Actually all these things take time because unlike Trump and his supporters we do believe in the rule of law and due process. Which admittedly is harder when the corrupt Republicans in congress are willing to commit treason in order to lie for Trump, cover up his crimes, and try to do everything in their power to end any and all investigations into him, his campaign's collusion with Putin/Russia and he and his family's money laundering.

But as frustrating and frightening as it can be I actually agree with what John Brennan said. America is much stronger than Trump and his corrupt supporters.

John Brennan Tweet--When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America...America will triumph over you.​

 

I seem to remember when the special coucil was originally formed that Trump said it was a good idea. Now hes totally flipped and wants it shut down.

So......is it because its a waste of taxpayer money (baaaaahaaa he doesnt care about that.... Mr. my golf resort is the new White House!)
or enough people have spilled just enough so his previous business dealings are going to be investigated along with his ethics toward previous WH staffers that he has fired?

Either way his change towards the investigation seems to flag Mueller having some major dirt -

 

There was something like 7 different "Benghazi" hearings that the Republicans made sure drug on for years to insure they did every thing they could to harm Hillary Clinton. But when Putin/Russia attacks our elections, corrupts our entire democracy in order to help elect Trump, and continues to attack and threaten us while Trump continues to suck Putin's dick, those same Republicans first laugh about it and then do everything possible to end the investigations and keep the truth from coming out.

 

@shootersa

Interesting leap of faith you made there. Your support for Trump comes through your talking out of both sides of you face. On the one hand you say that Trump doesn't matter, only the revolution. And on the other, you make claims like this, where if you don't "subscribe 100% to the arrogant elite liberal agenda", blah, blah, blah... You deflect.

You never want to have an honest discussion without resorting to your epithets. You are just like Trump in his name calling. You slather it on thick and then claim innocence.

You are against illegal immigration? If someone who claims to be from Mexico is considered "illegal", then I can only imagine that someone who claims to be from another world could never be anything but illegal. I've yet to hear about any treaty between any country and another world.

Show your papers, bitch!

Exactly what propaganda are you thinking I'm blinded by? Please be specific.

Reconsider that Trump is not a criminal at least, a traitor at worst?

Convince me!

 

Actually the liar would be you shootersa. I have posted the proof of Paul Ryan and other House Republicans laughing and joking about Putin/Russia hacking the democrats immediately after they came out of a classified briefing where they were first informed about the hacks. Myself and others have also posted the proof that Trump did in fact order WH Counsel to fire Mueller and he refused and Trump was too gutless to do it himself. And we have posted the proof that Trump also ordered the WH Counsel to lie about it. And any fool, including you, should know the Republicans have in fact ended the Russian investigation in the House. And House and Senate Committees continue to allow members of Trump's inner circle to sit there and refuse to answer questions while they also refuse to investigate possible money laundering.

So once again you are just being a brainwashed parrot that just squawks the latest right wing false propaganda and imaginary pigeons.

 

WATCH: Cambridge Analytica busted on tape discussing potentially illegal tactics used in Trump’s campaign

 

Concur.

 

Bannon oversaw Cambridge Analytica’s 2014 effort to collect Facebook data on millions of Americans: report

 

Funny, When Obama Harvested Facebook Data On Millions Of Users To Win In 2012, Everyone Cheered


Privacy: Facebook faces what some are calling an "existential crisis" over revelations that its user data fell into the hands of the Trump campaign. Whether or not the attacks on the social media giant are justified, the fact is that the Obama campaign used Facebook (FB) data in the same way in 2012. But the reaction from the pundits and press back then was, shall we say, somewhat different.

According to various news accounts, a professor at Cambridge University built a Facebook app around 2014 that involved a personality quiz. About 270,000 users of the app agreed to share some of their Facebook information, as well as data from people on their friends list. As a result, tens of millions ended up part of this data-mining operation.

Consulting firm Cambridge Analytica, which paid for the research, later worked with the Trump campaign to help them target advertising campaigns on Facebook, using the data they'd gathered on users.

But while the Trump campaign used Cambridge Analytica during the primaries, it didn't use the information during the general election campaign, relying instead on voter data provided by the Republican National Committee, according to CBS News. It reports that "the Trump campaign had tested the RNC data, and it proved to be vastly more accurate than Cambridge Analytica's."

Since this involves the Trump campaign, the news accounts have been suffused with dark conspiratorial tones. The Times article talks about how Trump consultants "exploited" Facebook data, and quotes a source calling it a "scam." It has been widely described as a massive data breach.

But Facebook had been promoting itself to political parties looking for a new way to reach voters.

Nor was this the first time Facebook users had their data unwittingly shared with a political campaign.

In 2012, the Obama campaign encouraged supporters to download an Obama 2012 Facebook app that, when activated, let the campaign collect Facebook data both on users and their friends.

According to a July 2012 MIT Technology Review article, when you installed the app, "it said it would grab information about my friends: their birth dates, locations, and 'likes.' "

The campaign boasted that more than a million people downloaded the app, which, given an average friend-list size of 190, means that as many as 190 million had at least some of their Facebook data vacuumed up by the Obama campaign — without their knowledge or consent.

If anything, Facebook made it easy for Obama to do so. A former campaign director, Carol Davidsen, tweeted that "Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn't stop us once they realized that was what we were doing."

This Facebook treasure trove gave Obama an unprecedented ability to reach out to nonsupporters. More important, the campaign could deliver carefully targeted campaign messages disguised as messages from friends to millions of Facebook users.

The campaign readily admitted that this subtle deception was key to their Facebook strategy.

"People don't trust campaigns. They don't even trust media organizations," Teddy Goff, the Obama campaign's digital director, said at the time. "Who do they trust? Their friends."

According to a Time magazine account just after Obama won re-election, "the team blitzed the supporters who had signed up for the app with requests to share specific online content with specific friends simply by clicking a button."

The effort was called a "game-changer" in the 2012 election, and the Obama campaign boasted that it was "the most groundbreaking piece of technology developed for the campaign."

The only difference, as far as we can discern, between the two campaigns' use of Facebook, is that in the case of Obama the users themselves agreed to share their data with the Obama campaign, as well as that of their friends.

The users that downloaded the Cambridge app, meanwhile, were only told that the information would be used for academic purposes. Nor was the data to be used for anything other than academic purposes.

It's an important distinction, to be sure, and Facebook is right to be attacked for its inability to control how its user data were being gathered and shopped around. (Facebook tightened its privacy rules on data sharing apps in 2015.)

But keep in mind that it wasn't the Trump campaign that solicited the collection of the data. And, as we said, it didn't use the data in the general election campaign.

Obama, in contrast, was collecting live data on active users right up until Election Day, and at a scale that dwarfed anything the Trump campaign could access.

More important, the vast majority of people involved in these data-mining operations had no idea they were participating. And in the case of Obama, they had no way of knowing that the Obama campaign material cluttering their feed wasn't really just political urgings from their friends.

There is one other big difference: how these revelations were received by pundits and the press. In 2012, Obama was wildly celebrated in news stories for his mastery of Big Data, and his genius at mining it to get out the vote.

We were told then about how the campaign "won the race for voter data," and how it "connected with young voters." His data analytics gurus were treated as heroes.

This is not to say that Facebook doesn't deserve criticism. Clearly, its data-protection policies have been slipshod.

But the recent fury exposes a massive double standard on the part of those now raising hell.

When Obama was exploiting Facebook users to help win re-election, it was an act of political genius. When Trump attempted something similar, with unclear results, it's a travesty of democracy and further evidence that somehow he stole the election.

Note: This editorial was updated to more accurately describe how the Trump campaign used Cambridge Analytica data.

 

Well, why would Shooter have a conversation/debate with an arrogant elite liberal? Lets think about this for a moment..............

1) By definition, arrogant elite liberals will never, under any circumstance, change their position on anything remotely related to Trump. Discussion is futile. One might as well hope to make a vegetarian of a Lion.
2) The assumption in engaging in debate with someone is that one or the other will discover that their position is not quite correct. In other words, something will be learned. Debating with arrogant elite liberals is like ............ playing chess with pigeons. Nothing of value can be gained from the effort, but the arrogance of the liberal is given a stage to soar from. That, Shooter has learned, never ends well.
3) You assume that Shooter gives a bunny fart what yours (or anyone elses) opinion of him is. For the record, he does not. Shooter is here to learn, comment, and have fun. He cannot learn anything but lies from arrogant elite liberals, he can comment no matter who else is posting, and watching arrogant elite liberals pitch their tantrums is most entertaining.

So, once again, thanks for the invite, but Shooter declines to engage with you.

 

Like I said, interesting leap of faith... Didn't really think you could answer the questions.

 

Poll: Majority of Americans believe Russian election meddling should be fully investigated

 

Former Trump aide Rick Gates was having ‘substantive’ conversations with ex-Russia intel officer in 2016: special counsel

 

Who else has access to Facebook data?

 

Watchdog Alleges Cambridge Analytica Violated Election Law

 

Photographic proof!



Hush....an alias

 

Donald Trump tough on Russia

3/28/18

President Trump has not been as soft on Russia as the media would have us believe. In fact, he has been tougher than most of his recent predecessors.

This week he expelled 60 Russian diplomats in response to the early March attack on a former Russian spy in England.

On March 15 came the announcement of the long-awaited sanctions in response to Russia’s tampering in the 2016 election and cyberattacks that infiltrated the nuclear, energy, commercial, water, aviation and manufacturing sectors. A total of 19 Russians were specifically cited as were five Russian companies, including the Internet Research Agency, which ran a misinformation campaign online.

“These targeted sanctions are a part of a broader effort to address the ongoing nefarious attacks emanating from Russia,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told the Associated Press. He warned that others would face punishment in the future under the new sanctions law, “to hold Russian government officials and oligarchs accountable for their destabilizing activities.”

Perhaps most striking were the military assets authorized for sale to Ukraine by Trump. Despite threats from Vladimir Putin last fall, the administration has sent defensive weapons to Ukraine. In December, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said the U.S. had “crossed the line.” Trump was undeterred and recently sold Ukraine Javelin Missiles and Javelin Command Launch Units for $47 million.

President Barack Obama’s policy denied lethal defensive assistance to Ukrainians but Trump is playing hardball.

Last summer, Russia expelled 755 American diplomats. In response, the Trump administration gave Moscow two days to shutter its San Francisco consulate and trade missions in New York and Washington. Russia accused the United States of a “gross violation of international law.”

But the president’s resolve has not been shaken by nasty back talk from the Kremlin.

Trump’s strong track record on Russia flies in the face of the media’s narrative of cooperation and collusion between the Trump and Putin. The Hillary Clinton campaign saw an opening in tying her opponent to dark forces in Russia and many in the media were happy to carry the mantle for her.

In late July 2016, Trump held a news conference at his resort in Doral, Fla. The media peppered him with questions about any relationship with Putin or business interests in Russia. He swatted them all away.

Trump repeatedly tried to bring their attention to the 33,000 emails deleted from Clinton’s private server. “By the way, they hacked — they probably have her 33,000 emails. I hope they do. They probably have her 33,000 emails that she lost and deleted because you’d see some beauties there. So let’s see,” Trump bellowed.

Thirteen minutes into the press conference, Trump humorously quipped, “Russia, if you’re listening I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let’s see if that happens.”

Obviously, the throwaway line meant nothing to the reporters present because they didn’t follow up on it for 20 minutes, instead asking questions about NATO, the minimum wage, his tax returns, extreme vetting for immigrants, the Baltimore police, the Geneva Convention and the like.

One can assume that mainstream television newsrooms made the decision to go back and focus on candidate Trump’s flippant remark and distort and inflate it to treason-level treachery in which a candidate for president of the United States called on a foreign government to conduct espionage on another candidate.

That a person who might want the Russians to help with an election would not likely ask for that while standing in front of the world’s media speaking into a microphone that would reach millions publicly was beside the point. The press had their narrative.

Up went the “Breaking News” banners and special reports from every corner as the media and the left baked the misinformation into the premise of every Trump/Russia conversation.

Finally, the smoke is clearing and the facts are revealed. Congratulatory phone calls aside, Trump is no friend to Putin. We should not let apocryphal claims be used as an excuse for bad behavior by the media or those in government with an ax to grind against this president.

 

Trump’s attorney discussed pardons for Flynn and Manafort last year — which Mueller could investigate as obstruction

 

New Strzok-Page Texts Suggest Obama, FBI,CIA and DOJ Conspiracy

House investigators have turned over texts to Fox News that suggests that Obama, FBI,CIA and DOJ conspired to frame President Trump. For good measure, you can throw Harry Reid in there. Things are starting to fall into place and the FISA warrants could be the first step and the IG’s final report will be the giant second step. And this could be the nails in the coffin. It shows that all four were involved in this together, but before you get excited, someone below Obama will fall on their sword.

Fox News reports:

Republican investigators provided documents to Fox News which — they say — “strongly suggest” coordination between former President Barack Obama’s Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, and CIA Director John Brennan —which they say would “contradict” the Obama administration’s public stance about its hand in the process.

Page texted Strzok on Aug. 2, 2016, saying: “Make sure you can lawfully protect what you sign. Just thinking about congress, foia, etc. You probably know better than me.”

A text message from Strzok to Page on Aug. 3 described former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe as being concerned with “information control” related to the initial investigation into the Trump campaign. According to a report from the New York Times, Brennan was sent to Capitol Hill around the same time to brief members of Congress on the possibility of election interference.

Days later, on Aug. 8, 2016, Strzok texted Page: “Internal joint cyber cd intel piece for D, scenesetter for McDonough brief, Trainer [head of FBI cyber division] directed all cyber info be pulled. I’d let Bill and Jim hammer it out first, though it would be best for D to have it before the Wed WH session.”

In the texts, “D” referred to FBI Director James Comey, and and “McDonough” referred to Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, the GOP investigators said.

We have known for a while that something funny was going on but now it has spread much farther than any of us could have suspected. This is looking way bigger than Watergate and is likely to snare some very dirty cops.

A congressional source told Fox News that on August 25, 2016, Brennen went to Capitol Hill to brief Harry Reid. Two days later Harry Reid sent a letter to James Comey:

The New York Times reported

“The evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign continues to mount and has led Michael Morrell, the former Acting Central Intelligence Director, to call Trump an ‘unwitting agent’ of Russia and the Kremlin. The prospect of a hostile government actively seeking to undermine our free and fair elections represents one of the gravest threats to our democracy since the Cold War and it is critical for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to use every resource available to investigate this matter thoroughly and in a timely fashion.”

It’s starting to get better.

Fox News:

The following day, Aug. 30, 2016, Page texted Strzok: “Here we go,” sending a link to the Times report titled, “Harry Reid Cites Evidence of Russian Tampering in U.S. Vote and seeks FBI inquiry.”

Strzok replied: “D [Comey] said at am brief that Reid called him and told him he would be sending a letter.”

Congressional investigators suggested that the Reid letter possibly provided “cover” for the fact that the FBI and Justice Department had already begun investigating the Trump campaign in mid-July on what they called “questionable ethical and legal grounds.”

“The ‘here we go’ text between Strzok and Page indicates the FBI/ DOJ knew the letter from Reid was coming,” a congressional source told Fox News. “This created the inference they knew it would create public calls for an investigation into Russian interference — covering them.”

The source told Fox News on Wednesday that investigators were neither “passing judgement” nor “claiming a smoking gun,” but suggested that the timeline was “incredibly concerning.”

“At some point, the amount of concerning information becomes enough for a special counsel to look into it.”

The guys were unbelievable. They did all of this without anyone suspecting. They thought that Hillary would be elected and this would all have been buried where no one would ever find it again. They were so certain of a Hillary victory, they got very sloppy and left too many trails.