The term collusion was not introduced by Trump, but by the DNC and the media that breathlessly followed. They ran with it, falsely and without evidence, for years.

Now you have to convince us that the president’s rebukes of the hoax was obstruction or the protestations of an innocent man.

Now you have to convince us that the president’s rebukes of the hoax was obstruction or the protestations of an innocent man. — NOS4A2

No I don't. You need to read the full report.

It was a ruse, a fraud, a swindle, a trick, a hoax. Believers were duped. — NOS4A2

No. There was evidence (lots of it) that Trump's campaign was involved with russian agents. Trump and various members of his campaign where caught lying about contacts with russian citizens multiple times. Then Trump fired Comey, citing the investigation into contacts with Russia as a reason - more evidence of wrongdoing.

All this caused a major investigation. Said investigation ultimately concluded that there was insufficient evidence to indict anyone for collusion. Several other crimes were uncovered.

You're lying if you claim insufficient evidence is the same as "it was all a hoax".

The Mueller report decisively established that the Trump campaign was co-operating with Russian agents during the campaign. Trump actively 'colluded with Russia' on live television, for heaven's sake ('Russia, are you listening?') The day after Mueller's testimony, Trump has been found colluding again, this time with the UIkraine to try and trip up Joe Biden. And really, hopefully, this time it's the Big One, it's the one that really is going to collapse the whole house of cards. Let's hope. :pray:

In fact, it was those working for the opposing campaign that spread Russian-sourced active measures to the willing, who lapped it up with nary any criticism. We know the dodgy Steele dossier was sourced from Russian intelligence before being shopped to the FBI in order to trigger investigations. The leaks from that investigation, which included the American govt. spying on American citizens, kept the press and their readers fully engaged even until now.

This recent Ukrainian “scandal” will likely backfire—again—proving typical opposition overreach but also bringing attention to the possible corruption of their favorite candidate.

In fact, it was those working for the opposing campaign that spread Russian-sourced active measures to the willing, who lapped it up with nary any criticism. — NOS4A2

Whatever are ”russian sourced active measures"?

We know the dodgy Steele dossier — NOS4A2

Look at you using Trump's propaganda speak.

was sourced from Russian intelligence — NOS4A2

It's not the nation of origin that matters. It's about working together with agents of a foreign and geopolitically "hostile" government. But you know this, you're just spreading propaganda.

which included the American govt. spying on American citizens, — NOS4A2

Which it is allowed to do thanks to legislation passed by a republican government.

This recent Ukrainian “scandal” will likely backfire—again— — NOS4A2

Possibly, Trump and his team have gotten better at this.

proving typical opposition overreach — NOS4A2

I curious, just what limits do you think the opposition is overreaching?

Active measures (Russian: активные мероприятия, romanized: aktivnye meropriyatiya) is a term for the actions of political warfare conducted by the Soviet and Russian security services (Cheka, OGPU, NKVD, KGB, FSB) to influence the course of world events, in addition to collecting intelligence and producing "politically correct" assessment of it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_measures

Look at you using Trump's propaganda speak.

I didn’t get that from Trump. Look at you assuming I did.

It's not the nation of origin that matters. It's about working together with agents of a foreign and geopolitically "hostile" government. But you know this, you're just spreading propaganda.

Yes Steele worked with Russian FSB and intelligence officials in the Kremlin to produce a salacious dossier. You knew this, of course.

Which it is allowed to do thanks to legislation passed by a republican government.

You think the American govt. should spy on its own citizens and political opponents? Wow.

I curious, just what limits do you think the opposition is overreaching?

Demanding the president’s private conversations with leaders because someone who doesn’t even have direct knowledge believes it’s bad.

Oh so now opposition research by the DNC was also a secret operation by the Russian intelligence services, who tried to undermine Trump while at the same time trying to get him elected?

Yes Steele worked with Russian FSB and intelligence officials in the Kremlin to produce a salacious dossier. You knew this, of course. — NOS4A2

And I am sure you have evidence that Steele worked "with" russian officials "to" produce a salacious dossier, rather than just using sources from those circles?

You think the American govt. should spy on its own citizens and political opponents? Wow. — NOS4A2

Yes, this is exactly what I said...

Demanding the president’s private conversations with leaders because someone who doesn’t even have direct knowledge believes it’s bad. — NOS4A2

Bad enough for the White House to not comply with it's legal obligations. Are those legal obligations somehow "overreach" to you?

Oh so now opposition research by the DNC was also a secret operation by the Russian intelligence services, who tried to undermine Trump while at the same time trying to get him elected?

Now you don’t care that an American campaign was working with Russian intelligence to get dirt on their opponent in order to influence an election. Isn’t that a surprise.

And I am sure you have evidence that Steele worked "with" russian officials "to" produce a salacious dossier, rather than just using sources from those circles?

What do you think they were doing, telling the truth? Helping the American people? They spun a web that reached the highest offices in American intelligence, resulting in a massive tax-payer funded witch-hunt.

Bad enough for the White House to not comply with it's legal obligations. Are those legal obligations somehow "overreach" to you?

Yes it is because any complaint could be use to disrupt the highest office in the land from doing its constitutional duties.

Now you don’t care that an American campaign was working with Russian intelligence to get dirt on their opponent in order to influence an election. Isn’t that a surprise. — NOS4A2

Oh I do care, you just don't have any evidence, and your conjectured story is contradicted by the documented efforts of the russian state to get Trump elected.

What do you think they were doing, telling the truth? Helping the American people? They spun a web that reached the highest offices in American intelligence, resulting in a massive tax-payer funded witch-hunt. — NOS4A2

So no, you don't have any evidence.

Yes it is because any complaint could be use to disrupt the highest office in the land from doing its constitutional duties. — NOS4A2

But it isn't just any complaint, is it? There is a process for vetting complaints. So why do you think this specific vetting process is insufficient? where do you draw the line?

At no point was the fact that the research was DNC funded, was gathered by a biased anti-trump spy, added to any FISA applications or their subsequent renewals. — NOS4A2

Yes it was. Page 16 of the application (if we’re talking about Page). Although it doesn’t name the DNC because it’s standard procedure not to identify U.S persons/organisations unless they’re a target (it also doesn’t name Trump - it just refers to Candidate #1), it clearly states that the motivation of the research was to discredit a Presidential campaign.

One thing I’ve never understood about this accusation is that there’s no point in hiring an expert investigator to make stuff up. What you want and pay for are facts that can damage your opponent. That’s why you hire an expert investigator.

“She [Greta Thunberg] seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see!" Trump tweeted yesterday.

What a creep.

Oh I do care, you just don't have any evidence, and your conjectured story is contradicted by the documented efforts of the russian state to get Trump elected.

We know that Steele sourced his info from Russian intelligence. He said as much in the dossier. This dossier was used to throw American politics, American law enforcement and the press into disarray for years to come, fundamentally threatening democracy itself. Americans spied on other Americans. Did any Russian bots achieve so big a score?

Yes it was. Page 16 of the application. Although it doesn’t name the DNC because it’s standard procedure not to identify U.S persons/organisations unless they’re a target (it also doesn’t name Trump - it just refers to Candidate #1), it clearly states that the motivation of the research it to discredit a Presidential campaign.

Nothing of Steele’s rampant anti-Trumpism or that the client of the law firm was candidate #2’s campaign.

It says that the motive of the research was to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign. That’s sufficient information for the judges to come to a decision on whether or not the evidence warrants a renewal.

It says that the motive of the research was to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign. That’s sufficient information for the judges to come to a decision on whether or not the evidence warrants a renewal.

That is insufficient because it fails to mention who was paying for the information and seeking to benefit from it, candidate #2 and her campaign. That information was suspiciously left out, even after Bruce Ohr had explicitly warned the FBI of Steele’s biases and the people who were funding his research.

Ohr also said he warned the FBI.

In notes Mr. Ohr took of a September 2016 conversation with Mr. Steele, he wrote that the dossier author “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-bruce-ohr-told-congress-1535668660

None of it was included in the application, and in fact it said Steele was reliable.

This dossier was used to throw American politics, American law enforcement and the press into disarray for years to come, — NOS4A2

You're conveniently ignoring the role of a certain person, whose name starts with T, in throwing Ameircan politics into disarray. If Trumps actions had not been so incredibly suspicious, and incredibly disrespectful towards Congress, courts, and law enforcement, the Steele dossier wouldn't have thrown anything into disarray.

fundamentally threatening democracy itself — NOS4A2

Oh really? I'd like to hear you justify this claim.

Americans spied on other Americans. — NOS4A2

Based on the Patriot act, for which the Bush administration is majorly responsible. You're not claiming that the investigation into Trumps campaign marked the first time Americans spied on Americans, are you?

Did any Russian bots achieve so big a score? — NOS4A2

Since russian bots contributed to Trumps election, which is the root cause for all subsequent turmoil, they kind of did.

That is insufficient because it fails to mention who was paying for the information and seeking to benefit from it, candidate #2 and her campaign. — NOS4A2

It didn't need to mention it because the information it gave – that the motivation was to discredit Trump's campaign – was sufficient to establish bias.

None of it was included in the application, and in fact it said Steele was reliable.

Someone can be biased and reliable. Being biased doesn't mean that you're going to put your career and reputation on the line – and possibly put yourself in legal jeapordy – by just making any old shit up and passing it off to the FBI as credible intel.

Am I to dismiss everything you say in support of Trump and against his opponents on the grounds that you clearly have biases of your own? Or should I consider your arguments on their own terms and weigh their strengths against your motivation? That's what the FBI did in stating that "notwithstanding Source #1's reason for conducting the research into Candidate #1's ties to Russia, based on Source #1's previous reporting history with the FBI, whereby Source #1 provided reliable information to the FBI, the FBI believes Source #1's reporting herein to be credible."

Based on the Patriot act, for which the Bush administration is majorly responsible. You're not claiming that the investigation into Trumps campaign marked the first time Americans spied on Americans, are you?

FISA courts have been around since the seventies. So no. As far as I can tell, this is the first time it was used on an opposing political campaign.

Oh really? I'd like to hear you justify this claim.

Using the intelligence apparatus to spy on a political campaign is Watergate-level stuff.

Since russian bots contributed to Trumps election, which is the root cause for all subsequent turmoil, they kind of did.

What, some Facebook ads and fake twitter accounts contributed to Trump’s election? In contrast, multi-millions in DNC propaganda and vast, incessant negative reporting did not contribute to Trump’s election?

It didn't need to mention it because the information it gave – that the motivation was to discredit Trump's campaign – was sufficient to establish bias.

That’s a weird way of looking at it. The bias of candidate #2, who has a stake in the very same election and much to gain, far outweighs that of any other person.

Someone can be biased and reliable. Being biased doesn't mean that you're going to put your career and reputation on the line – and possibly put yourself in legal jeapordy – by just making any old shit up and passing it off to the FBI as credible intel.

Am I to dismiss everything you say in support of Trump and against his opponents on the grounds that you clearly have biases of your own? Or should I consider your arguments on their own terms and weigh their strengths against your motivation? That's what the FBI did in stating that "notwithstanding Source #1's reason for conducting the research into Candidate #1's ties to Russia, based on Source #1's previous reporting history with the FBI, whereby Source #1 provided reliable information to the FBI, the FBI believes Source #1's reporting herein to be credible."

It doesn’t matter. There cannot even be the appearance of bias in matters like these, especially when it comes to secret courts and spying. Leaving out the financiers and anti-Trump bias is lying to the courts.

Looks like Trump will be releasing the transcript of the call with the Ukrainian president. Good stuff. We’ll see if the calls for impeachment and treason were legit or straight DNC propaganda.

straight DNC propaganda. — NOS4A2

Repeatedly people here have responded to you substantively, which is nothing else is work. But you are non-responsive. "Straight DNC propoganda." Like what, for example?

Using the intelligence apparatus to spy on a political campaign is Watergate-level stuff. — NOS4A2

Just who was "using" the intelligence apparatus, and to what purpose, according to you? I'd ask for evidence as well but I know I won't get any.

What, some Facebook ads and fake twitter accounts contributed to Trump’s election? — NOS4A2

Yes.

In contrast, multi-millions in DNC propaganda and vast, incessant negative reporting did not contribute to Trump’s election? — NOS4A2

Well if it did, it must have been very poor propaganda indeed.

A few Facebook ads and twitter bots worked better than the entire DNC media-machine and the entire American media.

Repeatedly people here have responded to you substantively, which is nothing else is work. But you are non-responsive. "Straight DNC propoganda." Like what, for example?

Everyone but you. You have resorted to snark and name-calling. Excuse me while I dismiss everything you say as piffle.

the entire American media. — NOS4A2

Are Fox News, Breitbart etc. not American media? As to your question: evidently Trump's campaign was relatively more successful than Hillary's.

Are Fox News, Breitbart etc. not American media? As to your question: evidently Trump's campaign was relatively more successful than Hillary's.

Indeed it was. Not only that but it cost far less.

PELOSI ANNOUNCES IMPEACHMENT ENQUIRY

Hold on to your hats, it’s going to be wild.

Repeatedly people here have responded to you substantively, — tim wood

You’re feeding a troll, Tim.

Wow - what a bloody day :smile: