You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: US Politics Thread
slcpunk wrote:The FBI feels it has enough evidence to warrant an investigation.
That's where you're wrong. The presence of an investigation doesn't mean they have evidence. They're the federal bureau of investigation. Everything they do is an investigation. Accusations were charged. Russia was behind the hacks. It'd be a dereliction of duty if they didn't validate nothing illegal happened.
Comey repeatedly said (many times today, so I may not have the exact wording memorized) "don't infer my 'no comment' implies guilt or any evidence." You're doing just that.
So you're saying that you're just as likely as Trump to be investigated for your dealing with Russia? or for anything? That investigations are done willy nilly....no matter what resources it takes or now matter how frivolous?
Be careful how you answer (you likely won't, because that's your style...you like to control the direction of conversation) because you can't have it both ways....and I think you would rather have your cake and eat it too when it comes to this....
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
No, I'm saying the term investigation isn't a dirty word that implies reasonable suspicion of wrong doing. We know Russia hacked the DNC. We know Putin released info to damage Clinton's image.
The FBI "investigates" everything that comes across their desks. Then they end an investigation and either contact the DoJ to get an arrest warrant or they close the file.
What SLC said and what you seem to agree with, is that the mere presence of an investigation means there exists some level of evidence to warrant said investigation. That's not how it works.
I know I was investigated by the FBI. I had a Top Secret clearance. So if I ever ran for office, you could say "Flagg was investigated by the FBI for inappropriate contact with foreign agents." That'd totally be a correct statement. It doesn't mean the FBI at any point believed I was actually colluding with a foreign agent.
Re: US Politics Thread
No, I'm saying the term investigation isn't a dirty word that implies reasonable suspicion of wrong doing. We know Russia hacked the DNC. We know Putin released info to damage Clinton's image.
The FBI "investigates" everything that comes across their desks. Then they end an investigation and either contact the DoJ to get an arrest warrant or they close the file.
What SLC said and what you seem to agree with, is that the mere presence of an investigation means there exists some level of evidence to warrant said investigation. That's not how it works.
I know I was investigated by the FBI. I had a Top Secret clearance. So if I ever ran for office, you could say "Flagg was investigated by the FBI for inappropriate contact with foreign agents." That'd totally be a correct statement. It doesn't mean the FBI at any point believed I was actually colluding with a foreign agent.
But in terms of political collateral, that doesn't matter. This tactic was carried out for years against Clinton and I believe had the most direct effect on her image over the course of YEARS. So we're not just talking about what the exact definition of the term means...we're talking about perception.
This will be used against Trump for the rest of his political career...because truth clearly doesn't matter...especially right now in the Trump presidency/era. I'm not willing to yet admit that these are witch hunting tactics....but even if that's all that they are, we've learned that this is how it's done today. I'm not saying that I like it.
Trump has no problem saying whatever he feels like saying regardless of truth....unfortunately....he's made the rules of the game now. We're all just playing it.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
Bring your daughter to work day...
Simply stunning that Ivanka girl is. I would never pull out if I made love to her.
Re: US Politics Thread
I'm sure Donald thinks the same.
No, I'm saying the term investigation isn't a dirty word that implies reasonable suspicion of wrong doing. We know Russia hacked the DNC. We know Putin released info to damage Clinton's image.
The FBI "investigates" everything that comes across their desks. Then they end an investigation and either contact the DoJ to get an arrest warrant or they close the file.
What SLC said and what you seem to agree with, is that the mere presence of an investigation means there exists some level of evidence to warrant said investigation. That's not how it works.
I know I was investigated by the FBI. I had a Top Secret clearance. So if I ever ran for office, you could say "Flagg was investigated by the FBI for inappropriate contact with foreign agents." That'd totally be a correct statement. It doesn't mean the FBI at any point believed I was actually colluding with a foreign agent.
That's nowhere near the same. You had a background check, not investigated for colluding with an enemy nation.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
I'm sure Donald thinks the same.
Randall Flagg wrote:No, I'm saying the term investigation isn't a dirty word that implies reasonable suspicion of wrong doing. We know Russia hacked the DNC. We know Putin released info to damage Clinton's image.
The FBI "investigates" everything that comes across their desks. Then they end an investigation and either contact the DoJ to get an arrest warrant or they close the file.
What SLC said and what you seem to agree with, is that the mere presence of an investigation means there exists some level of evidence to warrant said investigation. That's not how it works.
I know I was investigated by the FBI. I had a Top Secret clearance. So if I ever ran for office, you could say "Flagg was investigated by the FBI for inappropriate contact with foreign agents." That'd totally be a correct statement. It doesn't mean the FBI at any point believed I was actually colluding with a foreign agent.
That's nowhere near the same. You had a background check, not investigated for colluding with an enemy nation.
How can the FBI have an opinion one way or the other without investigating? Your cognitive dissonance on this is absurd and entirely partisan.
How many times does Comey have to say to not take his "no comment" and indication of wrong doing, before you get it?
You can join SLC and claim Bush was behind 9/11, going full retard. Or you can actually find a single credible person saying there's evidence to suspect Trump colluded with Russia.
I'm not going to keep arguing with your fan fiction. It's a shame you guys drove off half the posters on this forum with your rabid circle jerks because your preferred candidate lost.
Re: US Politics Thread
misterID wrote:I'm sure Donald thinks the same.
Randall Flagg wrote:No, I'm saying the term investigation isn't a dirty word that implies reasonable suspicion of wrong doing. We know Russia hacked the DNC. We know Putin released info to damage Clinton's image.
The FBI "investigates" everything that comes across their desks. Then they end an investigation and either contact the DoJ to get an arrest warrant or they close the file.
What SLC said and what you seem to agree with, is that the mere presence of an investigation means there exists some level of evidence to warrant said investigation. That's not how it works.
I know I was investigated by the FBI. I had a Top Secret clearance. So if I ever ran for office, you could say "Flagg was investigated by the FBI for inappropriate contact with foreign agents." That'd totally be a correct statement. It doesn't mean the FBI at any point believed I was actually colluding with a foreign agent.
That's nowhere near the same. You had a background check, not investigated for colluding with an enemy nation.
How can the FBI have an opinion one way or the other without investigating? Your cognitive dissonance on this is absurd and entirely partisan.
How many times does Comey have to say to not take his "no comment" and indication of wrong doing, before you get it?
You can join SLC and claim Bush was behind 9/11, going full retard. Or you can actually find a single credible person saying there's evidence to suspect Trump colluded with Russia.
I'm not going to keep arguing with your fan fiction. It's a shame you guys drove off half the posters on this forum with your rabid circle jerks because your preferred candidate lost.
Now you're going back to lame analogies and accusations to try and discredit any differing opinion. There is a difference between a background check and being investigated for colluding with the enemy. Not only is your flimsy comparison totally ignoring the context, as a whole, it's still nowhere the same. I guess my piss test means I was investigated for narcotics possession??
Comey said you can't take his non answer for anything, guilt or non guilt. That comment was not meant to say he was innocent or that there was nothing to see there. Hence why it's an ongoing investigation. Plus he's prevented by law from divulging details. Trump has associates with connections to Russia, and lied about it. One even bragged about meeting with the hackers. They bragged something big was going to drop before Wikileaks came out with the emails.
And if by driving off posters you mean like Buzz, well, you're welcome. You'd have to be pretty weak to walk away from a debate from us, when you're the one slinging insults and attempting to partisan brow beat people to discredit arguments with imaginary biasness, not on the merits, because you're unable to put forward a rational argument. That's on you.
Re: US Politics Thread
New documents show Trump aide laundered payments from party with Moscow ties, lawmaker alleges
KIEV, Ukraine — A Ukrainian lawmaker released new financial documents Tuesday allegedly showing that a former campaign chairman for President Trump laundered payments from the party of a disgraced ex-leader of Ukraine using offshore accounts in Belize and Kyrgyzstan.
The new documents, if legitimate, stem from business ties between the Trump aide, Paul Manafort, and the party of former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, who enjoyed Moscow’s backing while he was in power. He has been in hiding in Russia since being overthrown by pro-Western protesters in 2014, and is wanted in Ukraine on corruption charges.
The latest documents were released just hours after the House Intelligence Committee questioned FBI Director James B. Comey about possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Moscow. The hearing that also touched on Manafort’s work for Yanukovych’s party in Ukraine.
Comey declined to say whether the FBI is coordinating with Ukraine on an investigation of the alleged payments to Manafort.
Manafort, who worked for Yanukovych’s Party of Regions for nearly a decade, resigned from Trump’s campaign in August after his name surfaced in connection with secret payments totaling $12.7 million by Yanukovych’s party. Manafort has denied receiving those, listed in the party’s “black ledger.”
Serhiy Leshchenko, a lawmaker and journalist, released a copy of an invoice on letterhead from Manafort’s consulting company, based in Alexandria, Va., dated Oct. 14, 2009, to a Belize-based company for $750,000 for the sale of 501 computers.
On the same day, Manafort’s name is listed next to a $750,000 entry in the “black ledger,” which was considered a party slush fund. The list was found at the party headquarters in the turmoil after Ukraine’s 2014 revolution. The ledger entries about Manafort were released by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, a government law enforcement agency, last August.
Leshchenko alleges that Manafort falsified an invoice to the Belize company to legitimize the $750,000 payment to himself.
“I have found during this investigation that [Manafort] used offshore jurisdictions and falsified invoices to get money from the corrupt Ukrainian leader,” Leshchenko said during a news conference in downtown Kiev, where he provided a copy of the invoice to journalists.
He said he received the invoices and other documents in January from the new tenants of Manafort’s former offices in downtown Kiev. The documents were left behind in a safe, he said, adding that Manafort’s signature and his company seal were proof that the documents were authentic.
Leshchenko said he was not aware of any formal Ukrainian investigation of the documents. He declined to comment on whether he had discussed the documents with U.S. law enforcement agencies.
Nazar Kholodnytskyi, a deputy prosecutor general of Ukraine whose department specializes in corruption cases, said in an interview on Tuesday that the documents hadn’t been confirmed by law enforcement or, to his knowledge, submitted for examination. There is an ongoing investigation into the black ledgers, he said, but Manafort was not a target of that investigation.
Manafort has previously accused Leshchenko of blackmailing him by threatening to release harmful information about his financial relationship with Yanukovych. That correspondence between Leshchenko and Manafort’s daughter was released in February as the result of a purported cyberhack. Leshchenko has called the exchange a forgery.
Manafort was involved in crafting the political strategy that brought Yanukovych to power after a crushing defeat in the 2004 elections. Yanukovych’s party has been accused of ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, particularly through wealthy oligarchs from the country’s east with interests in both Russia and Ukraine.
