When will Trump be impeached?

They were paid by the Clibton campaign

Who started the initial funding of Fushion GPS?

The Washington Free Beacon. They funded it from 2015 up until May 2016. Who is the WFB? A conservative website with a hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer. Paul Singer is a republican.

So when you suggest that Fushion GPS was a tool used by the Democrats you're leaving out a major part of the story. Why would you do that? For obvious reasons.

"Fushion GPS was funded by the KILLARY!"

Well, who started the funding for the opposition research??? Hmmmmmmmm

https://twitter.com/KatyTurNBC/status/959499444927508481

Actually Steele was hired later and the dossier sprung from him.

That doesn't change the fact that Clinton campaign funding was used to cojure up this report

How can Clinton campaign funding conjure up a report that was already under way via the funding of Republicans?

Seriously though. The report was already in existence before the HRC campaign found out about it.

Once Trump secured the Republican nomination the Republicans stopped their funding of the Dossier and thats when the Clinton Campaign stepped in. The source of the funding does not matter in this instance. But nice try.

Secondly, the Dossier was not, I repeat was NOT, the source the FBI used to get their warrant for surveillance of Trump and his surrogates. The FBI was already underway in its investigation of Carter Page and his connections to Russian Spies. One of those Russian spies being convicted and serving time.

Once Trump brought in Carter Page he sealed his fate, man.

The Dossier only corroborated what the FBI had already found out through their intelligence gathering via a FISA warrant on Carter Page.

Classic Republican misdirection tactics...spreading false narratives about the Christopher Steele Dossier. Its like watching Sean Hannity when I read your posts (because i do watch him). You can fact check me on whether or not the dossier was the PRIMARY source for the FISA warrant on initial surveillance of Carter Page.   I'll wait

The DNC was the funding source for the Steele Report.

While Carter Page was already under investigation, the Steele Report WAS cited as a source for obtaining the warrant (to what degree, and I do agree that there was probably other stuff beyond it, is to be determined).

The dossier corroborated nothing, IN FACT it has been widely discredited and there is a reason that all major media outlets refused to publish it given that they couldn't verify anything in it.

What it does point to is the use of circular references by Steele in his dossier report. And while it may certainly be solid grounds for investigating Mr. Page, the dossier (now discredited even further) is the basis for anything looking into Mr. Trump.

What I think is the ultimate purpose is that it's an attempt to isolate President Trump from the Russia probe. That while certain flunkies such as Papadopolous or say, Page (again, has not been charged), that the dossier, the basis for going after President Trump, is dead.

Once the dossier and any basis for looking at Trump and him colluding has been shown, the obstruction case will be that much tougher.

We're going to end up with an Iran Contra. Some aides go down. Trump may get censured, but he will likely not be impeached because it is going to be incredibly tough, politically, to make an obstruction case over an investigation which had no basis into investigating him specifically. Ironically, Trump's own "stupidity" could prevent him from being charged as there is an element of intent and knowledge when it comes to making a political case for obstruction.

If the President could acknowledge the things you just mentioned as being fact (because they are) then this issue might not have the weight behind it. But he doesn't and that leaves intelligence officers, political foes, and the concerned citizens left scratching their heads.

Also, this issue isn't about Russian bots.

Moscow helped in the election of Trump through Wikileak dumps of stolen material from the DNC and social media bots. If the Trump campaign helped (which i'm pretty damn sure they did) in this effort then we have an American campaign being helped by a foreign advisory hell bent on seeing the destruction of Democracy.

AND! If the Trump campaign knowingly worked with Russians in this effort for, say, a change in policy on how it treats the Ukrainian Government (which they changed the Republican parties stance on this issue at the RNC for no reason and have yet to acknowledge who's decision it was to change their position), or an easing of sanctions (which literally JUST HAPPENED last week) then the obvious conclusion is the Trump White House is influenced by a foreign advisory.  Jesus Christ man. The Trump White House is doing favors for a President (Putin) who locks up political opponents. Are you really this blind by party loyalty that you don't see that?

P.S. real big bombshell with the Nunes memo. Page 6, Line 3.  The Papadoupolus information triggered the opening of the FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July, 2016.

I thought the Dossier did that? Oh yeah thats right Nunes and the Trump WH are full of shi!

Never thought I'd see a republican president publicly attack and accuse two republicans, (Rosenstein/Wray) that he personally chose for those positions mind you, for aiding in a Democrat conspiracy to take down the WH.

You do see the craziness of all of this, right?

It all boils down to this.

Mr. D,

Will you accept the findings of Robert Mueller as truthful?

Moscow helped in the election of Trump through Wikileak dumps of stolen material from the DNC and social media bots. If the Trump campaign helped (which i'm pretty damn sure they did) in this effort then we have an American campaign being helped by a foreign advisory hell bent on seeing the destruction of Democracy.

What was the big revelation in the wikileaks emails? That Brazile got questions ahead of time and fed them to Hillary? Well, that was true and self-inflicted. If the Democrats didn't want this to become public, they shouldn't have done it in the first place. Say what you will about the Republicans, they conducted a fair and open primary and let the results play out without putting their thumbs on the scale. Other stuff such as Pizzagate only affected Trump voters who were already active and dedicated and didn't persuade anyone.

AND! If the Trump campaign knowingly worked with Russians in this effort for, say, a change in policy on how it treats the Ukrainian Government (which they changed the Republican parties stance on this issue at the RNC for no reason and have yet to acknowledge who's decision it was to change their position), or an easing of sanctions (which literally JUST HAPPENED last week) then the obvious conclusion is the Trump White House is influenced by a foreign advisory.

There's no evidence for your "if". None. The Mueller investigation has not revealed anything of the sort.

The Trump White House is doing favors for a President (Putin) who locks up political opponents. Are you really this blind by party loyalty that you don't see that?

Groups linked to foreign interests talk to our politicians all the time- Israel, Islamic groups, Chinese business interests, etc. Some of them come from regimes that are less than savory.

P.S. real big bombshell with the Nunes memo. Page 6, Line 3.  The Papadoupolus information triggered the opening of the FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July, 2016.

I thought the Dossier did that? Oh yeah thats right Nunes and the Trump WH are full of shi!

Did the dossier serve at any point as a continuance and cause it to move beyond Papadopolous into the Trump campaign as a whole? That's the underlying issue.

Never thought I'd see a republican president publicly attack and accuse two republicans, (Rosenstein/Wray) that he personally chose for those positions mind you, for aiding in a Democrat conspiracy to take down the WH.

You do see the craziness of all of this, right?

Again, Trump engineered what amounted to a hostile takeover of the Republican Party and there were significant elements within that were NOT happy about it. Do you think every Democrat would have gotten in line behind Bernie Sanders if he had run against say, Marco Rubio or Kasich or Jeb!? If Sanders had gone in with promises of an economic revolution and seriously upending things in terms of business and foreign policy, you'd certainly see elements in the Democratic Party that would resist that.

As for Trump's motives in nominating Rosenstein and Wray, and later potentially turning on them, I don't know. It could be that they were foisted upon him. It could be that he trusted them at the start but as information became available, he grew to distrust them.

On a side note, and I say this without judgment one way or the other, I do find it interesting that both Mattis and McMaster have been relatively silent on this. Are they biding their time to denounce Trump? Do they have an inkling that something stinks over at the FBI/Intel agencies? I could see either one being true. It wouldn't be the first time a nation's military and intelligence apparatus/interior ministry have been at loggerheads.

It's okay to lean towards Trump colluding, I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with are the people who get outraged over any skepticism regarding the Trump-Russia narrative. When you start using lines like "Trump must be guilty because he's very loud in proclaiming that he's not guilt" or "You think Russian bots aren't as big a deal as people say? Then you must be a Russian bot", that one should be deeply skeptical as language like that tends to be used by a side that is undergoing a mass panic and typically ends up on the wrong side of history.

It all boils down to this.

Mr. D,

Will you accept the findings of Robert Mueller as truthful?

Will you?

Because so far the final measure has been this- "No evidence of collusion".

Now if Mueller goes for obstruction of justice, I think it depends. He could leave it somewhat open-ended, i.e. "Enough to move forward, but ultimately a jury/Congress will determine" or something along the lines of Comey's "Extremely reckless" (which we know how the wording was changed by partisans in the FBI, any comment?), regardless there are many possible outcomes.

And there's also the question of to what degree Trump may or may not have obstructed justice. If for example that he obstructed through action but not intent (or some other situation where there's a combination of factors, some of them mitigating), then that would certainly be grounds for censure, but might fall short of impeachment.

Steels’ remarks on the workings of Mueller’s investigations are as enlightening as the Nunes Memo.

It all boils down to this.

Mr. D,

Will you accept the findings of Robert Mueller as truthful?

Will you?

Because so far the final measure has been this- "No evidence of collusion".

Now if Mueller goes for obstruction of justice, I think it depends. He could leave it somewhat open-ended, i.e. "Enough to move forward, but ultimately a jury/Congress will determine" or something along the lines of Comey's "Extremely reckless" (which we know how the wording was changed by partisans in the FBI, any comment?), regardless there are many possible outcomes.

And there's also the question of to what degree Trump may or may not have obstructed justice. If for example that he obstructed through action but not intent (or some other situation where there's a combination of factors, some of them mitigating), then that would certainly be grounds for censure, but might fall short of impeachment.

"So far the final"--now there's a nice illogical phrase.

The View...  Is this a good thing for the left? 

The Next video that played... This is just sad.

No the best fan of Laura Ingraham, but...

I thought for a time that American women had deeper voices. I later learned that American women on TV have deeper voices.

"So far the final"--now there's a nice illogical phrase.

 

Touche'!


Anyways, as of now, NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION. You can try and claim otherwise, but that's where it stands now.

"So far the final"--now there's a nice illogical phrase.

 

Touche'!


Anyways, as of now, NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION. You can try and claim otherwise, but that's where it stands now.

I think Mueller is going for “Obstruction of Justice”.

Probably, a case for money laundering if he needs some leverage on guilty pleas.

"So far the final"--now there's a nice illogical phrase.

 

Touche'!


Anyways, as of now, NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION. You can try and claim otherwise, but that's where it stands now.

So you are aware of the evidence that Meuller has or are you just parroting Trump and his flunkey's talking points?

NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION

Out in the public? Yes you are right but there is a TON of circumstantial evidence pointing towards collusion. But we both know circumstantial evidence doesn't hold up in court.

What should be thought of though is this...I wonder what Flynn and Papadopoulous turned over in order to get those minor charges? Has to be something big

So you are aware of the evidence that Meuller has or are you just parroting Trump and his flunkey's talking points?

I do believe you're the one hanging your hopes on mythical Mueller evidence because as it stands in the Russian investigation, there is no evidence of collusion.

You're the one who needs the evidence to make the case.

I think Mueller is going for “Obstruction of Justice”.

Probably, a case for money laundering if he needs some leverage on guilty pleas.

Obstruction of Justice without the underlying collusion is going to be a nightmare to push through politically, especially with what Trump is accused of via Comey.

To answer your question, Mr. D. Will I believe in whatever Mueller brings to the table once the investigation is concluded? Yes I will. Even if he says there is absolutely zero evidence of collusion.

Trump can still obstruct justice in the Russia probe even if there is zero evidence regarding collusion. As i mentioned before...Flynn and Papadopolous plead guilty (Flynn especially) to very insignificant charges considering what they were up against so one has to question the information they turned over.

If you have free time today I suggest listening to this podcast on who Robert Mueller is. Listened to it last night and was highly entertained. Especially the John Ashcroft, James Comey, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush anecdote.

 https://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/2018/02/01/582402962/fresh-air-for-feb-1-2018-robert-muellers-stunningly-bipartisan-reputation-in-was

Trump can still obstruct justice in the Russia probe even if there is zero evidence regarding collusion. As i mentioned before...Flynn and Papadopolous plead guilty (Flynn especially) to very insignificant charges considering what they were up against so one has to question the information they turned over.

Trump can still obstruct justice, but it becomes what amounts to a political impossibility to convict/impeach him for firing someone because he's upset over an investigation that he knows he's innocent of, especially considering that the investigation was not halted.

Flynn might have plead guilty to protect his son. Flynn's cooperation doesn't necessarily mean he is going after Trump, it might be against someone else such as Manafort.

If you have free time today I suggest listening to this podcast on who Robert Mueller is.

 

I'll give it a listen, but I don't have any particular animus towards Mueller. He's been tasked with this probe and he has to see it through.

Also, just because someone has a "bipartisan reputation" doesn't mean they're fine and dandy (again, not saying that's the case with Mueller) or that they don't act out of certain interests beyond their duties.

J. Edgar Hoover was "bipartisan" and only a Commie Pinko would question the FBI.  Again, not saying that's the case with Mueller or Comey or the Bureau, but for goodness sakes, the Bureau doesn't exactly have the cleanest history.

Even in an ultra liberal place like California many people praise Trump-




"amazing job.... stellar.... effective.... absolutely phenomenal"