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.I do not discount the intelligence community out of hand, but these guys I simply do not trust. — 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.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
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
No—we will find out soon enough. — NOS4A2
Now, what I asked was: Did you believe Trump colluded with Russia to help him win the election? — NOS4A2
Hey, NOS4A2! I can shoot the shit just as well as you. But my BS has a kernel of truth, yours has a kernel of falsity, true BS through and through.
"Collusion" is a red herring. Very well used. Self-perpetuated nonetheless. There is no such crime. He knew - they knew - there would never be any such charge of collusion. So, no matter what come of the investigation... it could not ever be a case of being guilty of collusion.
Read the Mueller report. Watch the testimony.
Exactly right. The media and DNC inundation of Trump/Russian collusion was based on that falsity from the get go. We don’t need the Mueller report or his testimony to realize that, but we no less heard it for nearly three years. — NOS4A2
The truth is Trump was innocent despite all claims and worries to the contrary. There was no Russian collusion, no conspiracy to defraud the US, no obstruction. — NOS4A2
It is indeed exactly right! Someone cannot be convicted of a crime that does not exist. Collusion - in this case - is every bit as inapplicable as jaywalking.
That said... there are all sorts of other things being looked at. That's what a deposition is all about. It's the first step in the process. Given the high national security concerns, and the fact that it is not at all uncommon to hold private depositions - ALL of them are, anyone unauthorized to be there that walks in and is also a player in the later proceedings should the deposition warrant, ought be fucking charged with obstruction. — creativesoul
Schiff repeatedly said that his committee had dug up “plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy.” In March 2017, he said on “Meet the Press,” “I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now” and last May he told ABC that Trump’s Russia conspiracy is of “a size and scope probably beyond Watergate.”
Mueller did not exonerate Trump of anything. The Mueller report did not either! Mueller was not looking for evidence of collusion.
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
I don’t believe any of what the CIA says. — NOS4A2
There is no crime for collusion. That’s the hilarious part about it. — NOS4A2
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
There’s no crime named “collusion” just as there’s no crime named “stabbing someone in the face” but that’s not to say that stabbing someone in the face isn’t a crime - it is, it’s just named something. In the case of “collusion” it would be something like conspiracy against the United States or campaign finance violation.
You can say that there’s no evidence of these crimes but to just say that collusion isn’t a crime is a red herring,
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.
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.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.
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.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.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.