FBI Investigates Major Crime

[Revoltingest]

If a foreign entity steals it and tries to use it to influence an election, yeah.........duh.

Are you claiming that the Russians stole her diary,
& that Veritas is among their minions?

Good grief....the contents don't matter, it's the intent behind the theft and the release........duh.

A diary stolen with the intent of subverting an Ameristanian
election, eh. You really believe that's a plausible scenario,
& that it warrants FBI raids & convening a grand jury?

That's why you bring the FBI in to investigate....that's their territory.........duh.

And what sinister plot have they uncovered in this
cloak & dagger diary debacle? If nothing yet, are
you expecting an existential threat to the country,
with Trump, Putin, & perhaps even Stalin's ghost
at the helm?

Good thing you're not a cop.

Back at ya, bub.

 

[Jose Fly]

Are you claiming that the Russians stole her diary,
& that Veritas is among their minions?

Sheesh...no.

I'm saying it's a possibility (not just limited to Russians) that needs to be investigated, given the circumstances.

A diary stolen with the intent of subverting an Ameristanian
election, eh. You really believe that's a plausible scenario,
& that it warrants FBI raids & convening a grand jury?

Yes.

So let me get this straight.....prior to a US Presidential election (between a Democrat and a Republican) the diary of one of their immediate family members is stolen, and a short time later an unknown person is reported to be shopping its contents around to media outlets friendly to one side....the side that's already known to have previously colluded with Russians. After the outlets turn him down, the contents are posted online just before the election.

And your position is, there's absolutely no reason to suspect or even investigate the possibility of a foreign election influence operation? None at all, eh? You're completely baffled at the idea?

Okay then.....

And what sinister plot have they uncovered in this
cloak & dagger diary debacle? If nothing yet, are
you expecting an existential threat to the country,
with Trump, Putin, & perhaps even Stalin's ghost
at the helm?

Back at ya, bub.

If you think this is wit.....well....more's the pity.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sheesh...no.

I'm saying it's a possibility (not just limited to Russians) that needs to be investigated, given the circumstances.

So the disappearing diary might have
additional conspirators, eh.

Yes.

So let me get this straight.....prior to a US Presidential election (between a Democrat and a Republican) the diary of one of their immediate family members is stolen, and a short time later an unknown person is reported to be shopping its contents around to media outlets friendly to one side....the side that's already known to have previously colluded with Russians. After the outlets turn him down, the contents are posted online just before the election.

And your position is, there's absolutely no reason to suspect or even investigate the possibility of a foreign election influence operation? None at all, eh? You're completely baffled at the idea?

Okay then.....


If you think this is wit.....well....more's the pity.

Tis a pity that so many on the left believe that a stolen
diary is a worthwhile use of the FBI & a grand jury.
What role do you think it played in the election?

 

[Jose Fly]

So the disappearing diary might have
additional conspirators, eh.

Tis a pity that so many on the left believe that a stolen
diary is a worthwhile use of the FBI & a grand jury.
What role do you think it played in the election?

You didn't answer the question.

So let me get this straight.....prior to a US Presidential election (between a Democrat and a Republican) the diary of one of their immediate family members is stolen, and a short time later an unknown person is reported to be shopping its contents around to media outlets friendly to one side....the side that's already known to have previously colluded with Russians. After the outlets turn him down, the contents are posted online just before the election.​

And your position is, there's absolutely no reason to suspect or even investigate the possibility of a foreign election influence operation? None at all, eh? You're completely baffled at the idea?​

 

[Revoltingest]

You didn't answer the question.

It can be hard to tell which are rhetorical & which are merely absurd.

So let me get this straight.....prior to a US Presidential election (between a Democrat and a Republican) the diary of one of their immediate family members is stolen, and a short time later an unknown person is reported to be shopping its contents around to media outlets friendly to one side....the side that's already known to have previously colluded with Russians. After the outlets turn him down, the contents are posted online just before the election.​

And your position is, there's absolutely no reason to suspect or even investigate the possibility of a foreign election influence operation? None at all, eh? You're completely baffled at the idea?​

You've a bad premise, making it a loaded question.
So that must be addressed.
You've offered not one whit of evidence that Republicans
colluded with Russians. All you've done is tell me to read
a report to discover why you believe you're right.

It's a diary. Not a secret government document.

 

[Jose Fly]

You've a bad premise, making it a loaded question.
So that must be addressed.

I'm citing the facts.

The diary of an immediate family member of a Presidential candidate was stolen prior to the Presidential election.

An unknown person was later reported to be shopping its contents around to Republican-friendly media.

After being turned down, the contents of the diary were published online prior to the election.​

So again, you see absolutely no reason at all to suspect an attempt to influence the Presidential election? None at all? The mere idea of even looking into that completely baffles you?

You've offered not one whit of evidence that Republicans
colluded with Russians. All you've done is tell me to read
a report to discover why you believe you're right.

“I love it”: Trump Jr.'s response to meeting about “Russia and its government's support” - Vox

"Donald Trump Jr., in a series of tweets, has released the emails concerning his meeting with a Russian attorney who claimed to have information on Hillary Clinton. They are even more damning than they sounded when the New York Times reported on their existence Monday night: It is now clear that Trump Jr. knew the information on offer came from the Russian government’s efforts to support his father’s campaign, and was thrilled by the prospect. “If it’s what you say I love it,” he replied."​

US says Russia was given Trump campaign polling data in 2016 (apnews.com)

"A key episode examined by Mueller involved Manafort’s decision to share campaign polling data with Kilimnik — something prosecutors say Manafort lied about when questioned. Investigators scrutinized a series of secretive encounters between the men, including one in August 2016 at the Grand Havana Club in New York.

There, according to statements provided by Mueller, Manafort briefed Kilimnik on internal campaign data and messaging and they discussed battleground states.

The exchange of polling data was an eye-catching data point, especially since it suggested Russia could have exploited such inside information to target influence campaigns aimed at boosting Trump’s election bid in 2016.​

It's a diary. Not a secret government document.

I can't tell if you think you're being funny, or if you're really this thick.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm citing the facts.

Your opinions about some facts & some factoids.

The diary of an immediate family member of a Presidential candidate was stolen prior to the Presidential election.

An unknown person was later reported to be shopping its contents around to Republican-friendly media.

After being turned down, the contents of the diary were published online prior to the election.​

So again, you see absolutely no reason at all to suspect an attempt to influence the Presidential election? None at all? The mere idea of even looking into that completely baffles you?

I see partisan fueled over-reaction.
You disagree, believing this to be a
significant threat to democracy.

“I love it”: Trump Jr.'s response to meeting about “Russia and its government's support” - Vox

"Donald Trump Jr., in a series of tweets, has released the emails concerning his meeting with a Russian attorney who claimed to have information on Hillary Clinton. They are even more damning than they sounded when the New York Times reported on their existence Monday night: It is now clear that Trump Jr. knew the information on offer came from the Russian government’s efforts to support his father’s campaign, and was thrilled by the prospect. “If it’s what you say I love it,” he replied."​

US says Russia was given Trump campaign polling data in 2016 (apnews.com)

"A key episode examined by Mueller involved Manafort’s decision to share campaign polling data with Kilimnik — something prosecutors say Manafort lied about when questioned. Investigators scrutinized a series of secretive encounters between the men, including one in August 2016 at the Grand Havana Club in New York.

There, according to statements provided by Mueller, Manafort briefed Kilimnik on internal campaign data and messaging and they discussed battleground states.

The exchange of polling data was an eye-catching data point, especially since it suggested Russia could have exploited such inside information to target influence campaigns aimed at boosting Trump’s election bid in 2016.​

I can't tell if you think you're being funny, or if you're really this thick.

You're still not supporting the claim of collusion.
Had there been real evidence, why wasn't it
presented during impeachment?
Because things like the conditional answer to a question....
“If it’s what you say I love it,” he replied."
....aren't evidence.

I wonder...
Would you wanted the FBI raiding the Washington Post &
homes of its employees for printing articles based upon
the Pentagon Papers? Certainly, this was something far
more relevant to national security.

 

[Jose Fly]

I see partisan fueled over-reaction.
You disagree, believing this to be a
significant threat to democracy.

As I've repeated continuously, I believe this is something that should be investigated. But no matter how many times I repeat that, it never gets through to you.

You're still not supporting the claim of collusion.

If campaign officials eagerly meeting with Russians to get dirt on Hillary isn't collusion, what is it? If a campaign CEO sharing internal polling data and discussing battleground states with a Russian intelligence operative isn't collusion, what is it?

Had there been real evidence, why wasn't it
presented during impeachment?
Because things like the conditional answer to a question....
“If it’s what you say I love it,” he replied."
....aren't evidence.

Wow....you really don't know much about this, do you? Trump was never impeached for colluding with Russia because there wasn't evidence that he himself colluded, nor is collusion technically a crime.

But the bigger question is why are you trying to discuss this when you don't know hardly anything about it?

I wonder...
Would you wanted the FBI raiding the Washington Post &
homes of its employees for printing articles based upon
the Pentagon Papers? Certainly, this was something far
more relevant to national security.

More whataboutism.

I'd ask you to answer the questions I asked and you ignored yet again, but I'm done here. I'm really struggling to not just conclude that you're simply not very bright and this subject is beyond your abilities, and I'm actually being a bit mean forcing you to discuss it. So it's probably best I move on.

 

[Revoltingest]

As I've repeated continuously, I believe this is something that should be investigated. But no matter how many times I repeat that, it never gets through to you.

What you say gets thru to me.
But I heartily disagree.

If campaign officials eagerly meeting with Russians to get dirt on Hillary isn't collusion, what is it? If a campaign CEO sharing internal polling data and discussing battleground states with a Russian intelligence operative isn't collusion, what is it?

You've not demonstrated collusion.
Definition of collusion | Dictionary.com
In this context, it's more than just communication.
It's about something more organized conspiring.
Had that been evidenced, it would've arisen during
impeachment.

Wow....you really don't know much about this, do you? Trump was never impeached for colluding with Russia because there wasn't evidence that he himself colluded, nor is collusion technically a crime.

It seems you're now coming around to my view.

But the bigger question is why are you trying to discuss this when you don't know hardly anything about it?

I think you over-estimate the cromulence of your argument.

More whataboutism.

No, the question deals with the partisan aspect of
information being stolen. Had you answered, we'd
see if your views are neutral or partisan.

I'd ask you to answer the questions I asked...

When you ask loaded questions, it invites me
to challenge the assumptions. Feel free to ask
honest questions without mischievous premises.

 

[John53]

What you say gets thru to me.
But I heartily disagree.

 

[Revoltingest]

View attachment 57497

Agreeing to disagree isn't ironic.
It's useful.
You newbies need to learn when
to use that gif....& when not to.

 

[John53]

Agreeing to disagree isn't ironic.
It's useful.
You newbies need to learn when
to use that gif....& when not to.

Ha... I'd use it again but it's too much effort

 

[Revoltingest]

Ha... I'd use it again but it's too much effort

And it loses its effect if over-used.

 

[John53]

And it loses its effect if over-used.

It has an effect?

 

[Revoltingest]

It has an effect?

You haven't studied the tutorial?
RF's orientation procedures have slipped.

 

[John53]

You haven't studied the tutorial?
RF's orientation procedures have slipped.

I was probably dozing, I was never a good student.

 

[John53]

Agreeing to disagree isn't ironic.
It's useful.
You newbies need to learn when
to use that gif....& when not to.

Oh, I forgot to ask, how long does it take to move past newbie? I want to mark it on the calendar. I'm going to have cake.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the news....
FBI raid on Project Veritas founder’s home sparks questions about press freedom
Excerpted....
That document made it into the hands of O’Keefe’s organization, Project Veritas, which never published anything on the subject and eventually turned the document over to police.

An ensuing federal investigation resulted in the FBI raid on O’Keefe’s home in Westchester County, N.Y., at 6 a.m. last Saturday to seize his cell phones pursuant to a court order. O’Keefe says he stood handcuffed in his underwear in a hallway as almost a dozen agents — one carrying a battering ram — searched for the phones.

The politically fraught episode is shaping up as an early test of the vows from Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland to show greater respect for the media and to back away from the confrontational, often hostile approach favored by former President Donald Trump and his administration.

“This is just beyond belief,” said University of Minnesota law professor Jane Kirtley, a former executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “I’m not a big fan of Project Veritas, but this is just over the top. I hope they get a serious reprimand from the court because I think this is just wrong.”

O'Keefe’s lawyers complained to a federal judge this week that the raid unfairly denied him the legal protections afforded to journalists.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, I forgot to ask, how long does it take to move past newbie? I want to mark it on the calendar. I'm going to have cake.

20k posts.

 

[John53]

20k posts.

I might need to do a Stephen King and employ some ghost writers.