt to hold it as leverage over the new President.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/special-counsel-russia-dossier-christopher-steele/index.html

I think this explains why it is relevant to the impeachment discussion. Papadopoulos was arrested back in July for trying to interest Trump in Russian dirt on Hillary which is part of the Mueller investigation which might lead to impeachment.  Check Papadopoulos indictment. 

Edited November 2, 2017 by amvet

[Slip]

24 minutes ago, amvet said:

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigators met this past summer with the former British spy whose dossier on alleged Russian efforts to aid the Trump campaign spawned months of investigations that have hobbled the Trump administration.

CNN has learned that the FBI and the US intelligence community last year took the Steele dossier more seriously than the agencies have publicly acknowledged.

The committee cannot really decide the credibility of the dossier without understanding things like, who paid for it? Who are your sources and sub-sources?

 

Democrats started picking up the tab once Trump became the presumptive nominee in the spring.

 

 

Trump later told The New York Times in July that he took Comey's briefing on the dossier to be an attempt to hold it as leverage over the new President.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/special-counsel-russia-dossier-christopher-steele/index.html

I think this explains why it is relevant to the impeachment discussion. Papadopoulos was arrested back in July for trying to interest Trump in Russian dirt on Hillary which is part of the Mueller investigation which might lead to impeachment.  Check Papadopoulos indictment. 

I think it is relevant to the impeachment discussion because it is crammed full of evidence against Trump and his criminal gang to such an extent that they have repeatedly tried to quash it or distract from it.

 

Mueller is a republican second, and a professional first one can only hope.

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, amvet said:

The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation has received millions from foreign governments including Qatar, a prominent backer of Hamas. Recent donors include the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Australia, Germany and a Canadian government agency promoting the Keystone XL pipeline.   Qatar’s government $250,000 and $500,000 in 2014. Qatar’s government had previously donated between $1 million and $5 million.  I think it's quite common.  It Trump got anything it was advice or another government helped the USA recover mistakenly thrown away emails.   I've heard no mention of cash have you?

Sorry one statement confuses me.  You wrote, "Who paid the Russians for the Steele dossier?" Nobody.  Then you wrote "a Republican candidate, then the DNC, then the Justice Department paid"  Which is it?  

"The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation has received millions from foreign governments.... I think it's quite common."

 

Yes.  What has that got to do with the topic?

 

"It Trump got anything it was advice or another government helped the USA recover mistakenly thrown away emails."

 

And you know this how?  Trump Jr.'s email indicated he was hoping to get dirt on HRC that came directly from the Russian government.

 

"Then you wrote "a Republican candidate, then the DNC, then the Justice Department paid"  Which is it?"

 

You can't follow that?  A Republican candidate initiated the opposition research, after the Republican Convention the DNC pair Fursion GPS to continue the research, then after the election the Justice Department temporarily paid for more research.  None of these organizations paid any Russians directly.  Why is that unclear?

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, amvet said:

It is Russia.  Not quite the same as paying in old Blighty.  In any event the DNC paid for dirt or pee pee however you see it on Trump in Russia. 

The DNC paid for opposition research.  It's common and legal.  Accepting dirt on a candidate from a hostile government is not common and not legal.

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, amvet said:

Did the DNC mention paying for the pee pee Steele dossier put together by Russian generals?  Was the dirt on Clinton the fact that she destroyed emails that the Justice department required her to keep and stored emails on an insecure server and computer?  

 

Did the Russians (Proved) plant any false news stories?  What were they?  I don't think the Russians did anything.  The FBI is trying to cover their incompetent buttocks. 

"Did the Russians (Proved) plant any false news stories?  What were they?  I don't think the Russians did anything."

 

For your reading pleasure:

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/10/29/560461835/how-russian-propaganda-spreads-on-social-media

 

https://www.recode.net/2017/10/31/16587174/fake-ads-news-propaganda-congress-facebook-twitter-google-tech-hearing

[beechguy]

1 hour ago, Andaman Al said:

The only person I ever knew on this site with a propensity for hijacking threads like Amvet was UlyssesG............Hmmm I wonder.  Exactly the same characteristics as well, always defending Trump, an obsessive hatred of HRC and always denying to being a Trump supporter.

 

It does not matter who paid for the Trump dossier.  It was information 'stolen' from the Russians, not information gained by colluding with them. There is light years of difference. The funny thing is the Trump/Steele dossier will prove to show accurate criminal wrong doings by Trump and Trump supporters will try and use the provenance of the document to try and give Trump a free pass on his crimes. We live in strange strange times.

If there were evidence of wrong doing, why didn't Hillary and the DNC use it?

If there were evidence of wrong doing, why wouldn't Mueller have used it by now?

 

What evidence, period?

[Slip]

1 minute ago, beechguy said:

If there were evidence of wrong doing, why didn't Hillary and the DNC use it?

If there were evidence of wrong doing, why wouldn't Mueller have used it by now?

 

What evidence, period?

Do you understand the concept and process of a criminal investigation?

[amvet]

8 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The DNC paid for opposition research.  It's common and legal.  Accepting dirt on a candidate from a hostile government is not common and not legal.

DNC bought a report compiled by an agent of a foreign government, Christopher Steele Is that OK? 

[beechguy]

2 minutes ago, Slip said:

Do you understand the concept and process of a criminal investigation?

I understand Hillary would use anything she had, to win the election.

 

So, I am asking what is in the dossier, or anything else they had.

[amvet]

5 minutes ago, beechguy said:

If there were evidence of wrong doing, why didn't Hillary and the DNC use it?

If there were evidence of wrong doing, why wouldn't Mueller have used it by now?

 

What evidence, period?

The intelligence agencies, particularly the CIA, and the FBI took Steele's research seriously enough that they kept it out of a publicly-released January report on Russian meddling in the election in order to not divulge which parts of the dossier they had corroborated and how.

 

While the most salacious allegations in the dossier haven't been verified, its broad assertion that Russia waged a campaign to interfere in the election is now accepted as fact by the US intelligence community  The committee cannot really decide the credibility of the dossier without understanding things like, who paid for it?

 

Comey briefing occurred January 6 in a one-on-one conversation following a broader intelligence briefing on Russian meddling provided to then-President-elect Trump and his key staff.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/special-counsel-russia-dossier-christopher-steele/index.html

 

 

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, amvet said:

DNC bought a report compiled by an agent of a foreign government, Christopher Steele Is that OK? 

Not OK.  Steele is a former agent, now a freelance investigator.

[amvet]

17 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation has received millions from foreign governments.... I think it's quite common."

 

Yes.  What has that got to do with the topic?

 

"It Trump got anything it was advice or another government helped the USA recover mistakenly thrown away emails."

 

And you know this how?  Trump Jr.'s email indicated he was hoping to get dirt on HRC that came directly from the Russian government.

 

"Then you wrote "a Republican candidate, then the DNC, then the Justice Department paid"  Which is it?"

 

You can't follow that?  A Republican candidate initiated the opposition research, after the Republican Convention the DNC pair Fursion GPS to continue the research, then after the election the Justice Department temporarily paid for more research.  None of these organizations paid any Russians directly.  Why is that unclear?

First a Republican donor , billionaire Paul Singer, then the DNC The deal with Clinton and the DNC allegedly began in the spring of 2016, when Elias was approached by Fusion GPS, and lasted until right before Election Day.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5042027/Hillary-Clinton-DEFENDS-paying-Steele-dossier-Trump.html

 

the bureau reportedly started looking into its allegations last year, and there have been questions about whether the FBI at some point last year paid Steele for the dossier.

 

https://www.vox.com/2017/10/24/16539676/trump-dossier-funded-hillary-clinton

[Andaman Al]

3 minutes ago, amvet said:

DNC bought a report compiled by an agent of a foreign government, Christopher Steele Is that OK? 

Yes, as he is an agent of the closest ever ally the USA has ever had. Is that OK? I am not aware that the Russians and Americans share intel together, or give each other mutual support on intel ops and espionage ops, or die as brothers in arms in wars (even if they are artificially manufactured by the US). Steele was going undercover to find out what was going on with our mutual adversary and Trump and it seems he found more than a few golden nuggets (and showers), while It seems Donnie Jr and the Trump campaign chairman were inviting them to tea in Trump tower and trying to BS everyone that they were talking about adoptions!! Is that ok?

 

The fact that Trump supporters continue to enable and advocate treason because of partisan BS is the worst part of all of this. When I fought in a war with the US marines and the USAF their little motto was 'God, Country, Corps'. Well it's about time civilians replaced 'Corps' with 'Politics', and started backing their COUNTRY instead of all this partisan crapola we have to listen to.  What Trump and his family have done is wrong, period! And you don't need the brain the size of a rocket scientist or the morals of a Saint to work that out. It doesn't matter how much you hate HRC, she is history now, the USA is going down the toilet while people with the intellect that should know better (well some people anyway) continue to support this SOB (Presidentially used term).

[Slip]

13 minutes ago, beechguy said:

I understand Hillary would use anything she had, to win the election.

 

So, I am asking what is in the dossier, or anything else they had.

Your first sentence expresses an opinion rather than a fact.

 

Your second sentence (and question) will be answered in the fullness of time.  Try to be patient.  Investigators do not last long in the job if they blab about their evidence, but so far- Mueller three: Trump nil.

[amvet]

12 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Not OK.  Steele is a former agent, now a freelance investigator.

Once a spook always a spook.  I wouldn't trust any of them Russian or British or Israeli.  Anyway the law does not make a distinction between allies and not allies it says foreign governments/agents.  Who is friendly changes daily and depends in the direction of the wind.

[Slip]

6 minutes ago, amvet said:

First a Republican donor , billionaire Paul Singer, then the DNC The deal with Clinton and the DNC allegedly began in the spring of 2016, when Elias was approached by Fusion GPS, and lasted until right before Election Day.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5042027/Hillary-Clinton-DEFENDS-paying-Steele-dossier-Trump.html

 

the bureau reportedly started looking into its allegations last year, and there have been questions about whether the FBI at some point last year paid Steele for the dossier.

 

https://www.vox.com/2017/10/24/16539676/trump-dossier-funded-hillary-clinton

The daily mail is not a credible source.  Do you have another for that content?

[amvet]

10 minutes ago, Slip said:

The daily mail is not a credible source.  Do you have another for that content?

Hillary Clinton on TV Nov 1 2017.  You can google it.  CNN you can google it.  https://www.reuters.com/...dossier/ex-british-spy-paid-168000-for-trump-dossier-us-fi

www.nydailynews.com/.../hillary-clinton-defends-funding-steele-dossier-trump-russia-ar..

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but dosen't Thai Visa use Pravda as a reputable news source?

 

http://www.pravdareport.com/opinion/columnists/28-02-2017/136959-assassinate_trump-0/

 

Edited November 2, 2017 by amvet

[amvet]

45 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"Did the Russians (Proved) plant any false news stories?  What were they?  I don't think the Russians did anything."

 

For your reading pleasure:

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/10/29/560461835/how-russian-propaganda-spreads-on-social-media

 

https://www.recode.net/2017/10/31/16587174/fake-ads-news-propaganda-congress-facebook-twitter-google-tech-hearing

Nothing but hypothesis and supposition.  Nothing presented as facts.  They don't know who did anything or what the results were.  You should include some statements of fact to match your post.