But he was gone for a long time first.Winterborn wrote:Gandalf didn't die but came back stronger after that battle and helped save the world.houndawg wrote: Otoh, the enemy of my enemy is my friend and how sweet would it be to see both the Republican Party and the FBI go down together like Gandalf and the Balrog?....Which means (using your illustration), the Republican Party does wind up being involved in saving the country.
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation ... 31139.htmlWASHINGTON
The FBI is investigating whether a top Russian banker with ties to the Kremlin illegally funneled money to the National Rifle Association to help Donald Trump win the presidency, two sources familiar with the matter have told McClatchy.
FBI counterintelligence investigators have focused on the activities of Alexander Torshin, the deputy governor of Russia’s central bank who is known for his close relationships with both Russian President Vladimir Putin and the NRA, the sources said.
It is illegal to use foreign money to influence federal elections.
It’s unclear how long the Torshin inquiry has been ongoing, but the news comes as Justice Department Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s sweeping investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election, including whether the Kremlin colluded with Trump’s campaign, has been heating up.
All of the sources spoke on condition of anonymity because Mueller’s investigation is confidential and mostly involves classified information.
A spokesman for Mueller’s office declined comment.
Disclosure of the Torshin investigation signals a new dimension in the 18-month-old FBI probe of Russia’s interference. McClatchy reported a year ago that a multi-agency U.S. law enforcement and counterintelligence investigation into Russia’s intervention, begun even before the start of the 2016 general election campaign, initially included a focus on whether the Kremlin secretly helped fund efforts to boost Trump, but little has been said about that possibility in recent months.
The extent to which the FBI has evidence of money flowing from Torshin to the NRA, or of the NRA’s participation in the transfer of funds, could not be learned.
However, the NRA reported spending a record $55 million on the 2016 elections, including $30 million to support Trump – triple what the group devoted to backing Republican Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential race. Most of that was money was spent by an arm of the NRA that is not required to disclose its donors.
Two people with close connections to the powerful gun lobby said its total election spending actually approached or exceeded $70 million. The reporting gap could be explained by the fact that independent groups are not required to reveal how much they spend on Internet ads or field operations, including get-out-the-vote efforts.
kalm wrote:Even if collusion was proven, it’s still not a crime according to Giuliani.
He's not the first conservative to suggest this, and more so in recent days.kalm wrote:Even if collusion was proven, it’s still not a crime according to Giuliani.
sounds about like the same evolution of the storyline for Benghazi.Skjellyfetti wrote:We had no contacts with Russians
Ok there were contacts but we didn’t talk about the campaign
Ok we talked about the campaign but we didn’t collude
Ok we tried to collude but it didn’t happen
Ok. It's not a crime to collude, guys.
I have never heard Alan Dershowitz called a conservative...∞∞∞ wrote:He's not the first conservative to suggest this, and more so in recent days.kalm wrote:Even if collusion was proven, it’s still not a crime according to Giuliani.
It's not even a shifting of the goalpost, it's simply destroying it.
Collusion is not a crime according the Ben Shapiro, lawyer who has pretty much said it isn't since day one...∞∞∞ wrote:He's not the first conservative to suggest this, and more so in recent days.kalm wrote:Even if collusion was proven, it’s still not a crime according to Giuliani.
It's not even a shifting of the goalpost, it's simply destroying it.
Whoops.AZGrizFan wrote:sounds about like the same evolution of the storyline for Benghazi.Skjellyfetti wrote:We had no contacts with Russians
Ok there were contacts but we didn’t talk about the campaign
Ok we talked about the campaign but we didn’t collude
Ok we tried to collude but it didn’t happen
Ok. It's not a crime to collude, guys.
It was because of the video!
OK, it wasn't because of the video but it was spontaneous and we couldn't send help
OK, it wasn't spontaneous, but we couldn't send help because we didn't have assets in the area
OK, we had assets and we could have sent help, but we thought they were going to be ok.
OK, we knew they weren't going to be ok, but we chose to sit and watch them die instead of sending help
Seriously, what difference, at this point, does it make?
Jeezus Dr. TrumpensteinSDHornet wrote:Collusion is not a crime according the Ben Shapiro, lawyer who has pretty much said it isn't since day one...∞∞∞ wrote: He's not the first conservative to suggest this, and more so in recent days.
It's not even a shifting of the goalpost, it's simply destroying it.
...oh and Shapiro is a "never Trumper"
Oh that's the new leftist tag line?Chizzang wrote:Jeezus Dr. TrumpensteinSDHornet wrote: Collusion is not a crime according the Ben Shapiro, lawyer who has pretty much said it isn't since day one...
...oh and Shapiro is a "never Trumper"
Of course "collusion" isn't a crime because it's called "treason"
and that is a crime...
The dumbing down of America
I agree, there's no crime called collusion; it's like there's no crime for "taking someone's stuff." It's called theft, just like collusion is called conspiracy. It's "Conspiracy to defraud the United States" in particular, which sounds like a high crime to me, but innocent until proven guilty, amirite? (except if you're Hillary).SDHornet wrote:Oh that's the new leftist tag line?Chizzang wrote:
Jeezus Dr. Trumpenstein
Of course "collusion" isn't a crime because it's called "treason"
and that is a crime...
The dumbing down of America
Good luck with that...but hey...
...Mueller is looking at Trumps tweets now so maybe the "collusion" is there...
...lordy...
You're using too many big words...∞∞∞ wrote:I agree, there's no crime called collusion; it's like there's no crime for "taking someone's stuff." It's called theft, just like collusion is called conspiracy. It's "Conspiracy to defraud the United States" in particular, which sounds like a high crime to me, but innocent until proven guilty, amirite? (except if you're Hillary).SDHornet wrote: Oh that's the new leftist tag line?
Good luck with that...but hey...
...Mueller is looking at Trumps tweets now so maybe the "collusion" is there...
...lordy...
I personally think Mueller's moved on a long time ago. He set up the conspiracy by indicting the Russians and now he's looking to find the American co-conspirators. I wonder who those are...
You really want to rehash hillary's emails and how she broke the law in this thread?∞∞∞ wrote:I agree, there's no crime called collusion; it's like there's no crime for "taking someone's stuff." It's called theft, just like collusion is called conspiracy. It's "Conspiracy to defraud the United States" in particular, which sounds like a high crime to me, but innocent until proven guilty, amirite? (except if you're Hillary).SDHornet wrote: Oh that's the new leftist tag line?
Good luck with that...but hey...
...Mueller is looking at Trumps tweets now so maybe the "collusion" is there...
...lordy...
I personally think Mueller's moved on a long time ago. He set up the conspiracy by indicting the Russians and now he's looking to find the American co-conspirators. I wonder who those are...
Chizzang wrote:You're using too many big words...∞∞∞ wrote: I agree, there's no crime called collusion; it's like there's no crime for "taking someone's stuff." It's called theft, just like collusion is called conspiracy. It's "Conspiracy to defraud the United States" in particular, which sounds like a high crime to me, but innocent until proven guilty, amirite? (except if you're Hillary).
I personally think Mueller's moved on a long time ago. He set up the conspiracy by indicting the Russians and now he's looking to find the American co-conspirators. I wonder who those are...
also: Nothing Burger
We can discuss Hillary, as I have many times. I totally get "but Hillary" is the GOP's go-to argument now.SDHornet wrote:You really want to rehash hillary's emails and how she broke the law in this thread?∞∞∞ wrote: I agree, there's no crime called collusion; it's like there's no crime for "taking someone's stuff." It's called theft, just like collusion is called conspiracy. It's "Conspiracy to defraud the United States" in particular, which sounds like a high crime to me, but innocent until proven guilty, amirite? (except if you're Hillary).
I personally think Mueller's moved on a long time ago. He set up the conspiracy by indicting the Russians and now he's looking to find the American co-conspirators. I wonder who those are...
Mueller's been looking at a lot...also indicted a ham sammy along the way.
Depends on what the definition of "is" is...∞∞∞ wrote:We can discuss Hillary, as I have many times. I totally get "but Hillary" is the GOP's go-to argument now.SDHornet wrote: You really want to rehash hillary's emails and how she broke the law in this thread?
Mueller's been looking at a lot...also indicted a ham sammy along the way.
Anyways, conservatives are really being obtuse here. It's like arguing that making a stabbing motion with a knife is not illegal in a case where someone's murdered by being stabbed with a knife.
There's clearly an intent to conspire and there's clearly a body. Now find who did it.
SDHornet wrote:Depends on what the definition of "is" is...∞∞∞ wrote: We can discuss Hillary, as I have many times. I totally get "but Hillary" is the GOP's go-to argument now.
Anyways, conservatives are really being obtuse here. It's like arguing that making a stabbing motion with a knife is not illegal in a case where someone's murdered by being stabbed with a knife.
There's clearly an intent to conspire and there's clearly a body. Now find who did it.
...see what I did there.
∞∞∞ wrote:I agree, there's no crime called collusion; it's like there's no crime for "taking someone's stuff." It's called theft, just like collusion is called conspiracy. It's "Conspiracy to defraud the United States" in particular, which sounds like a high crime to me, but innocent until proven guilty, amirite? (except if you're Hillary).SDHornet wrote: Oh that's the new leftist tag line?
Good luck with that...but hey...
...Mueller is looking at Trumps tweets now so maybe the "collusion" is there...
...lordy...
I personally think Mueller's moved on a long time ago. He set up the conspiracy by indicting the Russians and now he's looking to find the American co-conspirators. I wonder who those are...
Jesus! How badly must you crave attention to swim halfway across the ocean to purposely board the rapidly sinking Titanic. You gotta have it worse than the Donald, or at least as bad. He sounds like one of those wind up false teeth thingsChizzang wrote:kalm wrote:Even if collusion was proven, it’s still not a crime according to Giuliani.
Giuliani has become my favorite idiot in the circus side show of this Presidency
