Tu quoque?

Why are we feeding foreign meddler’s?

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?

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."

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.

This Russian collision narrative was no less perpetuated by deep-state leakers, the DNC and the media, and sold to the credulous—hook, line and sinker. The WaPo and NYT received Pulitzers for their reporting, for enlightening us on collusion. It's no wonder everyone believed in collusion.

Strzok was fired. McCabe was fired. Page resigned. Comey was fired.

He derided an unjust investigation. That's Trump's only crime. No, it was not criminal for the reasons stated by barr, because there was no corrupt or criminal intent. In the last analysis, they were just the protests of a man and his family being unjustly investigated for DNC conspiracy theories.

And all this while everyone completely ignored the dirt that Hillary's campaign sourced from the Kremlin, from Ukraine, and used to influence an election.

Now, what I asked was: Did you believe Trump colluded with Russia to help him win the election?

No—we will find out soon enough. — NOS4A2

You keep saying things like this. And when we find out that you were wrong you just go on to some other falsities.

Now, what I asked was: Did you believe Trump colluded with Russia to help him win the election? — NOS4A2

Colluded? He's a fucking puppet. The Russians said 'run for president, we'll get you in'. At first he didn't believe they could do it, but he really wanted it, so he went along with it. The deal with the devil. He let them groom him, creating the public image which got him to where he is now, president of the USA; giving up his soul in this pact. And that's all he is, as president, an image which the Russians have created.

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.

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.

That’s not true. Your word salads are nearly unreadable.

"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

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.

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

There was Russian interference. Trump's close relatives worked with some of those agents. Trump hired a known Ukrainian agent(Manafort). The Mueller report cited enough evidence of obstruction to warrant passing the baton. Mueller did not openly say either way... that, in and of itself, is beyond his purview. He determined there was enough evidence to go to the next phase... He passed the baton...

The next runner dropped it...

For fuck's sake... Trump has a current cabinet member who used to work in Cyprus laundering Russian money...

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

I think that's fair. The GOP storming Schiff's kangaroo court seemed like an act of desperation. It looks like they're criticizing the process, which, given Schiff's lies about the whistleblower and about possessing evidence of Russian collusion, is quite suspect in my mind. However as of now the Dems are winning with their leaking and media strategy. Unfortunately this strategy leaves Americans misinformed as to the vast majority of the questioning.

Any way you could restate that without making unverifiable charges? I'd be very surprised if Schiff used the term "collusion".

Schiff's been saying for years that that there was an abundance of evidence of collusion, along with many other Democrats.

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.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-trump-russia-collusion-hall-of-shame/2019/03/28/306b5168-5173-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html

Gibberish.

The only people I see still using the term are those who keep on saying that Trump is not guilty of it. That term is one of endearment for many who watch Fox and listen intently to the president, and trust that what he says is true. Trump loves using the term, because he can help perpetuate the fucking fraud against The United States of America that his own AG began...

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

Jesus fucking christ...

Sorry Mom. Sorry Grandma.

Here's a thought....

It is an actual real life issue, and a very contentious one at that, regarding whether or not a sitting president can be indicted.

There are no statutes of limitation here to be worried about. The timeframe would allow for all the haggling to continue. Trump loses the election.

Then. Indicted.

That describes the process of how they went about deciding whether to indict someone as the following paragraphs goes on the describe. You're pulling that paragraph out of context. Mueller never got to the point in deciding whether there was sufficient evidence to indict Trump as he had repeatedly said and testified because the OLC opinion was that a sitting president could not be indicted.

He had said that if it was clear Trump had not committed a crime they would've said so. So Mueller provides facts that do not give him reason to say he's innocent but he had not analysed whether those facts would lead to sufficient grounds to indict as indictment was impossible in any case.

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.

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

So what? Irrelevant. Trump's AG(or was it the FBI director?) claimed that the Mueller report exonerated Trump of collusion. Those claims were made well in advance of anyone else looking at the reports for themselves.

Poisoning the well does not even begin to describe that kind of fraudulent behaviour.

Read Benkei's last post.

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

So If the CIA says the sky is blue, you'll conclude it's red?

This is a terrible epistemological stance. Dismissing evidence is idiotic, no matter how morally righteous it makes you feel. This of course goes both ways, but given that you are constantly harping on about how we should be fair and consider the statements made by Trump as genuine, your stance on the CIA is incompatible with your stated principles.

No, that’s not what I meant. I meant I don’t trust the CIA.

Your word salads are nearly unreadable. — NOS4A2

You mean inedible?

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

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.

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.

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,

Unlike, “stabbing someone in the face”, “collusion” is too vague. There simply is no law that criminalizes collusion between a political campaign and foreign government.

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.

Did you believe Trump colluded with Russia?

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.

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.

It would also be hypocritical to embrace allegations against the Trumps while claiming the Biden story is a conspiracy theory.

I was just asking if you once believed, or even still believe, that Trump colluded with Russia to influence the election. I never asked what you believe, but if you believed what I asked. A simple yes or no will do.

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.

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.

Crossfire Hurricane was started in July, before the standardized security briefing in August. In Barr’s testimony, this was just a general briefing, including all potential threats from other countries. But no, they were not warned that Russians were allegedly compromising people like Papadopoulos or Page, nor did they say they opened a counterintelligence investigation.

The FISA process is now being investigated by the IG, and his results will be available soon.

It matters that the efforts were funded by Clinton and sourced by Russian intelligence for the same reasons people have been saying Russian influence is a threat to democracy. It’s election meddling. It’s political dirt sourced from Russian spies to damage an opponent. It’s supposed collusion. It’s everything they blamed Trump for but perpetuated by the Clinton campaign.

For any true believer, or anyone interested in a perspective contrary the sensationalism regarding Russian collusion, read this wonderful article by Matt Taibbi.

It’s official: Russiagate is this generation’s WMD

Fantastic read on media malfeasance during the hoax.