Yes, that sounds like the official version at one point in time.
Did you by any chance learn from whom Papadopoulos acquired his information?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, that sounds like the official version at one point in time.On or about May 10, 2016, at London's Kensington Wine Rooms, Papadopoulos allegedly told the top Australian diplomat to the United Kingdom, Alexander Downer, that Russia was in possession of emails relating to Hillary Clinton. In July, after the DNC hacking had become known, the Australians told U.S. authorities about Papadopoulos's comment, leading the Federal Bureau of Investigation to open a counterintelligence investigation into the Donald Trump presidential campaign on July 31, 2016
Russian interference in the 2016 election was real. It really happened and was not a hoax.
So we can discount the Russian interference and don't have to do anything about it. QEDAnd also in volume 1 the President was innocent of the charges of collusion - in fact no American was.
Did you by any chance learn from whom Papadopoulos acquired his information?
... and what do we know about Mifsud?I believe it was Professor Misfud and/or Putin's fake niece.
... and what do we know about Mifsud?
In other words, Mifsud was a sought after intelligence operative with a long resume' of contacts.Your ellipsis is showing.
a number of President Trump’s allies and advisers have been floating a provocative theory: that the Maltese professor was a Western intelligence plant.
Seizing on the vacuum of information about him, they have promoted the idea that he was working for the FBI, CIA or possibly British or Italian intelligence, citing exaggerated and at times distorted details about his life.
Officials familiar with U.S. intelligence reports told The Post that Mifsud had been identified by intelligence agencies as a potential Russian agent before he met Papadopoulos, an assessment drawn from reporting collected over several years.
Once a fringe idea, the theory that Mifsud was a Western operative has now been adopted and amplified by mainstream voices in Trump’s world and received significant airtime on Fox News’s prime-time shows.
----
He regularly attended meetings of the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual conference held in Russia, backed by the Kremlin and attended by Vladimir Putin.[14] According to a BBC report, Mifsud was in Moscow in April 2016 to speak on a panel run by the Valdai Club alongside Dr. Stephan Roh, a German multimillionaire lawyer and investor described as a "wheeler-dealer" by the BBC Newsnight program.[15] Roh, Mifsud's former employer,[16] could not be reached for comment by the BBC and has since attempted to erase links between the two men on his company website. Another speaker at the Valdai Club was Ivan Timofeev, who works for a think tank close to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, whom Mifsud subsequently introduced to Papadopoulos via email.[15] Mifsud reportedly claimed to his former girlfriend that he was friends with Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov.[17] Mifsud himself denied having any contact with the Russian government, saying "I am an academic, I do not even speak Russian."[8] The Mueller Report, released in 2019, said that Mifsud "maintained various Russian contacts while living in London", including an unnamed person (name redacted), who was a former staff member of the Internet Research Agency, the Russian troll farm based in Saint Petersburg.
In other words, a sought after intelligence operative with a long resume of contacts.
There's a virtually limitless supply of useful idiots.A Russian operative, yes. More seeking than sought after, I think. Looking for useful idiots.
There are apparently a lot of people who don't understand the origins of the investigation
Yes, that's the James Comey FBI version of the story.I'm glad we've been able to help those people out. A skilled Russian operative courted a Trump campaign advisor, telling him that the Russians had information on Trump's opponent. The staffer talked about it to a diplomat who later tipped off the FBI, who subsequently initiated a counterintelligence investigation in July 2016.
I have studied semantics most all of my life. I can assure you that any reasoning based on falsehood, ends in a contradiction. This is utter nonsense and I hope you're honest enough and smart enough to not be fooled by Jay Sekulow. When a prosecutor is appointed to find out if a crime was committed, but is not allowed to determine whether a crime was committed by those who appointed him, that is a contradiction of reasoning.According to Jay Sekulow, "defending the indefensible" was the problem the Honorable Robert Mueller had yesterday. It wasn't so much that Mueller had lost his mental faculties, the problem was that Mueller couldn't defend the indefensible.
As a Christian, that makes sense to me. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
We'll see what version the U. S. attorney's office comes up with. Barr Assigns U.S. Attorney in Connecticut to Review Origins of Russia Inquiry
I wonder if you could fit some more insults into this screed?...Democrats panting desire ...
...shrill Democrats
...fear mongering and cowardice
...the gang that couldn't shoot straight
...whining and complaining
...afraid
...charade
...petulant children...
There was a crime as we have already seen. The Russians interference with the election was a crime. Obstruction of any investigation to determine whether a crime was committed is a crime. There is no such thing as obstructing a non crime. It's simply sophistry.The congressional Democrats panting desire to draw "collusion" between President Trump and the Russian state in the 2016 election.
Obstructing a non crime.
OR, that the system is so fouled up, Mueller shouldn't even have been called to testify, so he did his best (what he could, or what he thought best, or what he was told to do)According to Jay Sekulow, "defending the indefensible" was the problem the Honorable Robert Mueller had yesterday. It wasn't so much that Mueller had lost his mental faculties, the problem was that Mueller couldn't defend the indefensible.
As a Christian, that makes sense to me. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
?Perhaps that is because you don't regard the Mueller investigation as a key component to Hillary's Secret Plan to Get Trump
There was a crime as we have already seen. The Russians interference with the election was a crime. Obstruction of any investigation to determine whether a crime was committed is a crime.
I study semantics and I can assure you that any reasoning based on falsehood ends in a contradiction as I have shown above.
....
I believe all things are built on faith, wherefore I scrutinize people's words to determine whether they believe the greatest is the one who serves the rest, or whether they believe the greatest is the one who is getting served by the rest. I therefore assume there are both. Please read post #34.Are you presuming that there is someone, somewhere , in politics who is right ? Or recognizing that they are all actors , pretending, jockeying for position, power and advantage ?
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.I believe all things are built on faith, wherefore I scrutinize people's words to determine whether they believe the greatest is the one who serves the rest, or whether they believe the greatest is the one who is getting served by the rest. I therefore assume there are both.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?