The Mueller report is only a part of the Russia investigation. You really have no clue, do you?

After it was established Russians hacked the DNC and Papadopoulos mispoke about Trump campaign members meeting Russians the special counsel was mandated to investigate. What part is a lie? Where's the hoax? Who is or are the hoaxers?

As usual, you didn't answer any of my questions.

what the fuck are you talking about? — Benkei

I‘ve made no secret about voting for Trump and being a fan of Trump’s. — NOS4A2

Trump is immune to reason and indifferent to facts. 'Trump fans' are no different.

Meanwhile, from the News Desk -

WASHINGTON — For more than two years, President Trump has repeatedly attacked the Russia investigation, portraying it as a hoax and illegal even months after the special counsel closed it. Now, Mr. Trump’s own Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into how it all began.

Justice Department officials have shifted an administrative review of the Russia investigation closely overseen by Attorney General William P. Barr to a criminal inquiry, according to two people familiar with the matter. The move gives the prosecutor running it, John H. Durham, the power to subpoena for witness testimony and documents, to convene a grand jury and to file criminal charges.

The opening of a criminal investigation is likely to raise alarms that Mr. Trump is using the Justice Department to go after his perceived enemies. Mr. Trump fired James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director under whose watch agents opened the Russia inquiry, and has long assailed other top former law enforcement and intelligence officials as partisans who sought to block his election.

Mr. Trump has made clear that he sees the typically independent Justice Department as a tool to be wielded against his political enemies. That view factors into the impeachment investigation against him, as does his long obsession with the origins of the Russia inquiry. House Democrats are examining in part whether his pressure on Ukraine to open investigations into theories about the 2016 election constituted an abuse of power.

The move also creates an unusual situation in which the Justice Department is conducting a criminal investigation into itself.

...Mr. Trump is certain to see the criminal investigation as a vindication of the years he and his allies have spent trying to discredit the Russia investigation. In May, Mr. Trump told the Fox News host Sean Hannity that the F.B.I. officials who opened the case — a counterintelligence investigation into whether his campaign conspired with Moscow’s election sabotage — had committed treason.

“We can never allow these treasonous acts to happen to another president,” Mr. Trump said. He has called the F.B.I. investigation one of the biggest political scandals in United States history.

https://nyti.ms/2Jj4hMk

Bet the atmosphere inside Justice is positively collegial.

Not.

Oh, and let's not forget what happened to John Mitchell.

Ha, the thing is that Moore's self-description betrays what he actually says - he says he's not talking about political expediency, but his whole discussion point is about beating Trump at his own game - he talks about how Biden is 'this year's Hillary' (a totally apt description), and has nothing to offer either Trump's base or young and hispanic, etc voters. He talks about needing to speak to Wisconsin and Michigan - like, this is pure politics!

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.

Now that the 'precedent' is set, relative to investigating the (Russia) investigator's, I don't think it will bode well for the Trumper's. For example, now, the circular firing squad will be shooting at say Ivanka and her economic interests in China and related intellectual property abuses viz Biden's son kinds of interests...it's a free for all now !!! .

So the question becomes, who's more corrupt: Trump (family and associates) or the Government. My bet is Trump tips the scale as king of corruption.

I think I've just graduated from popcorn to shrimp cocktail!!

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.

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?

, the thing is that Moore's self-description betrays what he actually says - he says he's not talking about political expediency, but his whole discussion point is about beating Trump at his own game - he talks about how Biden is 'this year's Hillary' (a totally apt description), and has nothing to offer either Trump's base or young and hispanic, etc voters. He talks about needing to speak to Wisconsin and Michigan - like, this is pure politics! — StreetlightX

Right, but the fact that part of the population is sensitive to moral issues becomes politics. It reminds me of war between Carthage and Rome where each side would suddenly become the epitome of moral rectitude while trying to win the allegiance of rural Italians.

Politicians reflect the populace (but dont necessarily lead them?)

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?

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?

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

Because what they say with regard to the DNC hack is corroborated by other foreign intelligence agencies. In particular the Dutch as they hacked the hackers and saw them hacking the DNC server live.

Right, but the fact that part of the population is sensitive to moral issues becomes politics. — frank

Sure.

For any or all Trumper's, just a quick question.

I haven't researched the so-called analogous conditions, but now that we are in the mode of investigating everyone and everything [which is a good thing], what about the Ukraine transcripts (put in the code-word server) ?

Like the DNC server, shouldn't the public learn about certain eventual declassified material in there too?

Oh, and speaking of Ukraine, what about all the subpoena'd documents that were denied access from the Trump administration... ?

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?

That’s frightening.

I don’t believe any of what the CIA says.

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

Did you believe Trump colluded with Russia? — NOS4A2

Yes I think he did but doubt it would reach the bar of beyond a reasonable doubt that would lead to a conviction. I do believe that he obstructed justice as described in the Mueller report. Both are neither here nor there because the evidentiary rules don't really apply to impeachment.

Do I have solid evidence that this charade was a malicious lie? — NOS4A2

What part is the charade? That's the 3rd time I'm asking and you're failing to answer. Are you saying no investigation should have been held? You don't believe the DNC was hacked? What part is it? These blanket denials and distrust of institutions are not informative at all. There's no substance to your replies.

Yes I think he did but doubt it would reach the bar of beyond a reasonable doubt that would lead to a conviction. I do believe that he obstructed justice as described in the Mueller report. Both are neither here nor there because the evidentiary rules don't really apply to impeachment.

There is no crime for collusion. That’s the hilarious part about it.

What part is the charade? That's the 3rd time I'm asking and you're failing to answer. Are you saying no investigation should have been held? You don't believe the DNC was hacked? What part is it? These blanket denials and distrust of institutions are not informative at all. There's no substance to your replies.

I’ve already gone over the Mueller report, my criticisms of the investigation ad nauseum, and you or someone else simply dismissed them. I refuse to do it again. Your finger-wagging about my choice of words is just that: finger-wagging.

Like the DNC server, should the public learn about certain eventual declassified material in there — 3017amen

The Ukraine-DNC situation is an attempt to contradict the Mueller report.

Ignore NOS4A2, he's spreading bullshit.

There is no crime for collusion. That’s the hilarious part about it. — NOS4A2

I know, as evidenced by countless posts before that we even exchanged so I assumed, since you insist on using the term, you'd take that into account. Instead I get a bullshit "gotcha" reaction.

Like here

I’ve already gone over the Mueller report, my criticisms of the investigation ad nauseum, and you or someone else simply dismissed them. I refuse to do it again. Your finger-wagging about my choice of words is just that: finger-wagging. — NOS4A2

We're not talking about the report, we're talking about it being a hoax. What part is a deliberate lie in the process that makes you qualify it as a hoax without, as you say, any real evidence? Your qualification was in reply to the investigation having happened in the first place. So was Mueller duped too? What's the hoax and who is the hoaxer?

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?

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? — NOS4A2

That's not what I'm asking. What part is the hoax, so what's the lie and what is, according to you, the truth? Who peddled that lie?

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. You were duped by selective leaks and bad reporting.

Look, I apologize for flippant responses. I do not have enough evidence to accurately say this is a hoax and criticism of my statement is valid. Yes, what I am saying is, at this moment, conspiratorial and you are right to say so.

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?

John Brennan and James Clapper are proven liars. Peter Strozk and Lisa page we’re proven to be biased. Andy McCabe was proven to be a liar. These guys hands are over everything in this investigation, and they used state power to spy on innocent Americans based on a fake dossier, payed for by the DNC and sourced from Russian intelligence.

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

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?

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?

Did you believe Trump colluded with Russia to help him win the election? — NOS4A2

Of course. Everybody believes that.

Did you believe Trump colluded with Russia to help him win the election? — NOS4A2

"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.

"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.

The media and DNC inundation of Trump/Russian collusion was based on that falsity from the get go. — NOS4A2

No. He colluded.

Stop spreading lies.

John Brennan and James Clapper are proven liars — NOS4A2

And Trump's not?

Why are we feeding the troll??