Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Trump/Russia Collusion Insanity

Options
13567

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    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.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #63
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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?


  • Options
    #64
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,633 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    [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.


  • Options
    #65
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,146 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Overheal wrote: »
    He’s also denying the existence of Roger Stone apparently.

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


  • Options
    #66
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,633 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    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.


  • Options
    #68
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    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.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #69
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #70
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    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?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #71
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    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.


  • Options
    #73
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,633 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


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


  • Options
    #74
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    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.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #75
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,633 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    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.”


  • Options
    #76
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    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.


  • Options
    #77
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    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.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #78
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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:
    1. Did the Trump campaign engage with the Russian government?
    2. Was this engagement in secret (did they hide it from the public)?
    3. Did they discuss / hand over material that was damaging to Trump's political adversaries?
    4. 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.


  • Options
    #79
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    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:
    1. Did the Trump campaign engage with the Russian government?
    2. Was this engagement in secret (did they hide it from the public)?
    3. Did they discuss / hand over material that was damaging to Trump's political adversaries?
    4. 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.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #80
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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?


  • Options
    #81
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    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.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #83
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    cop out and evasion.
    You just don't seem to like my answer.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #84
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,633 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Who is 'they?' Names please.

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


  • Options
    #85
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,146 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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.


  • Options
    #86
    paleoperson
    Registered Users Posts: 3,522 ✭✭✭paleoperson


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Colluding with a foreign power to affect the outcome of an election is a crime.

    No collusion could be found.


  • Options
    #87
    wildeside
    Registered Users Posts: 171 ✭✭wildeside


    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?


  • Options
    #88
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,633 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    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


  • Options
    #89
    Stop moaning ffs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Stop moaning ffs


    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


  • Options
    #90
    wildeside
    Registered Users Posts: 171 ✭✭wildeside


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,633 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    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?


Advertisement