Trump/Russia Collusion Insanity

wildeside · 18-11-2019 9:53am

SaintLeibowitz wrote: »

That's fantastic. Your still in the TDS box.

And you just used the word "your" incorrectly again so YOU'RE staying in YOUR box too.

SaintLeibowitz · 18-11-2019 9:59am

wildeside wrote: »

And you just used the word "your" incorrectly again so YOU'RE staying in YOUR box too.

That's fantastic. Your still in the TDS box. Boring and unoriginal.

Overheal · 18-11-2019 1:38pm

wildeside wrote: »

I'm not a Trump fan or Hillary for that matter. I'm not sure what you mean?

Homer: You don't think much of me, do you, boy?
Bart: No, sir.

Stop moaning ffs · 18-11-2019 2:22pm

wildeside wrote: »

I don't support/like Donald Trump! Haven't you read anything I've posted? He's the worst thing to happen to American policitics since George Bush!

I hate Trump more than Hillary and the Clintons ... and that's a lot!

For the record I wanted Bernie to win. Then he sold out to the DNC and got behind Hillary. He betrayed so many people. Have a look at Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 for a good summary of what went on. Truly disgusting.

I'm rooting for Tulsi Gabbard for 2020. A fine, decent human being as far as I can tell.

So take off your "orange man bad" tinted glasses, wake up and try actually debate the issue, if you can.

Look at how many people in his circle that helped get him elected are now in prison or on their way. The walls are closing in fast in him. Watch. He’ll slip out from under being brought to account by a (rather convenient) dementia diagnosis or similar.

18-11-2019 2:44pm

wildeside wrote: »

This whole Trump/Russia collusion story is and always has been not just a distraction but also a massive lie. A lie on the scale of "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" kind of lie.

Summary of the major findings of the Mueller report:

1. Trump was receptive to a Campaign national security adviser’s (George Papadopoulos) pursuit of a back channel to Putin.

2. Kremlin operatives provided the Campaign a preview of the Russian plan to distribute stolen emails.

3. The Trump Campaign chairman and deputy chairman (Paul Manafort and Rick Gates) knowingly shared internal polling data and information on battleground states with a Russian spy; and the Campaign chairman worked with the Russian spy on a pro-Russia “peace” plan for Ukraine.

4. The Trump Campaign chairman periodically shared internal polling data with the Russian spy with the expectation it would be shared with Putin-linked oligarch, Oleg Deripaska.

5. Trump Campaign chairman Manafort expected Trump’s winning the presidency would mean Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance Deripaska’s interests in the United States and elsewhere.

6. Trump Tower meeting: (1) On receiving an email offering derogatory information on Clinton coming from a Russian government official, Donald Trump Jr. “appears to have accepted that offer;” (2) members of the Campaign discussed the Trump Tower meeting beforehand; (3) Donald Trump Jr. told the Russians during the meeting that Trump could revisit the issue of the Magnitsky Act if elected.

7. A Trump Campaign official told the Special Counsel he “felt obliged to object” to a GOP Platform change on Ukraine because it contradicted Trump’s wishes; however, the investigation did not establish that Gordon was directed by Trump.

8. Russian military hackers may have followed Trump’s July 27, 2016 public statement “Russia if you’re listening …” within hours by targeting Clinton’s personal office for the first time.

9. Trump requested campaign affiliates to get Clinton’s emails, which resulted in an individual apparently acting in coordination with the Campaign claiming to have successfully contacted Russian hackers.

10. The Trump Campaign—and Trump personally—appeared to have advanced knowledge of future WikiLeaks releases.

11. The Trump Campaign coordinated campaign-related public communications based on future WikiLeaks releases.

12. Michael Cohen, on behalf of the Trump Organization, brokered a secret deal for a Trump Tower Moscow project directly involving Putin’s inner circle, at least until June 2016.

13. During the presidential transition, Jared Kushner and Eric Prince engaged in secret back channel communications with Russian agents. (1) Kushner suggested to the Russian Ambassador that they use a secure communication line from within the Russian Embassy to speak with Russian Generals; and (2) Prince and Kushner’s friend Rick Gerson conducted secret back channel meetings with a Putin agent to develop a plan for U.S.-Russian relations.

14. During the presidential transition, in coordination with other members of the Transition Team, Michael Flynn spoke with the Russian Ambassador to prevent a tit for tat Russian response to the Obama administration’s imposition of sanctions for election interference; the Russians agreed not to retaliate saying they wanted a good relationship with the incoming administration.

the part in bold alone would be enough to topple any previous holder of the office of POTUS.

ohnonotgmail · 18-11-2019 3:07pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Summary of the major findings of the Mueller report:

1. Trump was receptive to a Campaign national security adviser’s (George Papadopoulos) pursuit of a back channel to Putin.

2. Kremlin operatives provided the Campaign a preview of the Russian plan to distribute stolen emails.

3. The Trump Campaign chairman and deputy chairman (Paul Manafort and Rick Gates) knowingly shared internal polling data and information on battleground states with a Russian spy; and the Campaign chairman worked with the Russian spy on a pro-Russia “peace” plan for Ukraine.

4. The Trump Campaign chairman periodically shared internal polling data with the Russian spy with the expectation it would be shared with Putin-linked oligarch, Oleg Deripaska.

5. Trump Campaign chairman Manafort expected Trump’s winning the presidency would mean Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance Deripaska’s interests in the United States and elsewhere.

6. Trump Tower meeting: (1) On receiving an email offering derogatory information on Clinton coming from a Russian government official, Donald Trump Jr. “appears to have accepted that offer;” (2) members of the Campaign discussed the Trump Tower meeting beforehand; (3) Donald Trump Jr. told the Russians during the meeting that Trump could revisit the issue of the Magnitsky Act if elected.

7. A Trump Campaign official told the Special Counsel he “felt obliged to object” to a GOP Platform change on Ukraine because it contradicted Trump’s wishes; however, the investigation did not establish that Gordon was directed by Trump.

8. Russian military hackers may have followed Trump’s July 27, 2016 public statement “Russia if you’re listening …” within hours by targeting Clinton’s personal office for the first time.

9. Trump requested campaign affiliates to get Clinton’s emails, which resulted in an individual apparently acting in coordination with the Campaign claiming to have successfully contacted Russian hackers.

10. The Trump Campaign—and Trump personally—appeared to have advanced knowledge of future WikiLeaks releases.

11. The Trump Campaign coordinated campaign-related public communications based on future WikiLeaks releases.

12. Michael Cohen, on behalf of the Trump Organization, brokered a secret deal for a Trump Tower Moscow project directly involving Putin’s inner circle, at least until June 2016.

13. During the presidential transition, Jared Kushner and Eric Prince engaged in secret back channel communications with Russian agents. (1) Kushner suggested to the Russian Ambassador that they use a secure communication line from within the Russian Embassy to speak with Russian Generals; and (2) Prince and Kushner’s friend Rick Gerson conducted secret back channel meetings with a Putin agent to develop a plan for U.S.-Russian relations.

14. During the presidential transition, in coordination with other members of the Transition Team, Michael Flynn spoke with the Russian Ambassador to prevent a tit for tat Russian response to the Obama administration’s imposition of sanctions for election interference; the Russians agreed not to retaliate saying they wanted a good relationship with the incoming administration.

the part in bold alone would be enough to topple any previous holder of the office of POTUS.

yes, yes, but her emails.

Stop moaning ffs · 18-11-2019 3:15pm

He was also giving Putin an entire floor in trump tower Moscow.

notobtuse · 18-11-2019 4:02pm

Stick a fork in it... the Trump/Russia collusion hoax is done!

Now we need answers regarding FISA abuses and the miscreants involved in... first, destroying a political opponents campaign by improper use of government agencies; and second, the undertaking of a coup to oust President Trump.

ohnonotgmail · 18-11-2019 4:09pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Stick a fork in it... the Trump/Russia collusion hoax is done!

Now we need answers regarding FISA abuses and the miscreants involved in... first, destroying a political opponents campaign by improper use of government agencies; and second, the undertaking of a coup to oust President Trump.

funny, i thought the impeachment hearing was still very much ongoing.

18-11-2019 4:10pm

notobtuse wrote: »

the Trump/Russia collusion hoax is done!

Are you implying that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and senior Kremlin persons despite, you know, the overwhelming evidence to the contrary? I mean, Trump Jr. himself tweeted about the fact that they were approached by the Russians. Is he lying? Why?

notobtuse wrote: »

......destroying a political opponents campaign by improper use of government agencies.......

Ironically, this is the thrust of the current impeachment inquiry/hearing.

notobtuse · 18-11-2019 4:15pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you implying that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and senior Kremlin persons despite, you know, the overwhelming evidence to the contrary? I mean, Trump Jr. himself tweeted about the fact that they were approached by the Russians. Is he lying? Why?

Ironically, this is the thrust of the current impeachment inquiry/hearing.

Yes, there was no Trump/Russia collusion. But I understand some people can't quite come to grips with reality. Trump Derangement Syndrome currently has no cure.

18-11-2019 4:30pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Yes, there was no Trump/Russia collusion. But I understand some people can't quite come to grips with reality. Trump Derangement Syndrome currently has no cure.

So the emails between his son / other members of the campaign and the russians dishing the dirt on his political rival............are you denying they exist? Are they made up?

Overheal · 18-11-2019 4:38pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So the emails between his son / other members of the campaign and the russians dishing the dirt on his political rival............are you denying they exist? Are they made up?

He’s also denying the existence of Roger Stone apparently.

ohnonotgmail · 18-11-2019 4:42pm

Overheal wrote: »

He’s also denying the existence of Roger Stone apparently.

In fairness Stone does bear a passing resemblance to a cartoon villain.

Overheal · 18-11-2019 4:55pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

In fairness Stone does bear a passing resemblance to a cartoon villain.

Where did you get that impr-

https://twitter.com/veteranshill/status/842139835636826112?s=21

James Brown · 18-11-2019 5:06pm

We know Trump is a supporter of Putin. We know Russia meddled in the election, (as per U.S. intelligence). We know Don Jnr. and Manafort met with a delegate from Russia regarding dirt on Clinton. We know Trump courted support and help from both Wikileaks and Russia on getting dirt on Clinton. We know Trump associates have business dealings with Putin associates.
It's more a case of how deep than if.

notobtuse · 18-11-2019 5:10pm

Deleted User wrote: »

So the emails between his son / other members of the campaign and the russians dishing the dirt on his political rival............are you denying they exist? Are they made up?

I'm not denying he was willing to listen to what someone had to say. Reality check... All campaigns do it. If it were a problem don't you think the Mueller probe would have turned it over to someone who would have prosecuted him for it? Jr didn't act willfully when he possibly violated campaign finance law. But the same can't be said when Hillary Clinton did it against Trump, and even Adam Shiff did it against Trump, both of whom are career politicians. I guess if they didn't indict Hillary and Shiff, there's not much they could do to junior.

18-11-2019 5:36pm

notobtuse wrote: »

I'm not denying he was willing to listen to what someone had to say.

i.e. colluding with them to gain an advantage over his political rival

Forget about Clinton, Schiff etc. for a second. Their skulduggery and underhanded-ness doesn't excuse or in anyway allow others to do the same.

Fact of the matter is, Russia were willing to dish the dirt, Trump and co were willing to accept it. They cooperated in secret in order to gain an advantage over an opponent. That is the dictionary definition of collusion......to claim "there was no Trump/Russia collusion" while also accepting the above facts is being......well, obtuse.

notobtuse · 18-11-2019 5:41pm

Deleted User wrote: »

i.e. colluding with them to gain an advantage over his political rival

Forget about Clinton, Schiff etc. for a second. Their skulduggery and underhanded-ness doesn't excuse or in anyway allow others to do the same.

Fact of the matter is, Russia were willing to dish the dirt, Trump and co were willing to accept it. They cooperated in secret in order to gain an advantage over an opponent. That is the dictionary definition of collusion......to claim "there was no Trump/Russia collusion" while also accepting the above facts is being......well, obtuse.

You can keep trying but the fact is if there was a problem with what Jr did Mueller would have turned it over to the appropriate government entity to prosecute, as Mueller did with others involved in his investigation.

Now, get back to Clinton and Shiff. Do you think there should be one set of rules for Republicans and another set of rules for Democrats regarding your supposed Russia Collusion?

18-11-2019 5:47pm

You're sticking your finger in your ears and denying what is in front of you. Just because there has been no formal prosecution against Jr does not mean that there was no collusion. You've already said they were willing to listen to what the the Russians were offering. How is that not colluding with them?

James Brown · 18-11-2019 5:54pm

notobtuse wrote: »

You can keep trying but the fact is if there was a problem with what Jr did Mueller would have turned it over to the appropriate government entity to prosecute, as Mueller did with others involved in his investigation.

Not true. Mueller created a report. That was his job. What the congress/WH choose to do with the information is not his call. He was not acting as a detective, it was not a criminal investigation.

notobtuse wrote: »

Now, get back to Clinton and Shiff. Do you think there should be one set of rules for Republicans and another set of rules for Democrats regarding your supposed Russia Collusion?

Be honest. If Obama or Clinton's campaign manager and one of their daughters held a meeting with a Russian representative on gaining dirt on Bush or McCain, wouldn't that alone have brought calls of collusion/impeachment from the Republicans, with nothing else?
Be honest.

Overheal · 18-11-2019 5:56pm

https://twitter.com/shimonpro/status/1196465004763123713?s=21

notobtuse · 18-11-2019 6:10pm

Deleted User wrote: »

You're sticking your finger in your ears and denying what is in front of you. Just because there has been no formal prosecution against Jr does not mean that there was no collusion. You've already said they were willing to listen to what the the Russians were offering. How is that not colluding with them?

Nope. Over here politicians seek dirt on other candidates all the time... the dirtier the better. That’s what 'opposition research' is all about. A crime occurs if the politician aided Russia in creating the dirt, or used the dirt in a illegal or deceptive manner.

Overheal · 18-11-2019 6:12pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Nope. Over here politicians seek dirt on other candidates all the time... the dirtier the better. That’s what 'opposition research' is all about. A crime occurs if the politician aided Russia in creating the dirt, or used the dirt in a illegal or deceptive manner.

Bribing Ukraine to investigate a 2020 opponent isn’t “opposition research.”

James Brown · 18-11-2019 6:31pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Nope. Over here politicians seek dirt on other candidates all the time... the dirtier the better. That’s what 'opposition research' is all about. A crime occurs if the politician aided Russia in creating the dirt, or used the dirt in a illegal or deceptive manner.

Using a foreign government to garner dirt on a domestic political rival is frowned upon no? Or is that one of your 'one set of rules..' scenarios?

The Republicans really are a low bunch. In the 50's they'd be threatening to execute the likes of Trump now they're defending him.

notobtuse · 18-11-2019 6:31pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Not true. Mueller created a report. That was his job. What the congress/WH choose to do with the information is not his call. He was not acting as a detective, it was not a criminal investigation.

Be honest. If Obama or Clinton's campaign manager and one of their daughters held a meeting with a Russian representative on gaining dirt on Bush or McCain, wouldn't that alone have brought calls of collusion/impeachment from the Republicans, with nothing else?
Be honest.

Hasn’t Mueller and his team of prosecutors indicted 34 individuals and three Russian businesses on charges ranging from computer hacking to conspiracy and financial crimes?

I’ll give you this… Jr probably violated some minor campaign law. But if we prosecuted every minor campaign law violation, we wouldn’t have anyone running the government.

18-11-2019 6:42pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Nope. Over here politicians seek dirt on other candidates all the time... the dirtier the better. That’s what 'opposition research' is all about. A crime occurs if the politician aided Russia in creating the dirt, or used the dirt in a illegal or deceptive manner.

You are now stretching the fabric of your previous assertions and moving the goalposts. I never mentioned the word crime in any of my posts. I'm talking about collusion. Can you answer these questions for me, please? A simple yes or no will suffice, but feel free to engage in whatever mental gymnastics you need to explain away the obvious:

Did the Trump campaign engage with the Russian government?
Was this engagement in secret (did they hide it from the public)?
Did they discuss / hand over material that was damaging to Trump's political adversaries?
Do you agree that this is collusion and, if not, why not?

For the last question, "but others do that all the time" is not a valid reason for discounting it in this instance.

notobtuse · 18-11-2019 6:52pm

Deleted User wrote: »

You are now stretching the fabric of your previous assertions and moving the goalposts. I never mentioned the word crime in any of my posts. I'm talking about collusion. Can you answer these questions for me, please? A simple yes or no will suffice, but feel free to engage in whatever mental gymnastics you need to explain away the obvious:
Did the Trump campaign engage with the Russian government?

Was this engagement in secret (did they hide it from the public)?

Did they discuss / hand over material that was damaging to Trump's political adversaries?

Do you agree that this is collusion and, if not, why not?

For the last question, "but others do that all the time" is not a valid reason for discounting it in this instance.

Answer me this.... Was the person with who Jr took the meeting with a member of the Russian government? If the person was not a member of the Russian government, how can there be Russian collusion?

If we are talking about a minor campaign violation, which is apparently what Jr did, then yes, it is done all the time... just as opposition research is done all the time.

18-11-2019 7:19pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Answer me this.... Was the person with who Jr took the meeting with a member of the Russian government? If the person was not a member of the Russian government, how can there be Russian collusion.

They were agents acting on behalf of the Russian government, yes. A direct quote from the emails he published:

"This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin."

There is no ambiguity here, they outlined in explicit detail that the Russian Govt supported Trump and this information was being offered as part of that support.

Now, would you care to answer my questions?

James Brown · 18-11-2019 7:50pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Hasn’t Mueller and his team of prosecutors indicted 34 individuals and three Russian businesses on charges ranging from computer hacking to conspiracy and financial crimes?

I’ll give you this… Jr probably violated some minor campaign law. But if we prosecuted every minor campaign law violation, we wouldn’t have anyone running the government.

cop out and evasion.

notobtuse · 18-11-2019 7:57pm

Deleted User wrote: »

They were agents acting on behalf of the Russian government, yes. A direct quote from the emails he published:

"This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin."

There is no ambiguity here, they outlined in explicit detail that the Russian Govt supported Trump and this information was being offered as part of that support.

Now, would you care to answer my questions?

Who is 'they?' Names please.

notobtuse · 18-11-2019 7:58pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

cop out and evasion.

You just don't seem to like my answer.

Overheal · 18-11-2019 7:59pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Who is 'they?' Names please.

You’ve read the Mueller Report no? Why play these games with the Truth?

ohnonotgmail · 18-11-2019 8:26pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Using a foreign government to garner dirt on a domestic political rival is frowned upon no? Or is that one of your 'one set of rules..' scenarios?

The Republicans really are a low bunch. In the 50's they'd be threatening to execute the likes of Trump now they're defending him.

Colluding with a foreign power to affect the outcome of an election is a crime.

paleoperson · 18-11-2019 8:46pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Colluding with a foreign power to affect the outcome of an election is a crime.

No collusion could be found.

wildeside · 18-11-2019 9:02pm

I think this is a good analysis/breakdown of what the Meuller report found

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-merely-reject-the-trumprussia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/

Was Trump receptive to juicy tie-bits of information that would cast his opponent in a negative light? Yes. Could the same be said about Hillary? Yes. Is that unlawful. No, not currently. Unethical. Point of debate.

Was it proven beyond all reasonable doubt that Trump actively colluded with Russia to rig the election in his favour? No. Otherwise he would be in jail, no?

The thing that concerns me most about this "Russia got Trump elected", "Trump is a Russian puppet" narrative is that if Trump goes eyeball to eyeball with Putin over say, Syria or Ukraine (which could happen more easily than people think), then what do people think he's going to do when push comes to shove?

He might just prove "how not a Russian puppet I am!" by escalating a situation to a point where it goes out control. That's what everyone should be really worried about.

The guy is an egotistical idiot and maniac, why push him to the brink?

Overheal · 18-11-2019 9:05pm

paleoperson wrote: »

No collusion could be found.

The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office's judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information—such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media—in light of internal Department of Justice policies. See, e.g., Justice Manual §§ 9-13.400, 13.410. Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter (or "taint") team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well-numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States.

Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated—including some associated with the Trump Campaign—deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.

Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.

- Robert Swan Mueller III

Stop moaning ffs · 18-11-2019 9:13pm

Totally fine. Tremendous health. Greatly healthy

*cut to next week

Stepping down. tremendous ill health. Can’t remember anything. Biggly forget colluding with Russia.

https://twitter.com/kellyo/status/1196196826086617091?s=21

wildeside · 18-11-2019 9:42pm

Overheal wrote: »

The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office's judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information—such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media—in light of internal Department of Justice policies. See, e.g., Justice Manual §§ 9-13.400, 13.410. Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter (or "taint") team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well-numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States.

Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated—including some associated with the Trump Campaign—deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.

Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.

- Robert Swan Mueller III

The link in my previous post addresses this very issue. You can't convict someone on the basis of information you might have gotten but don't actually have.

What kind of precedent would that set? It would be insane.

Overheal · 18-11-2019 9:55pm

wildeside wrote: »

The link in my previous post addresses this very issue. You can't convict someone on the basis of information you might have gotten but don't actually have.

What kind of precedent would that set? It would be insane.

I don’t see that anyone has convicted or even indicted Mr Trump on missing/non-extant evidence?

paleoperson · 18-11-2019 10:14pm

Overheal wrote: »

The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office's judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information—such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media—in light of internal Department of Justice policies. See, e.g., Justice Manual §§ 9-13.400, 13.410. Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter (or "taint") team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well-numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States.

Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated—including some associated with the Trump Campaign—deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.

Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.

- Robert Swan Mueller III

Right, he's complaining about limitations to the investigation. He's within his rights to do that but it obviously doesn't mean the accused is guilty - you didn't really think that's what this meant do you?

It's almost as if you have no idea how these investigations normally work and this is the first time you ever had any experience looking at one.

Overheal · 18-11-2019 10:18pm

paleoperson wrote: »

Right, he's complaining about limitations to the investigation. He's within his rights to do that but it obviously doesn't mean the accused is guilty - you didn't really think that's what this meant do you?

It's almost as if you have no idea how these investigations normally work and this is the first time you ever had any experience looking at one.

Did you just try to mansplain a Grand Jury investigation to me?

I posted an accurate response to your claim there was no proof of collusion. Mueller asserts that much of that evidence was destroyed, 5A’d or was inadmissible.

18-11-2019 10:29pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Who is 'they?' Names please.

Rob Goldstone, the publicist who brokered the 'minor campaign violation' by Jr.

https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/07/politics/donald-trump-jr-full-emails/

Any chance of an answer to my questions, this is the third time of asking? If you aren't willing to, then just say so and stop wasting everyone's time.

paleoperson · 18-11-2019 10:30pm

Overheal wrote: »

Did you just try to mansplain a Grand Jury investigation to me?

I posted an accurate response to your claim there was no proof of collusion. Mueller asserts that much of that evidence was destroyed, 5A’d or was inadmissible.

So ****ing what? That doesn't contradict my statement at all. No collusion could be found. No collusion could be proven.

There are items containing possible evidence that you committed armed robbery at some point that I can't access. That doesn't mean someone can say you committed armed robbery does it?

Overheal · 18-11-2019 10:36pm

paleoperson wrote: »

So ****ing what? That doesn't contradict my statement at all. No collusion could be found. No collusion could be proven.

There are items containing possible evidence that you committed armed robbery at some point that I can't access. That doesn't mean someone can say you committed armed robbery does it?

Doesn’t mean someone cannot say that is no proof I did not commit an armed robbery

After all, Hillary very lawfully smashed all those blackberries and we have incredibly thin eviden(c)e that she did something “impeachable” according to 2016 Republicans.

paleoperson · 18-11-2019 10:47pm

Overheal wrote: »

Doesn’t mean someone cannot say that is no proof I did not commit an armed robbery

After all, Hillary very lawfully smashed all those blackberries and we have incredibly thin eviden(c)e that she did something “impeachable” according to 2016 Republicans.

So you want to say there is no proof that there was no collusion? Sure. Proving a negative would be almost impossible in this situation.

RandomName2 · 18-11-2019 10:48pm

osarusan wrote: »

That you might be a conspiracy theorist loon.

Because conspiracy loons are renowned for low volume of posting.

But isn't the conspiracy theory that Trump conspired with the Kremlin? Does that make you the conspiracy loon osarusan?

Oh wait, you have 11,000 posts. My mistake.

listermint · 18-11-2019 10:53pm

osarusan wrote: »

You have to wonder about accounts that are dormant for a decade and then resurface to spread the gospel of conspiracy theorists.

You don't have to wonder. They are hacking accounts or registering multiple accounts the world over on various high traffic sites. Social media sites. Forums. News feeds. Blogs.

There is a cyber war going on out there it's more than a decade old and it's much cheaper than conventional war. The goal is to sow disinformation and sway public opinion on high profile matters. Be there political or otherwise.

It's active it's ever present and websites are not geared up for it..or they don't care as it promotes traffic.

All of this is strategic on so many levels it would make your head explode.

Yes there is the odd spanner trolling sites for fun. But most people don't even understand the scale of effort is being put into manipulation of information on the net. It's huge. Russia is a major player. More advanced that most. But not alone in it.

notobtuse · 18-11-2019 11:15pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Rob Goldstone, the publicist who brokered the 'minor campaign violation' by Jr.

https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/07/politics/donald-trump-jr-full-emails/

Any chance of an answer to my questions, this is the third time of asking? If you aren't willing to, then just say so and stop wasting everyone's time.

So it seems this "Russian collusion" you tout involved a UK publicist and a Russian private lobbying lawyer who had no ties to the Russian government at the time, who had no information but lied to get a meeting.

That's your proof of Russian collusion? Will next week's reason for impeachment be aliens? I think the answers your other questions can simply be summed up with 'orange man bad' because that's all the democrats have.

paleoperson · 18-11-2019 11:35pm

listermint wrote: »

You don't have to wonder. They are hacking accounts or registering multiple accounts the world over on various high traffic sites. Social media sites. Forums. News feeds. Blogs.

There is a cyber war going on out there it's more than a decade old and it's much cheaper than conventional war. The goal is to sow disinformation and sway public opinion on high profile matters. Be there political or otherwise.

It's active it's ever present and websites are not geared up for it..or they don't care as it promotes traffic.

All of this is strategic on so many levels it would make your head explode.

Yes there is the odd spanner trolling sites for fun. But most people don't even understand the scale of effort is being put into manipulation of information on the net. It's huge. Russia is a major player. More advanced that most. But not alone in it.

See this is the absolute lunacy of the left - the idea that Russian people working under Putin are going to come to Ireland's website boards.ie and then type in perfect, colloquial english messages in favour of Russia, it's just so utterly insane. I could think this person is trolling but look at the amount of posts they have.

Now ok, with the right there are some conspiracy theorists as well - but the difference is that is a tiny minority of people on the right and alt right that have these theories, like anti-vaccine, anti-evolution, Sandy Hook, whatever. That is an incredibly tiny percentage. With the left, these utterly foaming-at-the-mouth delirious theories are pushed by the mainstream leftists. They're practically pushed by CNN.

That is a big reason of why the left has become far more ridiculous and far more anti-intellectual than the right.

Trump/Russia Collusion Insanity

Comments