The American (USA) 2016 presidential elections thread?

[TheDemonLord]

Yeah, so ? The quote could just as easily have been referring to what was showing up in the Russia investigation.

It was explicitly about stopping Trump from becoming President. Based on the remark that it was a response to.

Strzok has had nothing to do with any of the investigations for over a year now anyway.

And?

The point being, is that he was a part of the initial round of investigations and was in a position of considerable authority when he was part of said investigations.

Looks to me like you're buying into the Trump/Republican angle that it was a tainted investigation.

Okay - How would you describe an investigation where senior officials, conducting said investigation into both political candidates, declare to their co-workers that they will "stop" one of those candidates from getting into office?

This isn't a mere opinion being espoused - such as "I don't like Trump", nor is it a statement such as "We'll stop him by voting for Hilary", It's a statement of intent, coming from someone with the means, motive and opportunity.

[husaberg]

Looks like Peter Strzok has been given the big heave-ho.

It's funny that he claims no bias - and yet in one of his Txt messages to his co-workers in regards to Trump possibly becoming president:



(remembering this man was part of the Russia investigation and the Clinton email server investigation)

Only problem is that has been investigated thoroughly and they found no evidence of any bias with regards to his work.
"

After a year-long investigation that included a review of millions of communications and interviews of scores of witnesses, the IG concluded that there is no evidence that the political views of Special Agent Strzok and others in the FBI impacted the handling of the Clinton email investigation," Strzok's attorney, Aitan Goelman, said in a statement to CNBC. "As the Report notes, Special Agent Strzok in particular was consistently thorough and aggressive, sometimes to the point that put him at odds with senior officials at the Department of Justice."
Thursday's watchdog report from the Department of Justiceexamined Strzok's and Page's actions and found no evidence that "political bias" tainted their work.
"We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed," the department's inspector general, Michael Horowitz, wrote in the conclusion of his report issued Thursday.
The report did find that the pair's messaging "cast a cloud over the entire FBI investigation."
Strzok may also have improperly prioritized the Russia probe over the investigation into Clinton toward the end of the 2016 campaign, the report said.
Because of his text messages, "we did not have confidence that Strzok's decision to prioritize the Russia investigation" was free from bias, the report said.
Strzok's possible bias led investigators to search through emails, text messages and other documents to locate evidence that the investigation into Clinton's emails was derailed. There was no evidence found to suggest that it was, according to the report.

Its a shame you dont expect the President to act to the same standard of ethics.......

[oldrider]

The new round of sanctions this week unleashed by the United States on Russia has only one meaning: the US rulers want to crush Russia’s economy. By any definition, Washington is, in effect, declaring war on Russia. http://theduran.com/us-sanctions-are...russia-to-war/

Ron Paul: Is Trump Fighting His Own Administration? https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...administration

[TheDemonLord]

Only problem is that has been investigated thoroughly and they found no evidence of any bias with regards to his work.

Except, even from what you've quoted - that's not entirely accurate:

Strzok may also have improperly prioritized the Russia probe over the investigation into Clinton toward the end of the 2016 campaign, the report said.
Because of his text messages, "we did not have confidence that Strzok's decision to prioritize the Russia investigation" was free from bias, the report said.

Its a shame you dont expect the President to act to the same standard of ethics.......

Well, so far - he's kept his political promises and he's not started any new wars.

As far as US presidents go, he's acting with the highest set of Ethics...

[Grumph]

Okay - How would you describe an investigation where senior officials, conducting said investigation into both political candidates, declare to their co-workers that they will "stop" one of those candidates from getting into office?

This isn't a mere opinion being espoused - such as "I don't like Trump", nor is it a statement such as "We'll stop him by voting for Hilary", It's a statement of intent, coming from someone with the means, motive and opportunity.

If the intent was to stop Trump it's an epic fail...More's the pity. Incidentally, I've seen no report that he expressed that opinion to his co-workers - just to his girlfriend who did not work at the same place....

And i'd have prioritised the Trump/Russian meetings over Hilary too. Trump's shit was ongoing at the time wheras Hilary's was historical.

[husaberg]

Except, even from what you've quoted - that's not entirely accurate:





Well, so far - he's kept his political promises and he's not started any new wars.

As far as US presidents go, he's acting with the highest set of Ethics...

Do you understand that "may" is not a finding of guilt.

There was no evidence found to suggest that it was".

Is the actual finding.
Not to mention that you are overlooking that the investigation into Russian interference has proven this to be true.
People are allowed to have a political opinion and are allowed to express it to their girlfriends in the USA that was one of 4000 text messages,
Its particularly irrelevant as he clearly did nothing to prevent Trump being elected, its just as likely to be an indication of what his voting preference was.
You have a strange definition of ethics, In the case you Trump we have a guy that has threatened state department officials and attempted to undermine and interfere with investigations.
Fired investigators when they refused to do as he wishes.
He lied about his Campain having meetings with Russians regarding information about Hillary.
Not to mention attempting to undermine the state departments position on Russia.
These are ethics if you hold a FBI investigator accountable for his possible bias, how about you apply it the same way to trump.

[TheDemonLord]

If the intent was to stop Trump it's an epic fail...More's the pity.

And there is the lesson for the Left...

And i'd have prioritised the Trump/Russian meetings over Hilary too. Trump's shit was ongoing at the time wheras Hilary's was historical.

To be frank - I don't buy that. A Security breach by an active politician vs a supposed Collusion by (at that time) a private citizen, the National security concern should have been more pressing given that at the time, every organization was predicting a Hilary landslide victory and so Trump's meeting with the Russians would have been null and void

[husaberg]

And there is the lesson for the Left...



To be frank - I don't buy that. A Security breach by an active politician vs a supposed Collusion by (at that time) a private citizen, the National security concern should have been more pressing given that at the time, every organization was predicting a Hilary landslide victory and so Trump's meeting with the Russians would have been null and void

Donald Trump was a presidential candidate. At the meeting was.

Donald Trump Jr. , along with Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul J. Manafort, and son-in-law, Jared Kushner — "said the lawyer promised information damaging to Hillary Clinton"

[TheDemonLord]

Do you understand that "may" is not a finding of guilt.

And have I called for a criminal investigation against him? No...

Not to mention that you are overlooking that the investigation into Russian interference has proven this to be true.

Is that Russian interference under the explicit direction by Donald Trump? Or is that generic Russian interference of the type they do to us and we do to them? Cause those are 2 distinct scenarios...

People are allowed to have a political opinion and are allowed to express it to their girlfriends in the USA that was one of 4000 text messages,

And I've never said that they aren't - the problem is when you express an Intent and have the ability to carry out that intent.

An opinion =/= intent.

Compare the statement: I don't like that person (opinion) and I'm going to do something to that person (intent)

Its particularly irrelevant as he clearly did nothing to prevent Trump being elected, its just as likely to be an indication of what his voting preference was.

Except for prioritizing an investigation of a hot-button issue, during an Election campaign...

You have a strange definition of ethics, In the case you Trump we have a guy that has threatened state department officials and attempted to undermine and interfere with investigations.
Fired investigators when they refused to do as he wishes.
He lied about meetings with Russians regarding information regarding Hillary.
Not to mention undermining the state departments position on Russia.
These are ethics if you hold a FBI investigator accountable for his possible bias apply it the same way to trump.

Still not started any new wars and still has kept his campaign promises - which is better than all the US presidents within my living memory.

[TheDemonLord]

Donald Trump was a presidential candidate. At the meeting was.

Was he a member of the Senate? Congress? Was he an existing politician with any form of Security Clearance?

No?

Best you put your Strawman back in the field - the Crows are circling.

[husaberg]

And have I called for a criminal investigation against him? No...



Is that Russian interference under the explicit direction by Donald Trump? Or is that generic Russian interference of the type they do to us and we do to them? Cause those are 2 distinct scenarios...



And I've never said that they aren't - the problem is when you express an Intent and have the ability to carry out that intent.

An opinion =/= intent.

Compare the statement: I don't like that person (opinion) and I'm going to do something to that person (intent)



Except for prioritizing an investigation of a hot-button issue, during an Election campaign...



Still not started any new wars and still has kept his campaign promises - which is better than all the US presidents within my living memory.

You indicated that there was evidence to suggest he was biased yet despite there being no evidence you still make claims knowing thereis no foundation of evidence to support it.
The state departed has been clear there was Russian interference inn the Election Trump has made statements there was not.

A hot button issue really that no one was aware of until after the election. Nice one...

[husaberg]

Was he a member of the Senate? Congress? Was he an existing politician with any form of Security Clearance?

No?
Best you put your Strawman back in the field - the Crows are circling.

He was a Republican party candidate for the US presidency not a private citizen, his team had a meeting with the express intent to gain information from a foreign source in the hope that that would gain him a political advantage, he then lied about it for a year including the time he was US president if you cant see that this is not ethical you are sadly mistaken.

[TheDemonLord]

You indicated that there was evidence to suggest he was biased yet despite there being no evidence you still make claims knowing thereis no foundation of evidence to support it.
The state departed has been clear there was Russian interference inn the Election Trump has made statements there was not.

A hot button issue really that no one was aware of until after the election. Nice one...

Except the statement in the IG report - they couldn't be sure that his actions were free from Bias.

Trump made statements in October - before he was Elected about Russia. getting political Dirt on your rival is a different claim to influencing the Voters - are you sure you know exactly what happened?

He was a Republican party candidate for the US presidency his team had a meeting with the express intent to gain information from a foreign source in the hope that that would gain him a political advantage, he then lied about it for a year including the time he was US president if you cant see that this is not ethical you are sadly mistaken.

Getting political Dirt on your rival is a different claim to influencing the Voters - are you sure you know exactly what happened?

And Still - he's not started any new Wars and he's kept his election promises.

[husaberg]

Except the statement in the IG report - they couldn't be sure that his actions were free from Bias.

Trump made statements in October - before he was Elected about Russia. getting political Dirt on your rival is a different claim to influencing the Voters - are you sure you know exactly what happened?



Getting political Dirt on your rival is a different claim to influencing the Voters - are you sure you know exactly what happened?

And Still - he's not started any new Wars and he's kept his election promises.

Only they found no evidence you act like it was never investigated

Holding meeting and lying about what they were about is lying.

Trump's Moscow project came under further scrutiny following the publication of emails sent by one of Trump's business associates, Felix Sater, about the project.
"Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it," Sater wrote in a 2015 email published by The New York Times. "I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process."
Sater also claimed in the email that he would be able to get Ivanka Trump a seat in Putin's "private chair at his desk and office in the Kremlin."
Champion heavyweight weightlifter Dmitry Klokov reportedly offered to set up the meeting to help facilitate the construction of the 100-story Trump World Tower Moscow.

Trump’s son Don Jr, son-in-law Jared Kushner and campaign chairman Paul Manafort met at Trump Tower on 9 June 2016 with the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, having been told she was offering sensitive information about Clinton from the Russian government.

Donald Trump’s longtime personal lawyer has claimed the US president knew in advance of a June 2016 meeting in which Russians were expected to offer “dirt” on election rival Hillary Clinton, according to US media reports.

The June 2016 meeting was brokered by a British music promoter, Rob Goldstone, who contacted Trump Jr saying he had “official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father”.
He added: “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr Trump ... I can also send this info to your father.”

2017. Trump, his son, his lawyers and other officials have repeatedly claimed the future president did not know about the meeting until details of it were revealed in July last year.
The president told reporters onboard Air Force One at the time: “I only heard about it two or three days ago.”

he New York Times had learned of the meeting’s existence by early July 2017, and asked the White House about it while Trump was attending the G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany. On July 8, as Air Force One was flying back to the US, Trump and several of his top aides strategized about how Don Jr. should respond. And eventually, Don Jr. sent the Times these comments:

It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared [Kushner] and Paul [Manafort] to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at that time and there was no follow up.

I was asked to attend the meeting by an acquaintance, but was not told the name of the person I would be meeting with beforehand.

Trump’s knowledge or otherwise of the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting is a key issue in Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference and links between Trump aides and Russia.

Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist, famously told the author Michael Wolff he thought the meeting was “treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit”.
“The chance that Don Jr did not walk these jumos up to his father’s office on the 26th floor,” Bannon added, “is zero.”

Trump’s current lawyer Rudy Giuliani says Trump didn’t know, and both he and Trump have started to say that even if there were some sort of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, that’s not necessarily a crime anyway.

Mueller has indicted 31 individuals, including 12 Russian intelligence agents, for hacking computer networks of the Democrats. Trump has repeatedly denounced the investigation as a “rigged witch-hunt” and was widely criticised for appearing to side with Vladimir Putin over his own intelligence agencies at a joint press conference in Helsinki earlier this month.

http://www.palmerreport.com/politics...undering/4741/

[yokel]

You indicated that there was evidence to suggest he was biased yet despite there being no evidence you still make claims knowing thereis no foundation of evidence to support it.
The state departed has been clear there was Russian interference inn the Election Trump has made statements there was not.

A hot button issue really that no one was aware of until after the election. Nice one...

"God Hillary should win 100 million to zero" - some lead investigator on Hillary's email server crimes.