Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[chineseblues]

Multiple people have now had charges filed against them in federal court by mueller, arrests to come as soon as Monday. Looks like at manafort is one of the ones being charged.


Butterymales tho? Hah, expect an epic cheeto twitter rant before the night is out.

[tim_m]

I hope Kushner is one as well.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

 I want to see justice,  just hope Mueller has been impartial with all of this.

 

[AxlsMainMan]

just hope Mueller has been impartial with all of this.

You?ve said that, ad nauseum

[Dr. Blutarsky]

just hope Mueller has been impartial with all of this.

You?ve said that, ad nauseum

Maybe I have said it more than once or twice, but isn't that important when it comes to an investigation? Questions have been raised regarding Mueller's impartiality.

 

[Dr. Blutarsky]

 Here we go.

BREAKING NEWS: Paul Manafort arrives at FBI HQ to surrender to authorities as Mueller grand jury indicts him and former business partner Rick Gates for $75 MILLION in money laundering

    The first charges from the probe of possible Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election were unsealed Monday morning
    Paul Manafort and Rick Gates were told to surrender to face charges including conspiracy against the United States and conspiracy to launder money
    Other charges are being an unregistered agent of a foreign principal, false and misleading Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) statements, false statements, and seven counts of failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts
    Manafort left his home shortly after 8:00 a.m. to turn himself in; Gates is expected in court later on Monday
    Indictment says Manafort and Gates controlled $75 million in slush funds, buying tailored suits, cars and antiques
    A federal grand jury approved the indictment on Friday and a judge ordered it sealed then
    Trump has denied the allegations of collusion with the Russians and called the probe 'a witch hunt'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5031419/Paul-Manafort-Rick-Gates-told-SURRENDER.html#ixzz4wzzC0X8Z
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[chineseblues]

just hope Mueller has been impartial with all of this.

You?ve said that, ad nauseum

Maybe I have said it more than once or twice, but isn't that important when it comes to an investigation? Questions have been raised regarding Mueller's impartiality.

 

Only by people he is investigating. Could it be they are just looking for any kind of excuse to deny/hide/stop what Meuller is doing? 

[Dr. Blutarsky]

just hope Mueller has been impartial with all of this.

You?ve said that, ad nauseum

Maybe I have said it more than once or twice, but isn't that important when it comes to an investigation? Questions have been raised regarding Mueller's impartiality.

 

Only by people he is investigating. Could it be they are just looking for any kind of excuse to deny/hide/stop what Meuller is doing? 

Some in the media have raised this as well as members of congress that are not targets in this investigation. Do you want Mueller and his team not to be impartial?

[chineseblues]

just hope Mueller has been impartial with all of this.

You?ve said that, ad nauseum

Maybe I have said it more than once or twice, but isn't that important when it comes to an investigation? Questions have been raised regarding Mueller's impartiality.

 

Only by people he is investigating. Could it be they are just looking for any kind of excuse to deny/hide/stop what Meuller is doing? 

Some in the media have raised this as well as members of congress that are not targets in this investigation. Do you want Mueller and his team not to be impartial?

Fox News does not count as media. Mueller is a republican and has a reputation of going after criminals no matter what side of the fence they sit on.  No one with an ounce of credibility is questioning his impartiality.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

just hope Mueller has been impartial with all of this.

You?ve said that, ad nauseum

Maybe I have said it more than once or twice, but isn't that important when it comes to an investigation? Questions have been raised regarding Mueller's impartiality.

 

Only by people he is investigating. Could it be they are just looking for any kind of excuse to deny/hide/stop what Meuller is doing? 

Some in the media have raised this as well as members of congress that are not targets in this investigation. Do you want Mueller and his team not to be impartial?

Fox News does not count as media. Mueller is a republican and has a reputation of going after criminals no matter what side of the fence they sit on.  No one with an ounce of credibility is questioning his impartiality.

Did I say anything about Fox news? You don't have to act like a douche to have a discussion with someone who has a difference in opinion.

[pilferk]

Some in the media have raised this as well as members of congress that are not targets in this investigation. Do you want Mueller and his team not to be impartial?

Who in the media, exactly?

And which unbiased "not tied to Trump" members of congress?

The "media" I've seen question his impartiality are from Fox News (which I see you think shouldn't be mentioned, so...there must be others?), Breitbart, and the Alex Jones/Sean Hannity types. People who aren't credible, no matter what they say, on any topic.

And the members of congress (mostly from the House) who I seen do so are "in the tank" Trump supporters.

In other words, folks who have an agenda, and who are hardly impartial themselves.

I have no problem with the "hoping he's impartial" bit, but dwelling on it seems to indicate you are AFRAID he won't be.  Meaning you have some reason to question his impartiality. I've seen none.  Not looking at his service record. Certainly not looking at his time in law enforcement and what's he's accomplished, and who he's gone after.  So...what, exactly?

[pilferk]

I think Mueller will be paying a visit to Chappaqua with a few questions 

This is from the Washington Post

Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier

The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump?s connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said.

Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.

After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the company in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Before that agreement, Fusion GPS?s research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.

The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS?s research through the end of October 2016, days before Election Day.

more - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.e1ee26ee721f

I'm not sure what questions he'd have unless they lied to him during the investigation (we have no reason to think they did).

Funding oppo research....research that apparently originated from the repubs during the primaries....isn't illegal when you're not making the deal with a foreign governement or their agents (as the Trump campaign has actually admitted to doing).

Going to Fusion (indirectly, through a third party, it seems) and saying "Hey, we heard about this thing that was found out and being researched during the Repub primary relating to Trump and Russia...we'd like in on that....here's some money...go find out what they found out" isn't illegal.  It also doesn't reflect...even a little bit...on whether the information obtained is accurate or not or ACTIONABLE or not.

I'm not exactly sure why there would be "questions" here, from Mueller, other than "Hey, can you share what you might have found"...except everyone has pretty much already seen it. So.....

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Some in the media have raised this as well as members of congress that are not targets in this investigation. Do you want Mueller and his team not to be impartial?

Who in the media, exactly?

And which unbiased "not tied to Trump" members of congress?

The "media" I've seen question his impartiality are from Fox News (which I see you think shouldn't be mentioned, so...there must be others?), Breitbart, and the Alex Jones/Sean Hannity types. People who aren't credible, no matter what they say, on any topic.

And the members of congress (mostly from the House) who I seen do so are "in the tank" Trump supporters.

In other words, folks who have an agenda, and who are hardly impartial themselves.

I have no problem with the "hoping he's impartial" bit, but dwelling on it seems to indicate you are AFRAID he won't be.  Meaning you have some reason to question his impartiality. I've seen none.  Not looking at his service record. Certainly not looking at his time in law enforcement and what's he's accomplished, and who he's gone after.  So...what, exactly?

 So what exactly is the scope of the Mueller investigation?  Is it just Trump's possible collusion with Russia?  The Manifort indictment says not so much, his crimes pre-date his involvement with the Trump campaign.

Does this mean Mueller will be looking into the Clinton Foundation/ DNC /Russia collusion as well? (Uranium One deal, Trump Dossier funding) At least seven of the 15 lawyers Mueller has brought on to the special counsel team have donated to Democratic political candidates, five of them to Hillary Clinton. If they go there, will these individuals be an impartial team of investigators?

This is why I said I hope they are impartial, but there are concerns there.





 

[Dr. Blutarsky]

I think Mueller will be paying a visit to Chappaqua with a few questions 

This is from the Washington Post

Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier

The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump?s connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said.

Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.

After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the company in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Before that agreement, Fusion GPS?s research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.

The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS?s research through the end of October 2016, days before Election Day.

more - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.e1ee26ee721f

I'm not sure what questions he'd have unless they lied to him during the investigation (we have no reason to think they did).

Funding oppo research....research that apparently originated from the repubs during the primaries....isn't illegal when you're not making the deal with a foreign governement or their agents (as the Trump campaign has actually admitted to doing).

Going to Fusion (indirectly, through a third party, it seems) and saying "Hey, we heard about this thing that was found out and being researched during the Repub primary relating to Trump and Russia...we'd like in on that....here's some money...go find out what they found out" isn't illegal.  It also doesn't reflect...even a little bit...on whether the information obtained is accurate or not or ACTIONABLE or not.

I'm not exactly sure why there would be "questions" here, from Mueller, other than "Hey, can you share what you might have found"...except everyone has pretty much already seen it. So.....

I am not sure why you'd think the Clintons to be on the up and up on anything due to their past behavior.  They've earned the reputation that they have.

With the dossier, they may have violated campaign election laws.

And this isn't coming from Fox News.

Clinton, DNC connections to Trump dossier funding could create election law issues

The politically-explosive revelation that Hillary Clinton?s campaign and the Democratic Party paid for some of the research that produced an uncorroborated election-year dossier connecting President Trump to Russia may have broken campaign laws.

Election law experts said candidates and their committees are required to report expenses accurately and in detail, and that civil or criminal penalties can be imposed for failing to do so.

More - http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/357213-clinton-dnc-connections-to-trump-dossier-funding-could-create-election-law

[pilferk]

Some in the media have raised this as well as members of congress that are not targets in this investigation. Do you want Mueller and his team not to be impartial?

Who in the media, exactly?

And which unbiased "not tied to Trump" members of congress?

The "media" I've seen question his impartiality are from Fox News (which I see you think shouldn't be mentioned, so...there must be others?), Breitbart, and the Alex Jones/Sean Hannity types. People who aren't credible, no matter what they say, on any topic.

And the members of congress (mostly from the House) who I seen do so are "in the tank" Trump supporters.

In other words, folks who have an agenda, and who are hardly impartial themselves.

I have no problem with the "hoping he's impartial" bit, but dwelling on it seems to indicate you are AFRAID he won't be.  Meaning you have some reason to question his impartiality. I've seen none.  Not looking at his service record. Certainly not looking at his time in law enforcement and what's he's accomplished, and who he's gone after.  So...what, exactly?

 So what exactly is the scope of the Mueller investigation?  Is it just Trump's possible collusion with Russia?  The Manifort indictment says not so much, his crimes pre-date his involvement with the Trump campaign.

Does this mean Mueller will be looking into the Clinton Foundation/ DNC /Russia collusion as well? (Uranium One deal, Trump Dossier funding) At least seven of the 15 lawyers Mueller has brought on to the special counsel team have donated to Democratic political candidates, five of them to Hillary Clinton. If they go there, will these individuals be an impartial team of investigators?

This is why I said I hope they are impartial, but there are concerns there.





 

Right. Got it.

Mostly conserative spin room concerns that have akready been adressed/debunked/investigated/disproven.

Thats what i figured.

His scope jumping off point is collusion. As with any special prosecutor, ever, he gets to pull at related personel and threads and uncover anything and everything. Like the Starr investigation. Thats not being partial. Thats his mandate.

And people need to remember: Hillary lost. Get on with it. Shes irrelevant. And pointing to her is just misdirection. Plain and simple.

[pilferk]

I think Mueller will be paying a visit to Chappaqua with a few questions 

This is from the Washington Post

Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier

The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump?s connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said.

Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.

After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the company in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Before that agreement, Fusion GPS?s research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.

The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS?s research through the end of October 2016, days before Election Day.

more - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.e1ee26ee721f

I'm not sure what questions he'd have unless they lied to him during the investigation (we have no reason to think they did).

Funding oppo research....research that apparently originated from the repubs during the primaries....isn't illegal when you're not making the deal with a foreign governement or their agents (as the Trump campaign has actually admitted to doing).

Going to Fusion (indirectly, through a third party, it seems) and saying "Hey, we heard about this thing that was found out and being researched during the Repub primary relating to Trump and Russia...we'd like in on that....here's some money...go find out what they found out" isn't illegal.  It also doesn't reflect...even a little bit...on whether the information obtained is accurate or not or ACTIONABLE or not.

I'm not exactly sure why there would be "questions" here, from Mueller, other than "Hey, can you share what you might have found"...except everyone has pretty much already seen it. So.....

I am not sure why you'd think the Clintons to be on the up and up on anything due to their past behavior.  They've earned the reputation that they have.

With the dossier, they may have violated campaign election laws.

And this isn't coming from Fox News.

Clinton, DNC connections to Trump dossier funding could create election law issues

The politically-explosive revelation that Hillary Clinton?s campaign and the Democratic Party paid for some of the research that produced an uncorroborated election-year dossier connecting President Trump to Russia may have broken campaign laws.

Election law experts said candidates and their committees are required to report expenses accurately and in detail, and that civil or criminal penalties can be imposed for failing to do so.

More - http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/357213-clinton-dnc-connections-to-trump-dossier-funding-could-create-election-law

So..impartiality for Trump, but "lock her up" and assume guilt based on your perception of her past history, right? Seems fair.

I'm not sure why you think Trump would be any better, given his history. He's earned his reputation.

If they violated campaign election laws, there will be a nice slap on the wrist penalty. Like the trump campaign shoukd be subject to for a plethora of violations.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/20/did-the-trump-campaign-violate-federal-law-by-using-a-trump-organization-speechwriter/

https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-accused-of-flagrant-violations-of-election-law-us-elections-2016-gop/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-jr-violated-law-democrats_us_59651d77e4b03f144e2e8766

I mean, impartiality, right? And heres the thin: TRUMP won!

Conservatives need to put their hard on away for Hillary. She lost.

And campaign law violations not remotely related to collusion would be the perview of the fec. I'm sure they are investigating.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

I think Mueller will be paying a visit to Chappaqua with a few questions 

This is from the Washington Post

Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier

The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump?s connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said.

Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.

After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the company in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Before that agreement, Fusion GPS?s research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.

The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS?s research through the end of October 2016, days before Election Day.

more - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.e1ee26ee721f

I'm not sure what questions he'd have unless they lied to him during the investigation (we have no reason to think they did).

Funding oppo research....research that apparently originated from the repubs during the primaries....isn't illegal when you're not making the deal with a foreign governement or their agents (as the Trump campaign has actually admitted to doing).

Going to Fusion (indirectly, through a third party, it seems) and saying "Hey, we heard about this thing that was found out and being researched during the Repub primary relating to Trump and Russia...we'd like in on that....here's some money...go find out what they found out" isn't illegal.  It also doesn't reflect...even a little bit...on whether the information obtained is accurate or not or ACTIONABLE or not.

I'm not exactly sure why there would be "questions" here, from Mueller, other than "Hey, can you share what you might have found"...except everyone has pretty much already seen it. So.....

I am not sure why you'd think the Clintons to be on the up and up on anything due to their past behavior.  They've earned the reputation that they have.

With the dossier, they may have violated campaign election laws.

And this isn't coming from Fox News.

Clinton, DNC connections to Trump dossier funding could create election law issues

The politically-explosive revelation that Hillary Clinton?s campaign and the Democratic Party paid for some of the research that produced an uncorroborated election-year dossier connecting President Trump to Russia may have broken campaign laws.

Election law experts said candidates and their committees are required to report expenses accurately and in detail, and that civil or criminal penalties can be imposed for failing to do so.

More - http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/357213-clinton-dnc-connections-to-trump-dossier-funding-could-create-election-law

So..impartiality for Trump, but "lock her up" and assume guilt based on your perception of her past history, right? Seems fair.

I'm not sure why you think Trump would be any better, given his history. He's earned his reputation.

If they violated campaign election laws, there will be a nice slap on the wrist penalty. Like the trump campaign shoukd be subject to for a plethora of violations.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/20/did-the-trump-campaign-violate-federal-law-by-using-a-trump-organization-speechwriter/

https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-accused-of-flagrant-violations-of-election-law-us-elections-2016-gop/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-jr-violated-law-democrats_us_59651d77e4b03f144e2e8766

I mean, impartiality, right? And heres the thin: TRUMP won!

Conservatives need to put their hard on away for Hillary. She lost.

And campaign law violations not remotely related to collusion would be the perview of the fec. I'm sure they are investigating.

Hillary doesn't deserve a pass because she lost the election. Nor does Trump deserve a pass because he won the election.  Those articles are from last year, so they arent on everyone's  mind right now. But with that said, Trump should be held to the same standard as anyone else, if he broke the law there should be consequences.

[sandman]

Thank you snowflakes for coming out of the woodwork!!!
I fuckin love it!!!!!!
U make this so much fun.
I knew when i logged on i?d see these exact comments.
 

[tim_m]

Coming from someone who's boy is the ultimate snowflake lol. Wah wah the media is so unfair to me wah wah i'm gonna threaten their license cause i don't like what they say about me wah wah. You just know Donnie's days are numbered now and you're scared. I can't wait to see who turns on him to Mueller.

[tim_m]

Serious question for all the trumpers. When and how was America so great that you want to get back to? Was it when we tried to wipe out the natives? No? Was it slavery? No? Well maybe it was when blacks couldn't vote? No? Maybe it was when we had segregation and Jim Crow? No not then either? Was it when women had no rights? Nope? Hmm maybe when interracial marriage was illegal? No? what about when gays couldn't get married? Sure we've done great things with science/technology and education. Which this administration is doing a terrible job by trying to take us backwards with a lot of this stuff. But our history in how we treat people especially minorities is shit. Have we gotten better? Yes. Are we still getting better i fucking hope so.