At no point did they tell the Trump campaign they were being infiltrated by Russian influence. Instead, they opened a spying operation on the campaign, on innocent Americans, none of whom were found to be guilty of a conspiracy between the campaign and Russia. They used the dodgy, phony dossier to obtain FISA warrents to spy on people who were not found to be guilty of a conspiracy between the campaign and Russia. They sent spies into the campaign, . They opened a vast investigation on members of the campaign, none of whom were found to be guilty of a conspiracy between the campaign and Russia. — NOS4A2

The Trump campaign was warned of foreign interference (including Russian) in August 2016, which was within weeks of the determination having been made. You lament the alleged "spying on innocent Americans" - based on both hindsight and a biased view of the evidence. The issue should be: was there probable cause to initiate surveillance. The FISA process was followed. It is interesting that the judgments we've seen are politically biased. Republicans blast the "Steele dossier" based solely on the fact that the research was funded by the Clinton campaign and that this fact was not sufficiently highlighted to the FISA. These are weak excuses to blast the warrant: 1) the general nature of the Steele "dossier" was mentioned; 2) So what if the efforts were funded by Clinton? There has been no evidence that Steele was instructed to make stuff up, or that he chose to do so to please his employer. Steele was an experienced MI6 agent with expertise on Russia and had Russian sources. Irrespective of what we've learned since that time, an assessment of the process must be judged on what was known at the time. It's outrageous to suggest that Steele's intelligence should have been completely disregarded.

And yet Trump and his supporters proclaim that Mueller completely exonerated him, which is false. There is more evidence for Trump's conspiring with Russia than there is for Biden's alleged corruption regarding Ukraine.


And his detractors contend he is guilty, which is also false. It looks like we’re at an impasse. — NOS4A2

It's not an impasse! It's an opportunity to look hypocrisy in the face! For example, it is hypocritical to embrace Trump's unwarranted allegations against the Bidens while claiming the Russian investigation was a hoax.

Regarding what I believe, I previously responded to your question about that.

creativesoul

Mueller did not exonerate Trump of anything. The Mueller report did not either! Mueller was not looking for evidence of collusion.


Here in the United States prosecutors are supposed to prove guilt, not innocence. — NOS4A2

And yet Trump and his supporters proclaim that Mueller completely exonerated him, which is false. There is more evidence for Trump's conspiring with Russia than there is for Biden's alleged corruption regarding Ukraine.

In the quote, which is from volume 1, Mueller is stating a standard and surely it applies broadly. It is also true there there is evidence that Trump was involved in the crime of conspiracy, e.g. his public comments praising Wikileaks, his denial of the intelligence community's findings that Russia was involved, his public request for Russia to find Hillary's emails, Cohen's testimony that Trump discussed the Wikileaks dump with Roger Stone prior to its release, and his efforts to obstruct the investigation. Mueller does not explicitly weigh this evidence against the standard, but we can: it clearly does not meet the stated standard. Nevertheless the evidence is real, and even though Trump could not be indicted for it, the court of public opinion doesn't depend on that standard. In particular, Trump supporters do not rely on that standard when judging Biden's alleged corruption regarding Ukraine. In fact, there is more evidence for Trump's involvement in the Russian conspiracy than there is for Biden's corruption.

On the other hand, the case for obstruction, as detailed in Volume 2, easily clears that hurdle - per the judgment of those over 1000 former federal prosecutors.

It's mind-boggling that Trump is involved with so much dirty business that opponents can set aside the Russian conspiracy stuff and concentrate on the areas for which the case is strongest. The sad thing is that this permits Trump and his supporters to continue to imply Trump was proven innocent of the conspiracy charge ("it was a hoax")- which is simply not true, and that's why I call it out.

Bear in mind the Mueller's investigation concluded there was insufficient evidence to indict - that is not a proof of innocence, nor even a proof that an investigation was unwarranted. — Relativist


Where did it conclude that? — Benkei

Page 174: "In deciding whether to exercise this prosecutorial authority, the Office has been guided by the Principles of Federal Prosecution set forth in the Justice (formerly U.S. Attorney's) Manual. In particular, the Office has evaluated whether the conduct of the individuals considered for prosecution constituted a federal offense and whether admissible evidence would probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction for such an offense."

I do not discount the intelligence community out of hand, but these guys I simply do not trust. — NOS4A2

Your mistrust of these individuals does not justify your assertion that the Russian investigation was a "hoax". There's no evidence of their having influenced, much less orchestrated, the investigation.

The Inspector General investigated Strozak and Page and concluded their judgments were reasonable. They made some inappropriate comments, but as you have so frequently said, it is actions, not words, that matter. Avoid hypocrisy and apply this principle universally.

For the past few years, from before the presidency until now, we’ve been inundated with Trump/Russia collusion stories and conspiracy theories. Did you believe Trump colluded with Russia to help him win the election? — NOS4A2

I cited some of the evidence that led to the investigation, and you continue to ignore it. Throughout the investigation, Trump repeatedly denied it was the Russians (contrary to all intelligence, and accepted by both sides in Congress), derided the investigation, and tried to obstruct it. This behavior certainly made him look guilty, and his obstruction was criminal - worthy of impeachment and removal because 1) it is a crime; 2) it violates his oath of office. His behavior contributed to keeping it all in the news. Had he simply ignored it, except to assert that he had no concerns because he was innocent, the coverage might have faded into the background.

What do I think? I think Trump lied about having knowledge of the promise of dirt on Clinton that was expected from the Trump tower meeting, and that he lied about this to Mueller. That is the best explanation for his promise to have a major announcement about Clinton. I also believe he was complicit in having his people work with Wikileaks. In neither case do I believe there is enough evidence to convict Trump, but these seem more likely than not. On the other hand, there is clearly sufficient evidence to convict Trump of several counts of obstruction of Justice - as detailed in the Mueller report, and assessed by over 1000 former federal prosecutors. Why did he obstruct if he was innocent? That still looks suspicious.

I also think it likely that he withheld Ukraine funding to get their President to announce an investigation into BIden, based on the information that is publicly available so far. I think (what we have of ) Taylor's testimony is credible and damning; not sufficient to convict (of THAT crime)- but more that enough to not reelect. Trump's stonewalling subpoenas is clearly illegal and impeachable. As usual, Trump's behavior toward the investigation is despicable. As candidate Trump asserted with regard to pleading the 5th: what does he have to hide?

That’s frightening.
I don’t believe any of what the CIA says. — NOS4A2

I'm supportive of a healthy level of mustrust of their public comments, but it's crazy to be totally dismissive of their work, particularly in a case like this that alsi involved the FBI, and the materials have been examined by representatives and Senators in both sides of the aisle.

As for the hoax, I will call it whatever I please.

You are calling it what TRUMP pleases. You earlier claimed you don't care what he says - that his lies don't matter because you like what he does. Here's an example of why his words matter: the pattern of lying shows that it is absurd to accept any claims he makes at face value.

Do I have solid evidence that this charade was a malicious lie? No—we will find out soon enough. But we do have massive amounts of evidence that vast subsections of the population were duped into believing Trump colluded with Russia. Did you believe Trump colluded with Russia?

What evidence do you have to support your claim that America was "duped"? You have evaded responding to the evidence I cited. Do you simply dismiss evidence that is contrary to what you want to believe?

So then why do you uncritically and blindly parrot the CIA and FBI? The problem is now they and their Russian investigation, their spying on American citizens, are under criminal investigation. You know this but still continue to parrot them. Are you even nervous at the prospect you’ve been duped? Maybe now, after years of this, it’s time to think critically? — NOS4A2

The intelligence community absolutely deserves to be trusted by default, otherwise we might as well open up all the prisons and give up all hope of understanding what our adversaries are doing. This does not mean they are above reproach, and I have no problem with an honest investigation of their actions and judgments.

Now get back to the evidence I cited. What portions of it are you disputing?

A hoax implies the reasons to suspect wrongdoing were fabricated and passed off as truth. A hoax implies people were duped into believing something when it was false. — NOS4A2

Sure, but there was actually evidence to suggest wrongdoing. For example, Russians hacked the DNC servers, released the materials through Wikileaks, and there were contacts between Wikileaks and members of the campaign. Further, Russians directly offered dirt on Clinton, which Don Jr was delighted to receive, and Don Sr. (supposedly coincidentally) pre-announced there would be a major announcement about Clinton. And of course, Trump tried to hinder the investigation - the 11 potential obstruction of justice instances Mueller cited, suggesting of his trying to hide something. I could go on, but clearly there was a ample reason to investigate. Bear in mind the Mueller's investigation concluded there was insufficient evidence to indict - that is not a proof of innocence, nor even a proof that an investigation was unwarranted. At least as far as we know now, there is far more evidence that Trump and/or members of his campaign committed crimes than there is evidence that the entire investigation was "hoax".

I know you're a Trump supporter, but that shouldn't mean you must blindly accept everything Trump says. You have frequently said that you don't care what he says - you only care about what he does. But when you parrot his talking points ("hoax"), you are showing that you are uncritically accepting the characterization of a serial liar.

...Russia hoax... — NOS4A2

If you would like to portray youself as an objective observer, I recommend you refrain from using Trump's memes. The investigation was anything but a hoax which implies there was no reason whatsoever to suspect wrongdoing by the Trump campaign. OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder but that doesn't imply his investigation was perpetrating a hoax.

I wonder if Trump's base even gets it. — 3017amen

They will not. Has any Republican in Congress even acknowledged that the closed hearings are even allowable, much less appropriate?

Yes, and Republican defenders are implying he lied, and is part of a "deep state" conspiracy. His true believers, like NOS4A2, will continue to have that to fall back on. Faith is a powerful thing.

When I said “zero evidence” I was saying it in regards to your question earlier, and my explicit answer:

“If he withheld money for the purposes of finding political dirt so as to help him in the next election, yes I think that could perhaps rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors”

Show me a statement or policy or anything that references finding political dirt for the purposes of influencing an election, or anything to do with the next election and political dirt. If you find that the evidence of what he has been accused of will go from zero to one. — NOS4A2

You don't understand the concept of "evidence". With your absurdly narrow view of evidence, no white collar crimes could ever be prosecuted.

Bill Taylor’s fears are evidence of Trump’s criminality? That does not constitute evidence of anything, except perhaps Taylor’s assumptions and fears. — NOS4A2

Yes, it's evidence, because he was in position to know what was going on.

If that constitutes evidence, then what about Sunderland’s response to that text, which is suspiciously missing from your analysis?

I think you mean Sondland. Sure, taken at face value, Sondland's response is evidence to the contrary. I didn't mention that because I was simply challenging your claim of "zero" evidence of quid pro quo. Contrary evidence does not erase the existence of the positive evidence.

Regardless, we know that Sondland was not actually expressing his own opinion (Sondland admitted this in his testimony), so this erases its exculpatory value. And we also have Taylor's full testimony- do you even deny THIS as evidence against Trump?!

Clearly, William Taylor perceived there to be the impeachable quid pro quo:
"“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign".

That constitutes evidence.

The fact that Trump actually withheld the funds is consistent with Taylor's inference, so it constitutes circumstantial evidence.

I'm not claiming these are sufficient to convict, but how can you claim "zero" evidence?

"Sole" reason? Are you saying he shouldn't be impeached & removed for this if there was also a second precondition?

Do you agree that there is some evidence to suggest he might have been doing this impeachable thing?

I have a question.

If it could be established that Trump actually withheld funds for Ukraine to influence them to investigate Biden, would you agree that is worthy of impeachment and removal?

I feel certain that most rank and file Republicans would actually be OK with Trump doing this (i.e. they would still oppose impeachment), so I'm curious about your position on it.

I do not think the video will result in violence toward media. I just see it as yet another example of Trump devotees' slavish devotion, uncritically accepting that the media is enemy, so that nothing they report is to be believed. This devotion makes them blind to his corruption - because all negative reporting is perceived as the work of the enemy to bring down their hero. I'm not angered, I'm saddened. Trump is not the real problem; the real problem is that so many fail to see reality.

Why would I provide facts for something I have never argued? — NOS4A2

You must not have read the post from Wallows before you responded to it. There is ample evidence that Trump is a detriment to American values, and yet you indicated it's unknown if history will deem him a net good or net bad TO AMERICAN VALUES (that is the implication of the context).

That's great you feel that way Nosferatu. Sadly, the facts aren't on your side on the issue as to whether Trump is a net good or detriment to upholding American ideals about governance and foreign policy. — Wallows

The facts aren’t on your side. We won’t know whether Trump’s presidency is a net good until his term(s) are over. History might tell us, as anti-Trumpists presume, that his term is an aberration. I happen to suspect it will be the other way about. — NOS4A2

Provide some facts that support the notion that Trump is upholding American ideals. Be sure to state the ideals he is upholding.

See this:

"Federal law establishes a unique process for disclosures made to OSC. This process is intended to protect the confidentiality of the whistleblower and ensure that the alleged wrongdoing is investigated and, where necessary, corrected."

It is long established procedure to allow second hand information in whistleblower reports. The Republican lie that this was a recent change is exposed Here

There are Christian apologists who absolutely insist Jesus was actually resurrected, and that this can be"proven". I've debated Christians on this for years. They would argue that Christianity is a fraud if Jesus was not actually resurrected. You seem to have a different view; it seems almost that you think it fine to pretend the Jesus stories are true, because this serves the purpose.

Your stated reason is contrary to whistleblower law: 2nd hand information is reportable. The report was even judged credible by the IG.

I'm still awaiting a comment regarding the obvious hypocrisy: there was no evidence of a crime by Biden, so are you decrying that investigation as well? Do you agree with Miller that we have a "right to know" about Biden? If so, we why do we not have the right to know about Trump?

Wherein in that sentence does it say anything at all about anything's being true? — tim wood

I never said anything about it BEING true. What I said was:

(I believe p) = (I believe p is true).

... which is consistent with the article. Bizarrely, you took issue with this, and now you're conflating (I believe p is true) with (p is true).

And yet, you're fine with Trump doing exactly that with regard to Biden.

Regarding Trump's offenses, we also have the whistleblower report, which provides the damning context. This is certainly not proof, but it is more than adequate cause to investigate further.

Neither the “whistleblower” or IG Atkinson saw the transcript of the call. It’s all gossip. It’s inadequate. — NOS4A2

You sidestepped my points: 1) It is inadequate as a sole basis to impeach, but -like any credible whistleblower report- it warrants investigating further. 2) it ia hypocrytical to suggest Biden should be investigated based solely on circumstances, while claiming investigating a whistleblower report is a "witch hunt."

It appears all you’ve done is assumed motives, without evidence. — NOS4A2

And yet, you're fine with Trump doing exactly that with regard to Biden.

Regarding Trump's offenses, we also have the whistleblower report, which provides the damning context. This is certainly not proof, but it is more than adequate cause to investigate further.

And? So? Please make your point in something that requires fewer than several thousand words, 123 author citations, with about 175 papers cited. It's clear, in any case, that the topic, belief, can be understood in various and not necessarily compatible ways. Equally clear is that each of these ways is criteria based. That is, from differing starting points, one arrives at differing understandings of what belief is.

Your proposition P ≡ ((I believe X) = (I believe X is true)), then, may be true under some criteria, but I deny that it is universally true. Let's try this: do you affirm or deny that P is universally true? — tim wood

You only need to read the first sentence of
this article. It defines the term "belief", as the word is commonly used among english speaking philosphers. Yes, under this definition, it is universally true. It seems you use a nonstandard definition. Please provide it, and give me an example of something you believe, but do not believe to be true.

The whistleblower’s complaint is hearsay, appears to be written by lawyers, and riddled with inaccuracies and assumed motives. — NOS4A2

You are repeating the Republican talking points, and overlooking the obvious: the whistleblower complaint is within the legal guidelines, is credible, and worthy of investigation. Trump should not be impeached solely on the basis of the complaint, but if the investigation confirms Trump's behavior crossed the legal line, then it will be appropriate to impeach. Alternatively, if the administration makes it impossible to investigate, then this would constitute illegal obstruction and this would be impeachable.

Surely you at least notice the administration's hypocrisy regarding investigations. On the one hand, they argue Hunter Biden should be investigated despite there being no evidence of his having committed a crime, but because of the circumstances of a VP's son being hired for a well-paying job. And yet we have a credible report of actual wrongdoing by Trump, that clearly warrants investigation, and it gets labelled a "witch hunt". Steven Miller said the American people have a right to know the truth about Biden. Don't we also have a right to know about Trump?

I recommend you read this article.

For any proposition p:

(I believe p) = (I believe p is true).

What, exactly, is meant - do you mean - by "the truth of Christianity"? Whoever said that any test of Christianity was dependent on "truth"? — tim wood

By "the truth of Christianity", I am referring to key doctrines of Trinitarian Christianity being true. In particular, that Jesus actually existed, was executed (died), and was resurrected (he lived again, walking the earth), and that Jesus is God (of the same substance as "God the father", and the "Holy Spirit". This does not apply to non-Trinitarians, such as Jehovah's Witnesses.

Yes, your ‘whistleblower’ doesn’t even have direct knowledge of Trump’s conversation, according to CNN. — NOS4A2

Please elaborate. I've found nothing on this.

You guys have propped up DNC propaganda, conspiracy theories and investigations for years now it’s not surprising that you’re now calling foul when you beloved candidates and parties are receiving scrutiny of their own.

Let's compare facts. Here's the facts I'm aware of:

1) A whistleblower from the U.S. intelligence community filed a complaint Aug. 12 that alleged some kind of wrongdoing at high levels of the U.S. government.
2) Intelligence community Inspector General Michael Atkinson has reviewed the complaint and determined it was credible.
3) Atkinson also determined that it was a matter of “urgent concern,” which is a legal threshold that requires notifying the relevant congressional committees. In this case, that would be the intelligence committees.
4) Leaks to the press have indicated that the whistleblower report related to Trump's call to the Ukranian President.
5) These leaks also indicated that the nature of the complaint entailed Trump pressuring the Ukranian President to launch an investigation involving the Bidens.
6) The Trump administration began reviewing a $250 million Ukrainian aid package just weeks after the August call and chose to release the aid earlier this month
7) The Trump administration has not complied with their legal obligation to provide Congress with the whistleblower report.

Do you disagree with any of these? What additional facts do you consider relevant to Trump's actions?

Regarding Biden- I'm fine with investigating anything he may have done. Hypothetically, if an investigation were to bear fruit after he's elected President, I'd be fine with impeaching him. Unlike you Trumpists, I apply a uniform standard. Corruption should not be excused or ignored, regardless of party.

You complain about DNC propaganda, and yet you embrace Trump's accusations of Biden. The matter HAS been investigated in the US and no wrongdoing was uncovered. No new evidence has been uncovered to warrant Trump's accusations against him. There is no fact-based motivation to pursue it - so it appears to be politically motivated. Contrast this with Trump's call: there are facts that have not yet been investigated. I'm not proclaiming him guilty of a crime but it seems highly likely he made a politically motivated and inappropriate request to a foreign leader.

↪Echarmion
That’s corruption. That’s exactly what Joe Biden is being accused of: firing the official that was investigating his son’s company. Not only that, but the DNC is also a target for investigation for working with Ukraine, a foreign power, to influence the 2016 election.

According to the press and their followers, Trump’s big crime is speaking with the president-elect to work with Guilliani. It’s all DNC spin, because it’s actually themselves and their candidates who allegedly broke laws, — NOS4A2

Ah, such faith in your orange god! You regard it as "DNC spin" to have suspicions aroused by knowlege that there was a whistleblower report. These suspicions could easily be shown to lack merit by providing the whistleblower report to Congress, as is required by law. Refusal to deliver it ADDS to suspicions. Did he offer a quid-pro-quo to the Ukrainian President? That would be illegal and impeachment-worthy. On the other hand, was he just asking for dirt on a political rival without a quid-pro-quo? That is apparently legal, but it is the public interest to know if he indeed engaged in such indecent behavior. IMO, this sort of behavior ought to be criminalized because even if there is no explicit quid-pro-quo, there's always an implicit one when a President asks for political help from a country that is beholden to us for economic or military aid.

Yes, the alleged corruption between Biden, then vice-president of the US, and his son was committed in and with Ukraine during the Obama administration. The alleged crimes occurred in Ukraine and with the Ukrainian government. I know you’re smart enough to see the problem here. — NOS4A2

So...you're OK with witch hunts, as long as the alleged witch is a Democrat.

I asked you to "point me to somewhere in the New Testament where there's mention of an eternal soul, and an afterlife that is clearly not a BODILY afterlife", and you haven't done that. Instead, you made some inferences based on your own flawed understanding of 1st century Judaism. Their beliefs were not homogeneous. There were a variety of views about the afterlife. The apocalypticists believed an afterlife was of a body, and this is exactly what Paul describes this in 1Cor15.

You can believe whatever you want, but the question pertains to what the Bible actually says, not what you believe.

No, Cohen's testimony alone isn't enough to indict, but there is at least a bit more than that. It may or may not be sufficient. What makes you so certain it's not? Is it the statements of a proven pathological liar, who is on camera lying about having knowledge of the payment?

Michael Cohen was a lawyer. His duty as a lawyer is to interpret and advise clients as to the law, regulations, legal rights and obligations. You’re assuming, without evidence, that Trump was privy to complex campaign finance laws and ordered Cohen to break them. That’s utter nonsense. — NOS4A2

I have not judged Trump guilty of this charge. I haven't even said there's necessarily enough evidence to even indict him. You are the one expressing confidence that Trump committed no crime.

I find it particularly pathetic that it's irrelevant to you that he screwed a porn star right after his wife gave birth, paid her hush money, and publicly lied about it. All that matters to you is that it's not a provable crime. True to form since you also don't care that he lies so frequently - it's all OK, because he doesn't do it under oath.

No, Cohen's testimony alone isn't enough to indict, but there is at least a bit more than that. It may or may not be sufficient. What makes you so certain it's not? Is it the statements of a proven pathological liar, who is on camera lying about having knowledge of the payment?

LOL! The Justice dept has ruled that a sitting President cannot be indicted.

It may result in some Republicans staying home, and it may sway some independents.

That may not be entirely true:

No, Trump isn’t Teflon. Scandals lower his approval among Republicans — if they see the news

I didn't realize that was what you were advocating. I'd be OK with delaying an impeachment vote until then, but I think they should hold impeachment hearings as soon as possible.