The FBI was Busy Lying and Committing Crimes for the Dems Instead of Doing their Job, Now This...

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Matthew said:

AKA they were using a very high bar legalese definition of the term. This does not contradict @Hodad when he said that the trump campain and Russians met and exchanged info on Hillary, which is also described in detail in the report:

Actually it does. It doesn't show any sign of an 'exchange' of information.  An exchange is where something is given and something is received. So far all that apperently was 'given' was polling data, they didn't receive anything.

So if Hodad wanted to make the case that trump's team talked to some russians at some point then sure. 

But hodad's position and the position of the dems for years and years now is that trump 'Colluded" (conspired) with the Russians to unlawfully influence the election. And there is no evidence whatsoever of an exchange of information or services or coordinated efforts or the like. 

The whole 'russian collusion' thing is complete 100 percent bullcrap. A guy who worked for trump bragged to a russian guy he knew and had dealings with about how good trump was doing and shared their polling to prove it.  That's about it. 

And there's nothing wrong or even inappropriate about that. 

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Matthew said:

This isn't

The FBI started with nothing and ended with nothing, period. Do you understand that?

In between those points in time they told dozens of lies - they even lied to the FISA court multiple times - they fabricated evidence and provided that to a judge, and they tried to coerce false testimony from people convicted of things completely unrelated to collusion. 

If the FBI showed up in court to convict a drug dealer after all that, and they caught him with 50 kilos of cocaine in his living room under his feet, their case would be thrown out because the police aren't allowed to lie to judges and commit felonies during the course of an investigation. 

Still, at the end of the investigation, the FBI's best guess is "We think that the DNC server might have been hacked (Crowdstrike didn't know, and only they had access to it), and we think it was Russians, and we think that they did it because Trump asked them to, but we don't have evidence of any of those things."

 

FBI: "We started an investigation under dubious circumstances, publicized it, leaked false information about it to the press constantly, lied to the judge on a consistent basis, committed felony evidence tampering, attempted to coerce false testimony from people we convicted of unrelated crimes but came out empty-handed, eventually disaffirmed every bit of dubious intel that we considered evidence to begin with, came up with zero new evidence, but maintained the illusion that it was a serious case for years in spite of all that, and now we'd like you to take our opinion about it seriously..."

Micheal: "I'm all ears! You just say the words and I will repeat them verbatim!!! I have no reason to doubt you!"

Michael, tell me in your own words why I would listen to the FBI's opinion after all that? And just remember, I'm not dumb enough to pay heed to CNN/MSNBC/CBS/NYT/WashPo, so I don't happily consume and regurgitate lies like you do.

Edited January 5 by WestCanMan

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Matthew said:

"Summer 2016. Russian outreach to the Trump Campaign continued into the summer of 2016, as candidate Trump was becoming the presumptive Republican nominee for President. On June 9, 2016, for example, a Russian lawyer met with senior Trump Campaign officials Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and campaign chairman Paul Manafort to deliver what the email proposing the meeting had described as ”official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary.”

1. FYI it's not illegal to let someone give you evidence of a crime, and that meeting ended up having nothing to do with the evidence that Hillary destroyed after it was subpoenaed. 
2. the FBI, which is known to have lied and committed crimes constantly during this show trial, set that meeting up. It's 100% an established fact that the FBI's accomplices met with the "Russian lawyer" both before and after that meeting. Therefor the words that came out of that lawyer's mouth were merely part of the FBI's own calculated attack on Trump, and not a genuine offer from the Russian government.

Quote

The materials were offered to Trump Jr. as ”part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”

The FBI offered that, not the Russian gov't, and it's not illegal to allow someone to give you evidence. 

Quote

The written communications setting up the meeting showed that the Campaign anticipated receiving information from Russia that could assist candidate Trump’s electoral prospects, but the Russian lawyer’s presentation did not provide such information."

As I mentioned, that whole meeting was an FBI setup, and the FBI's accomplices met with that "Russian lawyer" both before and after the Trump tower visit to try and get the Trump team to incriminate themselves. And like your own words clearly illustrate, at no time did Trump's team breach the topic of Hillary's crimes, or try to conduct business with the Russian gov't or its agents. They let the lawyer babble and then concluded their business with her. 

 

LMAO, the FBI couldn't even get dirt-poor troglodytes in Michigan to go along with their entrapment schemes after they bribed them with taxpayer-funded narcotics. The FBI is a f'ing joke, dummy, and you're their useful id10t. 

[WestCanMan]

@Matthew: https://nypost.com/2017/11/07/firm-behind-trump-dossier-met-with-russian-lawyer-involved-in-trump-jr-meeting/

• Firm behind Trump dossier met with Russian lawyer involved in Trump Jr. meeting

• Glenn Simpson, a former Wall Street Journal reporter and co-founder of Fusion GPS, was with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya at a Manhattan federal courtroom just hours before the Trump Tower meeting on June 9, 2016, Fox News reported, citing a source. He met with her again after the meeting, the report said.

  Veselnitskaya, promising “dirt” on Hillary Clinton, met with Donald Trump Jr. and other campaign operatives – including Jared Kushner and former campaign manager Paul Manafort. Trump Jr. later said the discussion was about Russian adoptions.

  But the meeting took place at a critical time when Fusion GPS was being paid by a Russian oligarch and by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee while it enlisted former British spy Christopher Steele to dig up damaging information about Trump through his contacts in Moscow, Fox News said.

The FBI's accomplices, who had provided all of the bogus intel that was used to start that whole show trial up in the first place, then set up a meeting between a "Russian lawyer" and the Trump team, on the pretence that the lawyer wanted to give them evidence of Hillary's known crimes.

Somehow you think that this is evidence that the Trump team was engaging with the Russian gov't, but all it is is MORE EVIDENCE OF THE FBI's ENTRAPMENT SCHEMES AND SKULLDUGGERY!

Buddy, the FBI leaked news of this bogus meeting to drum up more momentum behind their illicit show trial, and the Demis' MSM lackeys trumpeted it like the second coming of Christ up until the point that it was completely disaffirmed, and then they just stopped talking about it, just like they did with all of the FBI's other BS leaks and smear tactics during the show trial. 

Wanna know the funny part? They didn't even just leak the BS, they'd always end of the week's news with "THERE'S MORE B🤡MBSHELL EVIDENCE OF TRUMP'S RUSSIAN COLLUSION SCHEME COMING ON THE WEEKEND! SET YOUR DVR'S PEOPLE! WE WILL KEEP YOU INFORMED AS ALL THE LATEST NEWS BREAKS!" and then they'd leak the BS with even more fanfare. After their BS was all debunked it just went away without a whimper, every single time. No apologies, ever. And they even kept talking about Russian collusion for over a year after Van Jones was caught on camera admitting that "Russian collusion is a big nothingburger." How the F is that even a thing? How F'ing dumb are you people??????

Dummies like you were sucked in by all the pre-headlines, and all the actual fake headlines, and then you avoided the news of the debunking of all that BS like it was the plague, only to revive it again later when you thought that people had forgotten the whole story, like you're doing with the hotel meeting entrapment scheme. 

 

Hit the skids, dummy. We were running circles around you before you knew what circles were. 

[Hodad]

4 hours ago, Matthew said:

This isn't making the point you think it is. Its from a paragraph in which they state that collusion and coordination are not terms in US law and that conspiracy is in US law. So they focused on ways in which the trump campain conspired to violate the law. The sentence you're quoting defines coordination this way:

"We understood coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

AKA they were using a very high bar legalese definition of the term. This does not contradict @Hodad when he said that the trump campain and Russians met and exchanged info on Hillary, which is also described in detail in the report:

"Spring 2016. Campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos made early contact with Joseph Mifsud, a London-based professor who had connections to Russia and traveled to Moscow in April 2016. Immediately upon his return to London from that trip, Mifsud told Papadopoulos that the Russian government had ”dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. One week later, in the first week of May 2016, Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton. Throughout that period of time and for several months thereafter, Papadopoulos worked with Mifsud and two Russian nationals to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and the Russian government. No meeting took place.

"Summer 2016. Russian outreach to the Trump Campaign continued into the summer of 2016, as candidate Trump was becoming the presumptive Republican nominee for President. On June 9, 2016, for example, a Russian lawyer met with senior Trump Campaign officials Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and campaign chairman Paul Manafort to deliver what the email proposing the meeting had described as ”official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary.”
The materials were offered to Trump Jr. as ”part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” The written communications setting up the meeting showed that the Campaign anticipated receiving information from Russia that could assist candidate Trump’s electoral prospects, but the Russian lawyer’s presentation did not provide such information."

That attempt at collusion certainly illustrates intent on the part of the campaign, but I was referring specifically to the documented meetings and exchanges between Manafort and Kilimnik.

With elaborate contrivances to hide their exchanges, Manafort delivered sensitive Intel to known Russian intelligence agent Kilimnik, who in turn delivered it to Russian intelligence--while Russian intelligence was actively targeting Americans with election interference activities. 

[WestCanMan]

2 minutes ago, Hodad said:

That attempt at collusion

It was never "an attempt at collusion", dummy. 

Are you retarded?

Someone offered to give the Trump campaign evidence of Hillary's known crimes. That's it. If someone has evidence against a murderer and they ask you to take it to the police, can you be implicated for that? As a citizen, do you have to say "I can't take that evidence to the police, sorry. That's somehow illegal"?

1. That offer wasn't met with a reply of "We'll give the Russian government something in exchange for that"
2. That offer came from the FBI's accomplices, not the Russian government, so it was an entrapment scheme and not an offer from the Russian gov't. 
3. Trump's people never, at any point, "tried to enter into negotiations with the Russian gov't for the FBI's alleged Russian information". They let the woman talk and then left. No deals were discussed. 

It was just an entrapment scheme that fell flat. Full stop. 

[User]

3 minutes ago, Hodad said:

That attempt at collusion certainly illustrates intent on the part of the campaign, but I was referring specifically to the documented meetings and exchanges between Manafort and Kilimnik.

Kilimnik is not "Russian intelligence" as you claimed. Attempt at collusion? LOL, there was no collusion. 

You are a liar. 

4 minutes ago, Hodad said:

With elaborate contrivances to hide their exchanges, Manafort delivered sensitive Intel to known Russian intelligence agent Kilimnik, who in turn delivered it to Russian intelligence--while Russian intelligence was actively targeting Americans with election interference activities. 

Manafort did not know he was working for Russian intelligence and the Mueller report did not have any evidence for what Kilimnik did with any of the information or that he specifically gave it to Russian intelligence. 

Your source is outright lying in the headline:

"According to the Treasury Department, the Trump campaign’s chairman shared polling data with the Kremlin in 2016. "

That is not what the Treasury Department said at all. This is the same dumb dishonest game you are playing. The information was shared with Kilimnik, that is not the Kremlin. 

 

 

[Hodad]

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

It was never "an attempt at collusion", dummy. 

Are you retarded?

Someone offered to give the Trump campaign evidence of Hillary's known crimes. That's it. If someone has evidence against a murderer and they ask you to take it to the police, can you be implicated for that? As a citizen, do you have to say "I can't take that evidence to the police, sorry. That's somehow illegal"?

1. That offer wasn't met with a reply of "We'll give the Russian government something in exchange for that"
2. That offer came from the FBI's accomplices, not the Russian government, so it was an entrapment scheme and not an offer from the Russian gov't. 
3. Trump's people never, at any point, "tried to enter into negotiations with the Russian gov't for the FBI's alleged Russian information". They let the woman talk and then left. No deals were discussed. 

It was just an entrapment scheme that fell flat. Full stop. 

As a person with no integrity, no moral compass and no sense of ethics, this probably probably sound strange to you, but if a hostile nation's intelligence services contact one's presidential campaign offering "dirt" on an opponent, one should contact the authorities, not set up a meeting. 

In America, we expect our leaders to contend with hostile nations, not get into bed with them. 

Not to meet with them. Not to coordinate around illegal hack leaks. And damn sure not to feed them polling and strategy so that they can more effectively target Americans.

You see, they are enemies of America, targeting Americans. Even if your political opponent is a sleazy scumbag like Trump, he's an American. Americans protect Americans, not hostile foreign interests. That's America first. 

Edited January 6 by Hodad

[Matthew]

Guys it's not that hard. Anyone in contact with a foreign enemy for the purpose of plotting against (or attempting to plot against) Americans are commiting treason and should be tried and executed.

All this hiding behind labored lawyer talk is the reason that foreign nations can get away with corrupt influence. Plus the SCOTUS has done almost nothing to define the concepts of Article III section 3 of the US Constitution, and this Campaigns-Meeting-With-The-Russians situation would be a perfect test case.

[User]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

As a person with no integrity, no moral compass and no sense of ethics, this probably probably sound strange to you, but if a hostile nation's intelligence services contact one's presidential campaign offering "dirt" on an opponent, one should contact the authorities, not set up a meeting. 

Another lie. 

They did not agree to meet with or actually meet with a "hostile nations intelligence service"

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Not to meet with them. Not to coordinate around illegal hack leaks. And damn sure not to feed them polling and strategy so that they can more effectively target Americans.

If you were not hiding from me like the coward you are, I have refuted this lie of yours already. 

 

18 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Guys it's not that hard. Anyone in contact with a foreign enemy for the purpose of plotting against (or attempting to plot against) Americans are commiting treason and should be tried and executed.

LOL, yeah, when you phrase it so dishonestly like this!

 

[CdnFox]

28 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Guys it's not that hard. Anyone in contact with a foreign enemy for the purpose of plotting against (or attempting to plot against) Americans are commiting treason and should be tried and executed.

 

And which enemy are you referring to? Russia? I'll remind you that biden and hunter had ties there too. 

And is the us at war with russia? I don't recall declaring them an enemy. A craptonne of us businesses all had dealings with russia, are we shooting them all as well?

and the fbi specifically noted that there wasn't any real evidence of a 'plot' (conspiracy) in the slightest 

So it would seem indeed that it ISN'T that hard.... you're just a bit of an !diot  

[Legato]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

As a person with no integrity, no moral compass and no sense of ethics, this probably probably sound strange to you, but if a hostile nation's intelligence services contact one's presidential campaign offering "dirt" on an opponent, one should contact the authorities, not set up a meeting. 

In America, we expect our leaders to contend with hostile nations, not get into bed with them. 

Not to meet with them. Not to coordinate around illegal hack leaks. And damn sure not to feed them polling and strategy so that they can more effectively target Americans.

You see, they are enemies of America, targeting Americans. Even if your political opponent is a sleazy scumbag like Trump, he's an American. Americans protect Americans, not hostile foreign interests. That's America first. 

 I see the Dillon-Wagoner Graviton Polarity Generator you are using badly needs a software upgrade.

[User]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And which enemy are you referring to? Russia? I'll remind you that biden and hunter had ties there too. 

And is the us at war with russia? I don't recall declaring them an enemy. A craptonne of us businesses all had dealings with russia, are we shooting them all as well?

and the fbi specifically noted that there wasn't any real evidence of a 'plot' (conspiracy) in the slightest 

So it would seem indeed that it ISN'T that hard.... you're just a bit of an !diot  

They have no problems with the fact that the Clinton Campaign literally paid a Russian to fabricate crap about Trump... to go around Russia digging up sources and whatever bad information he could find on Trump. 

That is totally cool. 

Nevermind all the crap later that was done with that report to go after Trump. 

 

[Matthew]

45 minutes ago, User said:

LOL, yeah, when you phrase it so dishonestly like this!

I'm stating a general principle that should apply to anyone. Do you disagree with it?

[Matthew]

35 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I'll remind you that biden and hunter had ties there too.

Sure I said anyone. Policymakers secretly working with hostile nations to attack other Americans is obvious treason and should be treated as such.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

Guys it's not that hard. Anyone in contact with a foreign enemy for the purpose of plotting against (or attempting to plot against) Americans are commiting treason and should be tried and executed.

All this hiding behind labored lawyer talk is the reason that foreign nations can get away with corrupt influence. Plus the SCOTUS has done almost nothing to define the concepts of Article III section 3 of the US Constitution, and this Campaigns-Meeting-With-The-Russians situation would be a perfect test case.

If that was true, Biden would be in jail for their family's partnership with the guy who led China's One Belt, One Road initiative. 

[Matthew]

11 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

If that was true, Biden would be in jail for their family's partnership with the guy who led China's One Belt, One Road initiative. 

Sure whoever can be objectively shown to have committed treason should be tried and sent to the gallows. Hair splitting over planning to conspire vs actually conspiring is f*cking st*pid.

And sure there is grey area.  I'm not talking about people doing business, or engaging in activism, or ideas/ideologies. I'm talking about political schemes involving foreign influence.

[CdnFox]

14 hours ago, Matthew said:

Sure I said anyone. Policymakers secretly working with hostile nations to attack other Americans is obvious treason and should be treated as such.

Fair enough.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Matthew said:

Sure whoever can be objectively shown to have committed treason should be tried and sent to the gallows. Hair splitting over planning to conspire vs actually conspiring is f*cking st*pid.

And sure there is grey area.  I'm not talking about people doing business, or engaging in activism, or ideas/ideologies. I'm talking about political schemes involving foreign influence.

Whooops, now you're walking it back. 

At the end of the day "objectively' means being tried and found guilty in a court of law.  That's why we supposedly have a legal system, to produce objective results and conclusions.  

Anything else is subjective. 

And at this point none of the people we're discussing have been found guilty of treason or any other similar crime. 

However the system still provided for this by giving people the vote. If you believe on the balance of probability that a politician has done something of this nature you can help vote him out of power. 

Edited January 6 by CdnFox

[WestCanMan]

5 hours ago, Matthew said:

Sure whoever can be objectively shown to have committed treason should be tried and sent to the gallows. Hair splitting over planning to conspire vs actually conspiring is f*cking st*pid.

And sure there is grey area.  I'm not talking about people doing business, or engaging in activism, or ideas/ideologies. I'm talking about political schemes involving foreign influence.

And Trump was never shown to have committed treason, dummy. 

There was a 3-yr long investigation and the only things of significance that turned up were the FBI's own bias, lies and felonies. 

[Scott75]

On 1/1/2025 at 10:15 PM, WestCanMan said:

While the FBI was lying and committing crimes regarding Russian collusion, J6, the laptop, Whitmer, etc, terrorists, presidential assassins and school shooters were getting out ahead of them.

The FBI is a joke. Terrorists are winning while the FBI is on their various crime sprees.

I'm not sure about the things you mention, but you may find the following thread that I just made interesting: