The Mueller report is done!
Those indictments were all predicated on Mueller's certainty that he would never have to present a case against any of them in court--as foreign nationals cannot be compelled to appear and defend themselves (at great expense). However, to Mueller's shock, one company that was indicted actually appeared in court to defend themselves and eager for discovery, which would be a bit of a bete noire from Mueller's point of view. Mueller immediately asked the court to delay the case on the grounds that the defendants were not properly served, but the judge refused. Mueller has been ducking out on actually bringing a case ever since--either because he has no case or because he fears discovery, or both. Mueller actually never had a case against any of those indicted that would hold up in court.
You can, proverbially, indict a ham sandwich. Proving your case in court is another matter entirely.
Again, factually incorrect. Mueller did prove his case with the five Americans who already have pled guilty.
If you want to defend Trump, you have that right. But at least try to post facts and not propaganda from Sean Hannity.
I see no indication that the indictment of any Russians was preceded by any investigation. (You can also pull an indictment out of your ass.) Had there been any investigation--and thus any evidence--Mueller would not have been so reluctant to take his case to court.
My recollection is that all the Americans were indicted for "process crimes," and not for colluding with Russia, except for Manafort, who was convicted of bank and tax fraud. While Manafort was (briefly) Trump's campaign manager--and doubtless a very poor choice--that his actions as a lobbyist were aimed at "benefitting Putin" require some very lofty flights of fancy into his motives, and the idea that these arrangements had anything much to do with Russian interference in the election is quite a stretch.
Here, as best I can figure out, was Manafort's line of business: After the collapse of the former USSR, Russia was literally looted by wealthy oligarchs who took over its industrial base using money, connections, and gangster tactics of various kinds. These were some of the ugliest and most criminal MOFOs the world has ever seen--though usually described in the likes of Forbes as "self made billionaires"--rather as if they were engaged in "business" as opposed to being basically the worst kind of mobsters and looters.
Manafort lobbied on their behalf, since if they wanted to sell their shit, they needed some really good PR to represent them abroad as legitimate business people. Did this "benefit Putin?" Mmm.... In one sene you could say so, since it was critical for Russia to reanimate its moribund industrial base. On the other hand, Putin was as active as was politically possible in ridding Russia of the "looter oligarch" class.
Manafort seems to have profited handsomely from these dealings with some real scum-of-the-earth characters, and doubtless many of his gains required some serious laundering through shady or illegal back channels.
So I think we can confidently state that Manafort is a consummately dirty type of character. But it would be quite a stretch to claim that his...ahem..."business dealings" over a decade or so had anything much to do with the election, or that he or Putin particularly favored one party over the other in the advance of such "work." Democrat operatives have engaged in similar "work," which seems to be attractive to people of all political stripes.
Not a line of work that you or I would consider, no doubt--even for gazillions--but there are those who would consider it. And in high-level politics, such people abound. Manafort MAY have taken his little racket further than many others (though I kind of doubt it), but he was basically targeted because of his brief relationship with the Trump campaign.Blueheron, in the long run what's the difference between "looter oligarchs" and "Russian Mafia"? Putin is a well-known power in the Russian Mafia. The effects are the same. Power, control, looting, and corruption are the same regardless of semantics.
Here's a link questioning Mueller's failure to investigate Seth Rich's murder. Had Mueller demanded that the DNC server be examined by the FBI, it seems likely that the source of the leak could have been established--and perhaps even have been established by forensic evidence to be Seth Rich. If it was NOT Seth Rich, it wasanother insider within the DNC (as shown by William Binney's forensic examination). You would kind of think Mueller would want to know who. Evidence pertaining to these matters would be key to determining the truth of claims of Russian interference, right? https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06- … -seth-rich
In the spirit of a supportive forum community, I'll leave these here for you.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/03/ … o-spot-it/
https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/f … ws-primer/
https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/fake-news.htm
https://www.ifla.org/publications/node/11174
Here's another interesting tidbit: Roger Stone sued the doj for an unredacted crowdstrike report he was told they didn't have one. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/0 … nc-server/
I can post links saying anything, Sharon. Mueller already knew the Seth Rich thing was just a distraction created by Fox News pundits and didn't wish to waste his time on a rightwing hoax to distract from Trump's wrongdoing. Duh!
Randy, how did Mueller know "the Seth Rich thing was just a distraction," since he didn't investigate either the murder (whose timing immediately subsequent to a massive leak raises suspicions)? He might also (at LEAST) have demanded that the FBI be given access to the DNC server for forensic analysis--AND requested William Binney's testimony about his forensic analysis of the leak.
But Mueller did none of these things. If the FBI had examined the server and come down in favor of a leak, rather than a hack, they would have also most probably been able to determine the identity of the leaker. The FBI would most probably have been able to identify the leaker as Seth Rich. (I say this partly because, if in fact Seth Rich was the leaker, and was in fact murdered for that reason, SOMEBODY at the DNC was able to identify him from forensic evidence on the server. Hence Mueller's reluctance to open that can of worms.
I would say that the DNC's refusal to allow the FBI to examine it server--and the subsequent disappearance of the server--is a pretty strong indication that they feared an honest forensic examination. It would not support their narrative and might even expose certain people to murder charges. It is absurd to maintain the veracity of a narrative that depends on the suppression and/or destruction of THE key evidence. It is even more absurd to call the suggestion that there might be some connection between the leak and the murder a "distraction" or a "hoax." These are the types of clues/evidence normally pursued aggressively by law enforcement, in instances where they would like to solve a crime.Vanishing evidence and they are extraditing Assange.
It amazes me that I have crime shows and Forensics shows 48 hours, 60 minutes ad nauseum but not one show regarding this. An unsolved murder desperate to stay unsolved.
Wandering around DC at 4am calling people. Who does that.
MizBejabbers, there are probably several "Russian mafia"--i.e.,several criminal organizations in the control of several Russian oligarchs. When the central government collapses, as happened in the former USSR, it is more or less inevitable that wealthy oligarchs will create violent criminal organizations for the purpose of seizing whatever spoils are lying around for the taking--and doubtless in competition with several other oligarchs intent on the same thing.
I don't know whether Putin is/was in league with the "Russian mafia" (a link or two in this subject would be of interest), but I think it is fair to assume that it would be impossible for anyone to gain political power in such an environment (basically an environment of gang wars) without some well heeled and well armed support. So in that sense, you likely have a point.Here's a good link:
"It's been known for some time that the US Government based its conclusion that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) on a report by cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike, which the DNC paid over a million dollars to conduct forensic analysis and other work on servers they refused to hand over to the FBI.
"Now, thanks to a new court filing by longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone requesting the full Crowdstrike analysis, we find out that the US government was given a redacted version of the report marked "Draft," as reported by the Conservative Treehouse.
"What makes the whole thing even more hokey is a footnote admitting that 'counsel for the DNC and DCCC informed the government that they are the last version of the report produced.'
"So to be clear - the entire narrative that Russia hacked the DNC is based on a redacted draft of a report which Crowdstrike appears not to have even finalized."
Another example of Mueller's "investigating" something.Maybe Mueller didn't need to investigate the Russian hack because every intelligence service already had and come to the same conclusion.
Then the Senate investigated it in depth also and came to the same conclusion.
But according to you, they are all wrong. Got it.The same token, not one intelligence service could solve one murder.
But according to you they seem omniscient.Not their job. Detectives solve murders. But you keep blaming people who don't have those things in their job description to solve your conspiracy theories. I'm sure by misunderstanding how those things actually work, you can keep thinking batshit crazy things.
Well Trump is working on his 2nd term. No need for politically motived hoaxes and conspiracies.
According to the DNC, poor Seth Rich was a low level nobody. Randomly killed while being robbed of nothing on the streets of DC at 4am while taking 2 hours to walk a few blocks home. Calling Nebraska. Calling his gf. Calling home 3am cst.. A low level nobody. I am surprised Wikileaks or Assange would have ever known of him. Yet they offer a 20,000.00 $ reward for information.
Meanwhile the ( evidence) computers and servers are all "Spirited Away" by the Spirit Cooking Chefs at the Democrat Party.
Gee what mischief we could get away with if we could make evidence vanish.
It does not even matter who the leak was. If someone thought he was that is motive. Since the evidence was "disappeared" all we have is zero evidence and a confession of something called guccifer. Thats what ya got. No evidence and a confession of something called guccifer. Who offered the confession I believe. Me. I got a body and motive.Guy was out drinking until 1:30 a.m. in a local pub. He was found conscious by the police after being shot. If he had suspicions he was attacked for something because of politics, he likely had an opportunity to communicate that to the two policemen that found him within minutes of his mugging. Care to explain that away?
According to British journalist Duncan Campbell, the Russian intelligence agency, GRU, tried to implicate Rich as the source of the stolen DNC emails, in order to draw attention away from themselves. Datestamps on the DNC files were altered to show the data had been obtained on July 5, 2016, five days before Rich's death, and the timezone was changed to Eastern Time, within which Washington, D.C. falls. Guccifer 2.0, the alleged GRU front that provided the emails to Wikileaks, then reported that Rich had been their source. Based partly on their acceptance of the false dates, some experts then concluded that the emails had been copied in the DNC offices, and had not been hacked from outside.
It's more likely that the same people that assisted Trump in getting elected (GRU) were involved in Rich's death than it is that someone from the DNC or Clinton campaign was involved.I would not even remotely consider any of Campbell's theories. His Twitter TL reads just like the other liberal resistance fanatics he is currently replying to on Twitter.
Leaving a bar at 130 and still walking home at 4:20. Two armed criminals "given to deadly violence" cannot shake down a computer nerd. Perhaps they should practice on a gradeschool girl and her milk money. Thats the story you are buying.Of course you don't believe him, a specialist in computer forensic journalism. He's not right-wing enough for you and actually has evidence for his claims.
Mueller discusses the timestamp issue in his report. So your claim that he didn't bother considering Seth Rich is false. He considered it and dismissed it as the conspiracy theory that it is.All you can do is inform the ignorant, Val. You cannot make them understand the info if they're listening to BS.
Hesa leftwing nutbag. End of story.
The DNC refused to allow the FBI access the server. Obviously they had something to hide and they did. Right now, I am reading about Crowdstrike receiving 98 Million dollars the day after Seth Rich was murdered. Usually political parties beg for money around election time.You do indeed need to get up to date on the fake Rich conspiracy....
By that same logic, since Trump won't release his taxes, he must have something to hide then and is guilty. Care to apply your own twisted logic to your own party for once?
And that 98 million figure is wrong. Try again.I don't think anyone was murdered over tax returns. Theres an idea though. Maybe Trump should pay some private company 98 Million dollars to look at his taxes and give us a report.
Interesting that people who post Trump propaganda on here also hide their identities.
More interesting how some can glibly insult people that support their choice of the president without any form of provocation. In regards to Phoenixv, this user has been posting a wide variety of interesting articles for years on Hubpages, none of which could be construed as political. They have 1984 followers. Sharing once personal information is optional on Hubpages.
Why make an attempt to blow smoke around this user? I realize it's hard to be on the losing end of the stick, but it would seem it does no good to insult someone just because you can. In my opinion, this is a very sad trait that some Dems are burdened with.
Trump supporters can also resort to glib comments, as I have just done. It just goes both ways.Ahh its okay. They're just jealous because they belong to a loser party and upset because they belong to a party that has a body count.
Yes, a right-of-center indepedent who opposes propaganda is automatically a Democat and "loser".
I am who I say I am. Unlike others on here, I don't hide anything.Are you including the migrant kids who died at the border under Trump's watch? I do believe you guys do have a body count.... and still counting. Not to mention the reporter murdered by Trump's buddy in Saudi Arabia.
Please, read the reasons and what lead to the death of each of the six children that died. This is a none bias resource that gives a good description of what caused these children to die. I think you might find that our Government officials went to great lengths to save each and every one of these children. Facts are so hard to take, so much easier to just listen to soundbites from talk jocks... But do they inform you of the truth? Facts are there to be found with a very little digging.
Please take note that many of the horrific photos were snapped in 2015. Might be time to lay the blame at many past presidents feet, to include Bush, and Obama. We need to have fixes not point the blame to any one person. Trump is certainly not the blame for the deaths of these children.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48346228
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-mig … dy-2018-12I didn't bring up a body count, Shar. Simply pointing out it's easy to do. Your crony made the claim, falsely it seems, but there it is. Spout off at him/her...
It is easy to do. As I stated we need solutions not more pointing of fingers.
Yet you don't hesitate to "point fingers" at Clinton, Obama, the media, the FBI, Mueller, all Democrats, etc., and keep repeating that so-called investigation by Horowitz.
More hypocrisy.I have said very little about Obama the FBI or Mueller. Not sure where you come up with this opinion? And yes I have posted comments about the DNC and Hillary's campaign paying for the Russian Dossier. I have also given good proof of the fact they did pay for it.
You are clearly just about saying anything that comes into your mind. As I have asked please give examples of these accusations. I don't think many here believe just because you accuse me of just about anything makes it true. If true, please examples...
By the way, in the post, you refer to I was making a point that immigration problems were not only Trump's fault but several previous administrations faults. Be more specific in regards to the subject you speak of...
Horsepoop. I insult propaganda, not people.
When I criticized the propaganda that you posted (by propaganda, I mean easily proven to be false), you attacked my personally by calling me "glib" and "silly" because you couldn't defend what you posted.
And you just did it again. Hypocritical.
I'm losing track of how many times you have called me names over the last year or two (some of which I believe got you temporarily banned).
A Russian or Republican operative can easily articles on here about normal stuff and spread pro-Trump propaganda at the same time.
Facebook just deleted a 2.2 billion phony accounts. Why shouldn't we challenge secret identities on here when they spread propaganda?
Unless, of course, they are on your side.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … st-quarter"When I criticized the propaganda that you posted (by propaganda, I mean easily proven to be false), you attacked my personally by calling me "glib" and "silly" because you couldn't defend what you posted."
Yes, I do come right out and say what I mean. Just don't and never will hide behind a glib statement that certainly was meant to insult. You see that's the difference, I say what I mean, and don't hide behind glib words.
I very regularly back my opinions up with resources.
One can fact check my comments if they please t do so. It's certainly not my intention to post propaganda. Hopefully you ill give an example of even one of my posts that promote propaganda.
The only one that has ever gotten me banned was Jake. Sorry, you are not in his league. I have been banned twice.
"A Russian or Republican operative can easily articles on here about normal stuff and spread pro-Trump propaganda at the same time."
Yes, and this user laid low for ten years, and finally realized, "it's my time to do what I came here for.." You do get sillier as time goes by. OMG
PhoenixV has as much right to an opinion as you. As I have said many times in the past, you resort to very glib remarks when cornered. I always look at it this way, if your willing to dish it out, get ready to have some of it right back at you. You should realize some people as my self are more forthcoming. Just don't dance around an insult with words. Some give it back without filtering, straight forward.It's very simple. You want to post propaganda. I will oppose it.
You want to post insults and call people names, even after getting banned for it. I won't lower myself.
"You do get sillier as time goes by. OMG."
Thanks for proving my point about hypocrisy.No, I actually don't call names. I do use adjectives very freely to extenuate my opinion. Such as silly and glib. I don't accuse anyone that gives an opinion of spreading propaganda. That is a serious insult. As I stated "I very regularly don't back up my opinions up with good resources.
One can fact check my comments if they please to do so. It's certainly not my intention to post propaganda. Hopefully, you will give an example of even one of my posts that promote propaganda. " And add to that any comments where I directly called someone a nasty name.
Silly - used to convey that an activity or process has been engaged into such a degree that someone is no longer capable of thinking or acting sensibly.
As always I will wait for your examples. However, as a rule,
this is where you fade away... Is it not?
Hypocrite? Please have a good look at most of your comments. I could write a book.The truth is not an insult.
You constantly confuse criticisms of posts (i.e., "propaganda") with personal attacks (you are "glib", "silly", "insensible", blah, blah).
That's why you keep getting banned. The next time should come soon.
I have already given many previous examples of your propaganda. Just read my posts along with posts from Randy and others.
They often include you making outrageous claims such as Hillary Clinton "colluding" with Russia and paying Russians for campaign dirt.
As always, you change the subject when we show otherwise.
Otherwise, the links to your "good resources" usually have nothing to do with your claims.Plus, she doesn't link reputable sites to back up her claims. Propaganda is a nice word for what she normally posts...
"You constantly confuse criticisms of posts (i.e., "propaganda") with personal attacks (you are "glib", "silly", "
I say it as I see it. Don't hide behind vague insults. STILL WAITING FOR EXAMPLES. Not vague excuses.
"They often include you making outrageous claims such as Hillary Clinton "colluding" with Russia and paying Russians for campaign dirt."
I have offered various resources of investigations being conducted by our Government into the Hillary Clinton paid for Russian dossier. I have also stipulated I await the outcomes. I do feel the DNC, as well as Hillary, broke the law by conspiring with a foreign government to interfere with an election. I offered many resources in regards to campaign laws in regards to conspiring with a foreign government to sway an election. It is a fact and well publicized that the DNC paid for the Dossier.
I suggest you read my resources before you make claims they do not cover my opinion.
I in no way have deflected off subject, and anyone reading the progress of this thread can see... It is you that defects. Please supply me with a post or two that gives proof to your accusations that I spread propaganda. This should be such an easy task if true... I stick to facts, and won't deflect for this conversation.You "don't deflect", but you bring up Horowitz when we are talking about something else. Right.
I already gave an example and told you to re-read the responses from me and others. How many times do I have to repeat myself?
You simply want to argue as a way of hiding behind chaotic posts.
Regarding "glib", I don't have to apologize for reading, thinking and writing more carefully than Trumpians.Examples, please. Just one. You are on the ropes are you not? Just one, please.
"That's why you keep getting banned. The next time should come soon.
This sounds like a "kick the wall little threat Not to mention "glib".LOL. Uh, Clinton colluding with Russia. I think that's the third time or fourth time I've given this example.
I wish you would actually read my posts.Shar likes the word "glib" apparently. I'm pleased she learned a new word.
She certainly likes it to describe me. I think the total is now in the dozens.
Randy, I could use several other words. However, I consider the word glib to be suitable to get my point across. It's a word that I use to be kind. I mean would you really like to hear what I am thinking? Now come on, is glib, not kinder than what you imagine I am thinking?
I always consider the source of the insults and most of the time it isn't worth considering at all. Glib enough for you?
I have read all of your comments that have been directed at me. I am not sure how much more clear I can be in regards to Hillary and the DNC paying for information from a foreign government. Which is against campaign law, and may well be considered collusion with a foreign government. As I have claimed many times I will wait until the various investigations are completed before I will state a definite opinion. Not sure why you feel this is propaganda? I have just stated facts.
I have been somewhat open-minded on the subject. You are twisting words, and not comprehending facts.You appear to be comparing the Steele Dossier with Trump's problems, Shar. They are nothing alike, but you will stick by Hannity no matter what the facts show. We realize that already. Not even a good try...
Sorry Randy, was not me that deflected to that subject. Just picked up on it. I think you re far out of your league. As I have told you before my research is thorough and not form talk jocks. One can see you are a big fan of CNN and MSNBC. No really. I always state facts and back them up. This has got to cause lots of squirming with some here.
I don't see anyone squirming but the Trump supporters...
You could be more clear by admitting that Clinton and the DNC paid an American company. And then listen when we tell you that paying for opposition research, even from foreign governments, is not illegal according to the FEC. Which you just misstated with no evidence or legal basis, while I have provided the general counsel of the FEC saying it is totally legal.
Accepting a campaign donation from a foreign government, even when it is information, is illegal. Which Trump said he'd do again just last week, and which the Chairwoman of the FEC had to make a public statement telling him it was illegal.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pol … b827c3bec5Well said. Wait for the denial and change of topic. But Clinton, but Obama, but Horowitz...
It is illegal, and you certainly should have known this due to the Trump statement causing such a stir last week. It's illegal to take funds or info from a foreign nation. It would e illegal fro Trump as well as Clinton.to take dirt on an opponent. from a foreign nation.
https://www.vox.com/2019/6/14/18677631/ … llegal-fbi
"Weintraub tried to clarify: “Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.”
“This is not a novel concept,” she wrote. “Election intervention from foreign governments has been considered unacceptable since the founding of our nation.”
FEC
https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and … ontribute/
"Foreign nationals
Campaigns may not solicit or accept contributions from foreign nationals. Federal law prohibits contributions, donations, expenditures and disbursements solicited, directed, received or made directly or indirectly by or from foreign nationals in connection with any election — federal, state or local. This prohibition includes contributions or donations made to political committees and building funds and to make electioneering communications. Furthermore, it is a violation of federal law to knowingly provide substantial assistance in the making, acceptance or receipt of contributions or donations in connection with federal and nonfederal elections to a political committee, or for the purchase or construction of an office building. This prohibition includes but is not limited to, acting as a conduit or intermediary for foreign national contributions and donations.
A person acts knowingly for the purposes of this section when he or she has:
Actual knowledge that the funds have come from a foreign national;
Awareness of certain facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that there is a substantial probability that the money is from a foreign national; or
Awareness of facts that should have prompted a reasonable inquiry into whether the source of funds is a foreign national.
Pertinent facts that satisfy the “knowing” requirement include knowledge of:
In regards to the legality of accepting any funds from Foreign country-
Use of a foreign passport or passport number;
Use of a foreign address;
A check or other written instrument is drawn on an account or wire transfer from a foreign bank; or
Contributor or donor living abroadYou don't seem to understand that paying for something is not accepting it for free. Trump said he would accept an offer of assistance. Clinton paid an American company. HUGE difference that means all the difference in legality.
Trump admitted he would break the law by accepting information from a foreign country, Clinton disclosed the legal campaign expense openly. The same thing Trump tried to hide with the Karen McDougal payoff.Apparently you didn't read the entire page from your first link where it explains the difference between the Dossier and the Trump Tower meeting.
Yes, I have read the entire link. It is once again well apparent you have not. That's why the copy paste. Thought you would at least rad the facts that pertain to this discussion. It's in front of you read it.
Clinton DID NOT pay for information about Trump from Russia.
If they paid for anything, it was to an American company for information about the Trump campaign, which is a common practice by all national campaigns including Trump's own.
That point has been made to you many times by various people, and you insist on ignoring it.
Like your response above, you continue to spread the propaganda that Clinton colluded with Russia and paid money to its government to defeat Trump."If they paid for anything, it was to an American company for information about the Trump campaign, which is a common practice by all national campaigns including Trump's own."
As I have state time and time again. I will wait to see what the several investigations into the dossier report. I have given an opinion, just an opinion that many laws have been broken that involved the dossier. I will certainly consider all the facts before making a final decision on who did what. I do know what I have posted here in regards to the DNC and Clinton paying for the dossier is a fact. I do know it's illegal to take funds or info from a foreign nation during a campaign.
Just last week this was pointed out by the FEC that Trump would be breaking the law by accepting info from a foreign nation. That's a fact. It will be interesting to see if Hillary will be accused of the same, due to paying for the Russian dossier. It will come down to the laws, and it well appears some were broken. I will not put myself up against the lawyers that are investigating the matter or will I listen to talk jocks in regard to such laws.Since when is the general counsel for the FEC a talk jock? That's where we are getting the opinion from that what Clinton and the DNC did in paying an American company for opposition research is legal. Do you even realize what a general counsel does? What's it take for you to recognize someone with expertise in an area?
You keep saying Clinton took the information. She didn't take it. It was paid for as a campaign expense and noted. It's like no matter how many times we try and explain this to you, you just cannot comprehend the difference.
At this point, anything that comes from Barr's DOJ has to be met with skepticism based on how he interpreted the Mueller Report. And yet, you're sure that it won't be a partisan hack job. At this point, I feel you lack the necessary skill set to see what is real and what reality Trump wants you living in."You keep saying Clinton took the information. She didn't take it. It was paid for as a campaign expense and noted."
Is there any proof available to back up such a claim? She never denies seeing the dossier.
"Mrs. Clinton was asked on the show about the dossier, whose sources are listed in the document as Kremlin intelligence and government leaders.
“It’s part of what happens in a campaign where you get information that may or may not be useful and you try to make sure anything you put out in the public arena is accurate,” she said. “So this thing didn’t come out until after the election, and it’s still being evaluated.”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 … a-politic/You seem to not understand the point I was making, as usual. The dossier was paid research. Legal, according to a former general counsel of the FEC. Trump Tower meeting where the campaign was willing to accept a campaign contribution (not paid for) by a (hostile) foreign government. Not legal, according to the current Chairperson of the FEC.
She did deny seeing the dossier prior to its release if you do a simple search of sources. What you cannot prove is that she did see it. You keep theorizing that she must have, but can never offer any proof of your conspiracy. Not that it matters because it was paid opposition research, which is completely legal according to a former general counsel of the FEC.
Not surprising that you link to a far-right rag in the Washington Times. That's about as credible as Barr interpreting the Mueller Report.
Now that the Mueller report is done I think it imperative that we start rounding up Democrat leaders, MSM and Social Media operators and liberals for 3 years of sedition. TDS has taken a serious toll on their fragile minds. Sad really.
"According to the DNC". Actually, according to the police.
But what do they know? They'e all Democrats and out to get Trump like everyone else.
Sean Hannity is the only person on the planet who has the truth about the murder.
Promisem, re your statement to Sharlee that her post " often include you making outrageous claims such as Hillary Clinton "colluding" with Russia and paying Russians for campaign dirt."
Um.... Here's what has been documented to have occurred (quoting JH Kunstler, lifelong Democrat):
"Another whopper staring the credulous thinking class in the face is the obvious fact that Mrs. Clinton’s campaign colluded with Russians. Mr. Mueller left out of his report the fact that two Russians present in the infamous Trump Tower Meeting of 2016, Natalia Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetshin, were in the service of Glenn Simpson’s Fusion GPS 'oppo research' company, hired by the Clinton Campaign and progenitor of RussiaGate, in particular the janky documents known as the 'Steele Dossier'”
Kind of sounds like "colluding with Russians" to me.Dig deeper. Read Simpson's testimony to the Senate. Neither of the people were 'in the service of Glenn Simpson' as you falsely claim. Shocker.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/01/10/t … -meetings/Here's the choice you are giving me:
1. The opinion of a single alleged "Democrat".
2. The opinions of a Republican FBI director named Mueller and 800 former federal prosecutors.
What an easy choice.
I continue to be astonished at the mental gymnastics of Trump, Sean Hannity and their followers.Does it matter how many people believe it? Or even if one person telling the truth?
Sometimes it takes courage to go against the grain, and not follow the crowd.
The truth shall set you free...I won't choose one liar over hundreds of federal prosecutors who respect the law and the Constitution.
Anyone who actually believes the dishwasher Hannity has problems more serious than just politics. He seems to brainwash the weak minded.
How about the investigation Horowitz is conducting into the Dosier? Was he not instructed to investigate the matter? The DOJ has also just recently opened an investigation into the mess... I would suppose you will disregard the findings if they don't fit into your opinion. In regards to being "astonished", save that for the night of the 2020 presidential election.
Considering Barr already clearly misrepresented the Mueller report to the American people, the DOJ under his leadership is suspect, at best. Same reasons no one believes the Trump Administration when they talk about Iran. They've lied so much, when it comes to something of this magnitude, they just aren't credible.
You certainly have a right to your opinion on both subjects. I see Barr as being very forthcoming in his assessment of the Mueller report. He has given Congress free access to the less-redacted But Democrats rejected that proposal from the Justice Department in their quest to obtain the full, unredacted Mueller report Mueller report. Five Republicans have viewed the report with fewer redactions. Not one Dem has come taken Barr up on his offer. I wish someone would, it would certainly help to unravel the truth. One way or the other... In regards to Iran, am I to believe your opinion leans toward believing the Iranian's?
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/ … ee-1338354
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democrats- … er-report/
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/10/politics … index.htmlConsidering the damage was above the water line and done by something propelled, this according to the crew that witnessed the event, the grainy video of a mine being removed leaves too many questions to come to a conclusion just yet.
Having a strong disbelief of any statement that emits from the Trump Administration, based on their history of lying, does not mean one has to be in support of anything other theory at this point. Waiting for a more thorough investigation of the incident is the prudent option before formulating a conclusion.
As for the Mueller Report, Democrats in Congress wants the underlying evidence to the ten instances of obstruction of justice. If there is nothing there, why withhold that information? If it's true he's been exonerated, there's no reason not to release it.
More deflection. Horowitz has nothing to do with this topic.
You also have no idea what Horowitz is investigating or what he will say when it is done.
We do know what Mueller and 800 federal prosecutors have said about Herr Trump.No deflection here. You opened the defection door with your comment in regards to my posting propaganda. For example -
"They often include you making outrageous claims such as Hillary Clinton "colluding" with Russia and paying Russians for campaign dirt."
You referred to the comments I have posted in regard to Hillary and the Russian dossier. I more than pointed out my opinion was formed with several resources. I don't consider any of the resources I posted propaganda outlets.
Nice job at once again making a feeble attempt to deflect. Like I stated anyone can follow this thread from beginning to end and see who is deflecting off subject. You ave deflected almost in every one of your posts that were directed at me. And you wonder why I use words like silly? Read the progression of the thread. It reads very easily and totally shows each and every attempt at all deflections. Hopefully, you will at least give me an example of any form of propaganda I sought to spread. Still waiting. This should be easy if you truly think I have spread propaganda?
And by the way, your threats are a form of bullying. In my opinion that is the last resort when losing a disagreement.What threats? And you're certainly not winning the "disagreement."
"That's why you keep getting banned. The next time should come soon."
Seems like a threat to me. Not a very effective one, but still a feeble attempt... and you wonder why I use the adjective glib?
And where I sit, I won this one page back. Too bad some just have to consider their own opinion above all others to be the last word. Especially when they can't defend their opinion or give proof of why they came to the said opinion. I don't in any way shape or form spread propaganda.No, it's just the observation that you have a habit of making personal attacks against anyone on here who criticizes pro-Trump propaganda.
That's why you get banned. You can't help it. It's a common behavior among Trump and his supporters.Some people are not worth talking to. I engaged with her one time and saw no reason to ever do so again.
Geesh Randy, Do such comments make you feel your perspective is validated? They certainly don't paint a flattering picture of tolerance.
GAAre you besmirching my opinion of Shar? I've a longtime experience dealing with her Fox News talking points so I feel the right to opine on her comments. What are you now, the new arbiter? LTL said that was my role. Did she change her mind?
No, I am not usurping your role as arbiter Randy. But . . . l have followed Shaeleeo1's comments and I viewed them, and the links she posts to support her opinions as legitimate.
Her views are contrary to yours, but I do not view them as Jake-type rhetoric.
It is usually not profitable to denigrate the messenger just because you don't like the message.
To be clear, I don't hold her views, but I don't have a problem with her presentation of her views. Your personal attacks don't reflect well on you.
GAYour statement about credible links is categorically false. Either you aren't reading her posts or you didn't read the links.
Sharlee claimed multiple times that Clinton illegally paid Russians and colluded with them to get campaign dirt on Trump.
Clinton legally paid an American firm for campaign research on Trump. All campaigns do it.
Sharlee posted links to articles about the DNC paying an American firm. The links have nothing to do with Clinton colluding with Russians and paying money to the Russian government.Sharllee01 is more than capable of defending her opinions, so I will just address your point about my statement concerning her links not being credible.
She offered: (1) Bloomberg News (2) The BBC (3) Business Insider (4) The Washington Post (5) Forbes (6) The New York Times (7) Politico (8) CBS News (9) CNN News (10) The Washington Post, (again) (11) Vox (12) FEC.gov,
This list may seem like a bit of over-kill, but I didn't want you to think I was cherry-picking what I choose to highlight.
For my statement to be "categorically false" must mean you believe that list of link sources to all be non-credible. Is that what you mean to say?
From another perspective, perhaps your criticism of her links is that they aren't credible because they don't relate to her comments. To examine that I provided the links, below, for you to look at.
Of course, I didn't read each article, but I did scan the headlines and all seemed pertinent to the comment they were linked with. You may disagree with her interpretation of the information in those links, but I can't see how you can use that to justify a charge that it is "categorically false" to consider them credible links.
Obviously, I had to make an assumption of what you mean when you say her links were not credible ones, so if I missed your intended meaning I hope you will explain just what you did mean.
GA
1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … st-quarter
2. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48346228
3. https://www.businessinsider.com/why-mig … dy-2018-12
4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na … d0ab3bcdc3
5. https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalnewsl … ed820f3d99
6. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/us/p … ssier.html
7. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/ … ee-1338354
8. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democrats- … er-report/
9. https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/10/politics … index.html
10. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pol … 8668c8c8e3
11. https://www.vox.com/2019/6/14/18677631/ … llegal-fbi
12. https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and … ontribute/It's largely a moot point because either Sharlee or HP removed some of her posts, including at least one where she resorted to name calling. She is showing more restrained posts, so I assume HP warned her.
If she got reported, it wasn't by me.
That said, she just posted something similar to my point in response to Pretty Panther.
PRETTYPANTHER WROTE:
Yes, when someone continues to say Hillary Clinton colluded with Russia, even after being repeatedly shown to be wrong, they are "off the rails," willfully promoting false information in support of a political candidate, i.e., "propaganda."
SHARLEE WROTE:
Not sure how many times I need to post this link... Laws on Foreign Countries contributing to a campaign. I am not willing to mince words with you, Here are facts.
https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/
She posted that Clinton was illegally colluding with "foreign governments" including "Russia" while at the same time linking to articles that had nothing to do with Clinton collusion.
This is not about the credibility of the links. It's about the relevance of the links.If it isn't about credibility, (any longer), than that is a different matter.
You were the one to speak of the links as not "credible," I called her links legitimate.
If you meant relevant all along, then you should have said so. There is a difference in the terms' meanings.
GADid you delete your orginal post saying Sharlee's links were credible? I can't seem to find it, even on your activity page.
I was just curious if you first used the word credible or if I did. You often claim I say things I didn't actually say.
Regardless, the sites are credible but her links were not. The information on the sites wasn't relevant to her claim about Clinton collusion.
And calling her links "legitimate" is hardly different in intent than calling them "credible".
If we're going to get into the nuances and contexts of single words (like your memorable refusal to admit the definition of "independent"), then we're going to have a lot more disagreements.
That's OK. I know you like to debate with some people and simply argue with others.No bud, I haven't deleted any posts. Here is my first post to Randy that was relevant to Sharlee01's comments:
"l have followed Sharleeo1's comments and I viewed them, and the links she posts to support her opinions as legitimate.
Permalink: https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/343 … ost4081677
That was the point where you jumped in on a discussion that wasn't addressed to you. (but I don't have a problem with that, that's what these forums are about.) ;-)
Credible, legitimate, . . are you really trying to use that to back-peddle out of you claim her links weren't credible. A permalink to your introduction of "credible" is available if you look for it.
You claim her links weren't "relevant" to her assertions, but I think it can be shown that they obviously are. You may disagree with her interpretation to what the articles say, but I am surprised you would try to claim they weren't relevant to the discussion point at hand.
Simply put, to me, it appears you disagree with her interpretation of the information in her links, so because of your perspective, you claim her links aren't credible/relevant. Is that really the stand you want to take? It would be easy enough to go back and show--link by link-- that her links were at least relevant to her points, even if the information in the links didn't support her interpretations.
I must note that it is your claim that I often say you say things that you didn't say. I don't agree. Whether by actual words, or obvious inference, my responses are to the message of your comments.
The sites are credible but the links are not? What the hell . . . are you arguing what the definition of "is" is?
I think calling them legitimate is vastly different from calling them credible - in the context of which you introduced the "credible" determination.
Get into the nuances of context? Come on bud, you can't really be just sluffing that off as unimportant, are you? Isn't that what understanding is all about--the nuances of context? That almost sounds like a Trumpian explanation of what I said isn't what I meant.
You lost me on that reference to the meaning of "independent," but to your closing, I always prefer discussion over debate. Nobody has to lose in a discussion. But, yes, there are some knotheads that I do love to argue with.
GAYou get awfully hostile and defensive when someone calls you out for personal attacks.
Promisem, subsequent to this response you asked for an apology, and for this response I will offer one.
My responses are never intended to be hostile. I can understand that you may see my aggressive defense against your claims as hostile, but hostility was never a driving motivator for me. So regardless of where the fault lies for that misperception, I do apologize for responding in such a way that allowed that misperception.
GAGA, thanks for your gracious comment. I disagree that I had a misperception for reasons I have already stated, but I hope you agree that we tend to have problems with trying to debate via forums.
I also hope we can both try harder to have more uplifting exchanges.
I have never removed a comment, and I never name-call... I used the word glib to give my opinion of many of your comments, I also describe them as silly. Just my opinion. At this point, you make another false claim. Not sure why you pursue this conversation? You are making things up as you go. Baffles me.
I have in several comments admitted that in my opinion, I think what the DNC and Hillary did was collusion with Russia. I also stated I am waiting for three investigations to conclude, to see if my opinion hold water.
My comment referred to the DNC and Hillary Clinton breaking campaign laws. I have copied and pasted the laws to make my point with facts. I will follow it up with the link. You claimed I was promoting propaganda. It is very clear laws have were disregarded. I also stated I await the decision of the FEC on what laws were broken. I did post many links as of the progression of the complaint that was made by "Campaign Legal Center" to the FEC, and the pending lawsuit for there not dealing with the Campaign Legal Center complaint. I also made you aware I was aware of the progression of the funds in hiring Steel to conduct the requested research on Trump. The research was ultimately collected from Russian citizens. Not sure why you found my thoroughness confusing? I have never stated Clinton or the DNC paid any money to the Russian government. You continue to misquote me. In fact, I posted the links to show the Law firm was the first leg of the money. My statement is and stands The DNC and Hillary Clinton paid for the dossier, and this has been well documented. Misquoting me may make you feel superior, but those following this thread should be able to also see you either don't read well or perhaps just don't comprehend.
"Foreign nationals June 23, 2017
The FEC often receives questions about the rules governing foreign nationals’ participation in U.S. elections. While this article responds to some of the most common questions, it does not cover all aspects of foreign national activity. Readers should consult the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) and Commission regulations, advisory opinions, and relevant case law for additional information. For questions involving proposed activity for which there may not be clear guidance, you may consider requesting your own advisory opinion (AO) from the Commission. Please note, however, that the Commission’s jurisdiction is limited to provisions of the Act and does not include other laws that may also apply to the foreign national activity.
The Act and Commission regulations include a broad prohibition on foreign national activity in connection with elections in the United States. 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and generally, 11 CFR 110.20. In general, foreign nationals are prohibited from the following activities:
Making any contribution or donation of money or another thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States;
Making any contribution or donation to any committee or organization of any national, state, district, or local political party (including donations to a party nonfederal account or office building account);
Making any disbursement for an electioneering communication;
Making any donation to a presidential inaugural committee.
Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to an FEC enforcement action, criminal prosecution, or both.
Definition
The following groups and individuals are considered "foreign nationals" and are subject to the prohibition:
Foreign citizens (not including dual citizens of the United States);
Immigrants who are not lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
Foreign governments;
Foreign political parties;
Foreign corporations;
Foreign associations;
Foreign partnerships; and
Any other foreign principal, as defined at 22 U.S.C. § 611(b), which includes a foreign organization or “other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.”
https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalnewsl … e30e4d3d99What exactly did a foreign entity contribute or donate exactly? It's not like the Russians filed the Steele Dossier. And Steele was paid for his work by a private company, he didn't donate it. And that American company was paid by the campaign.
I'm sorry you do not understand the difference between paid opposition research and a campaign contribution and why one is legal and one is not. That is where your misunderstanding lies. Perhaps call the FEC and have them explain it to you so you can see the difference.
My Randy, certainly interesting you feel we have had a long time experience with me? Actually. if you remember we had a bet on the Mueller investigation. I bet you an apology if Mueller found nothing to indict Trump on. I see no indictments? Do You? Maybe time for you to apologize? You continually accuse me of being a FOX fan. I have informed you time after time, I do not put any relevance on talk jocks.
I certainly could have returned the barb, by accusing you of being a CNN lackey. Although, as I have said time after time, I deal in facts, not insults.
I do realize using words such as glib and silly are cutting. However, I consider these words appropriate in many cases I am responding to vague comments that offer nothing but an opportunity to insult. Just like this one. Please read your comment, is it not an attempt to insult? Is it saying anything that adds to the conversation? You are more than welcome to opine on any of my comments. But keep to the subject.
"She is a legend in her own mind.."
This is a well-overused insult, why not come up with something new or better yet why comment when you have nothing to add but a vague insult?"No indictments?" Just 37 of them with multiple guilty pleas.
"I bet you an apology if Mueller found nothing to indict Trump on".
Please read more carefully. Our bet was all about Trump... Although, nice to see you are ready for battle, even though there is no need to put in an off subject remark? Do you ever give it a rest? Randy and I well understood the bet. You need not worry. And, as it stands I think due to Mueller finding some possibilities of obstruction. I feel this bet may just be in limbo or even a draw.
This is just none of your business.Of course fake news on here is my business and the business of others like Randy and Valeant.
You just posted a common piece of fake news. You said, "No indictments", did you not?Please read the entire post. Not to be argumentive but please read word for word. As I have explained our bet was in regards to indictments on TRUMP. I certainly never claimed or would claim there would be no indictments at all... Still waiting for an example of a comment where I posted propaganda.
My comment in full. addressed to Randy
"HARLEE01 WROTE:
My Randy, certainly interesting you feel we have had a long time experience with me? Actually. if you remember we had a bet on the Mueller investigation. I bet you an apology if Mueller found nothing to indict Trump on. I see no indictments? Do You? Maybe time for you to apologize? You continually accuse me of being a FOX fan. I have informed you time after time, I do not put any relevance on talk jocks.
I certainly could have returned the barb, by accusing you of being a CNN lackey. Although, as I have said time after time, I deal in facts, not insults.
I do realize using words such as glib and silly are cutting. However, I consider these words appropriate in many cases I am responding to vague comments that offer nothing but an opportunity to insult. Just like this one. Please read your comment, is it not an attempt to insult? Is it saying anything that adds to the conversation? You are more than welcome to opine on any of my comments. But keep to the subject.
"She is a legend in her own mind.."
This is a well-overused insult, why not come up with something new or better yet why comment when you have nothing to add but a vague insult
There is indictable conduct in the Mueller Report. DOJ guidelines prevented Mueller from filing charges, so he left it up to Congress. Which he wrote into the report and again emphasized in his press conference. The fact that you make that claim is just another example of the false propaganda you spew, that Mueller could have indicted Trump. One thousand federal prosecutors said that conduct was indictable, had Trump not been president. One thousand. Not a few of them. One thousand.
I never at any time suggested there were no indictable charges in regards to obstruction. In fact, I posted a link which listed the ten points of contention, and possible obstruction that the Congress is looking into. I don't appreciate to defend my comments when they are very easy to understand, and much of the time I leave links to resources. All I have stated on the matter you refer to is that I hoped the Congress would bring impeachment charges if they really feel Trump broke any laws. I did also state that I felt they would not, due to being a very hard case to prove. And that is just a layman opinion. I truly see no reason to accuse me of spewing propaganda? And by the way, I have never been able to locate a copy of any letter signed by 1000's of prosecutors, I like proof, and facts, not one spokesman that claims something on CNN. I would like to see this letter. Actually, your above statement could be misconstrued as propaganda. As it claims I spew propaganda. No one as of yet has given an actual post where I have "spewed propaganda...
Not sure you have been reading my posts. A few posts ago you had me living near your Mother?And by the way, I have never been able to locate a copy of any letter signed by 1000's of prosecutors, I like proof, and facts, not one spokesman that claims something on CNN. I would like to see this letter. Actually, your above statement could be misconstrued as propaganda.
Hundreds of former federal prosecutors – and counting – signed an open letter published on Monday expressing their belief that Donald Trump would have faced “multiple felony charges of obstruction of justice” if he were not president. Link
Read the Letter HEREThank you for the link. I have been trying to find this for a while. I have not been brave enough to click into signatures, due to the warnings that are posted. Have you? The letter is compelling.
Sharlee, have any of your media sources given you access to this letter prior to this conversation?
If not, why not? It seems pertinent to the Obstruction of Justice charges contained in the Mueller Report.I have read to link that was provided by ISLANDBITES. I simply said I was unable to find the letter. It does add weight. However, it will be up to Congress and the DOJ to decipher if any form of obstruction occurred. Congress currently is investigating this matter, and I have said time and again, I will see what they ascertain. I am not ready to jump to any conclusions based on my lack of knowing the law.
I know what's coming.. You will ask why I feel the DNC and Hilary broke the law in regards to campaign violations. I have voiced a simple opinion on the fats that the DNC physically paid for the information that was collected from a foreign company. Yes, the money was paid via an American Law firm, and it would be apparent the DNC would feel they can get around the fact that the dossier was an accumulation of Russian information.
I must once again remind you. You accused Trump Jr of colluding with Russians due to his Trump tower meeting.
What the DNC did is beyond a meeting... Information was solicited and paid for and used to obtain FISA warrants. Not one meeting with one person, but several Russian's contributed to the dossier all which were Russian's. The DNC was responsible for the dossier they solicited it.
I will repeat I will await the reports from the three investigations that are currently underway. I have a right to go "out on a limb" with an opinion. You have a right to disagree.I was just wondering if you had seen the letter or heard about it before we brought it up.
Congress is investigating and Trump continues to obstruct them. So it is likely going to need to become an impeachment proceeding to compel the full testimony of people like Don McGahn, who is central to the charges.
But I hope after reading that letter, you can understand some of the disdain many have towards Trump. Mueller laid out the evidence that basically confirms his criminality. Why he'd want to do illegal things to protect Russia is a concern for many of us."Congress is investigating and Trump continues to obstruct them. So it is likely going to need to become an impeachment proceeding to compel the full testimony of people like Don McGahn, who is central to the charges."
The president was within his right to ask McGahn to fire Mueller. As was McGahn within his rights to refuse the order.
Don McGahn was acting as a lawyer representing the White House, and Counsel to President Donald Trump. He would be breaking the law under client-attorney privilege if he did not abide by the current executive order not to speak to Congress. The court could order McGahn to answer the Congresses questions. Although if one wants to just check out his testimony to the Mueller team they can read the Mueller report. He answered all of the questions that were asked, with the blessings of president Trump.
"Why he'd want to do illegal things to protect Russia is a concern for many of us."
Not why you use the word "us"? Are you speaking for many on this forum? At any rate...
Please list the" illegal things" he has to provide Russia.
After following Trump's stance on Russia, I find he has been one of the strongest adversaries they have come up against. Just an opinion...
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/12/mike-po … ussia.html
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/29/tr … prochment/
https://time.com/5220097/despite-the-ap … on-russia/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byro … -on-russia
I will wait for your list of " illegal things to protect Russia". Please list resource. I am in no way interested in any speculation or unproven rumor.This is where it gets frustrating talking with you. We are talking about the instances of obstruction of justice that 1,024 former federal prosecutors believe were criminal in nature. Mueller was investigating Russian interference into the 2016 election. Trump's illegality was to thwart that investigation, which protects Russia.
That's what many of us, law-abiding American citizens, deem his conduct to be impeachable and borderline traitorous. Why his supporters side with obstructing an investigation into the attack on our elections is reprehensible.
Maybe you missed the Helsinki summit where Trump cowered like a dog to Putin and sided with him over Americans pertaining to that election interference. Trump refused to impose sanctions approved by Congress on Russia for that interference. Maybe you missed him relaxing sanctions recently on one of Russia's oligarchs (Deripaska). That's not strength.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 92186.html"This is where it gets frustrating talking with you. We are talking about the instances of obstruction of justice that 1,024 former federal prosecutors believe were criminal in nature. Mueller was investigating Russian interference into the 2016 election. Trump's illegality was to thwart that investigation, which protects Russia. "
Not sure why my post would have you frustrated. Yes, we have different opinions, but I lean towards be careful to jump to any form of conclusion. Especially in this case. My comment clearly explains I will leave the law to Congress at this point. I don't feel anything has been proven at this point. I certainly am not willing to call the president treasonist. How will you feel if there are no grounds for impeachment?
"That's what many of us, law-abiding American citizens, deem his conduct to be impeachable and borderline traitorous. Why his supporters side with obstructing an investigation into the attack on our elections is reprehensible."
This is an inflammatory statement. You infer that I sid with obstructing an investigation. I have told you time and again (in fact in this very comment ) I chose to await any and all investigations on this matter. I have stated I will be pleased to have Congress do an in-depth investigation. I was very pro- the Mueller investigation. I do look differently at the Mueller findings differently than you due to reading the boring long report.
In regards to sanctions, Russia is now under some of the worst sanctions they have ever been under. Please have a look at all sanctions that the Trump ad. has placed on Russia. Most of what has never been reported by media.
https://www.state.gov/ukraine-and-russia-sanctions/
In regards to the president and his conduct on the world stage with Putin. I found him appropriate for a public setting. Need I pull up other presidents on the world stage with Putin. They all pretty much were friendly and jovial. Need I pull up Obama's hot mike tape?
Presidents need the flexibility to show politeness as well as be allowed to speak their minds. Trump has never made it a secret that he hopes to get along with all countries.
"Why he'd want to do illegal things to protect Russia is a concern for many of us." Please list "illegal things". What illegal things?"Why he'd want to do illegal things to protect Russia is a concern for many of us." Please list "illegal things". What illegal things?
This is the frustrating stuff you do. I link you a letter that states in clear terms that over one thousand experts in the law believe Trump committed multiple counts of illegal obstruction of justice. And you have to ask what illegal things? Seriously?
And when Trump supporters parrot the findings of no collusion , no obstruction even though obstruction is clearly listed in the Mueller Report, I call that siding with Russia over the United States. If you find that inflammatory, that's about equal to how we see it when violations of the law that protect someone who attacked us are denied.I guess I did not realize you were listing the ten points in the Mueller report. Although, there has been no clear verdict if any of these points can be proved to be obstruction? Is this not the purpose of the Congresses investigation? I understand you are taking these 10 points as obstruction. Where I take the view they are possible crimes of obstruction. I mean, I have to put out that ugly two words "what if?" I guess we can agree we are of very opposite mindsets. I prefer to wait, as I did with the Mueller report. I mean you have to remember how so many here claimed Trump would be arrested for collusion. Now, now it's obstruction. You do realize these accusations must be proved?
I will sit on the fence, just easier than jumping feet first.
When I speak of media resources, I am referring to link online. I have no live media resources, nor have I ever claimed to have live media sources. I was simply interested in reading the letter and posted I had not been able to find it online. I hoped to see the letter. No, I had not viewed or read the letter until today. I have on occasion heard it referred to on Network media. I have yet to see the signature due to a warning posted on the link provided to me by Islandbites. Have you a link to the signatures of the said prosecutors? I would be interested in seeing who signed.
Sure...medium.com has a good link here:
https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement … b7691c2aa1
This is your statement to Randy, word for word:
I bet you an apology if Mueller found nothing to indict Trump on. I see no indictments? Do You? Maybe time for you to apologize?
Hence my post where 1,023 former federal prosecutors signed on to state that the material in the Mueller Report would be more than enough to indict any other American had they not been president. Mueller was prohibited from indicting, so technically you won the bet. But to say there is no indictable conduct listed in the Mueller Report is patently false.
As for the letter, I have provided a link to it in this thread in a post one page back. Sorry your reading skills cannot process links in posts. Or that you cannot type in the phrase 1000 federal prosecutors and have the letter come up as the first search item. For the rest of us, before we accuse someone of posting propaganda, we can do those basic things.
I consider calling someone "glib" as a well used insult. Touche
And if Mueller wasn't prevented from indicting a sitting POTUS, you'd owe me an apology. 10+ counts of obstruction of justice doesn't seem like Mueller found nothing incriminating Trump.Randy, why so defensive, as I stated in the post to Promesem
" Randy and I well understood the bet. You need not worry. And, as it stands I think due to Mueller finding some possibilities of obstruction. I feel this bet may just be in limbo or even a draw."
I have never in any of my comments dismissed the possibility of obstruction on Trump's part. In fact, I claimed I would like to see impeachment proceedings brought by Congress if there is a case. I do not condone another long investigation into the matter. They have the list of ten possible obstruction claims in the Mueller report.
It is ovious not many actually read my comments in full or read into them. I think I was fair staying the case against Trump is still in Limbo. I could have just asked for the apology on the wording of the bet. But I found it unfair. I guess if you want to amend the bet - how about an apology on my part if Trump is found to have committed obstruction and impeached for it. And you apologies if he is not found to have obstructed justice and does not get impeached.
I think I still have a good bet or call it a draw as I so kindly offered.
She just bestowed you with the title of Arbiter. The Society of Arbiters is a secret one, and they never let it be known who the real Arbiters are.
GA
Yeah, I hear you, but at the same time she keeps posting fake news.
I'm trying to protect the integrity and reputation of HP. Partly it's selfish because of the income I get. It's also a matter of principle.
Imagine responsible and well-informed people coming to HP sites and seeing a bunch of delusional and grossly untrue posts. They hurt all of us.
Do you realize how condescending you sound? I must also add ill-informed. You sound childish "why you get ban".
Randy, you and promisem are having a remarkably hard time letting go of the demonstrably false (per the Mueller Report) narrative that Trump colluded with Russia and confronting the truth: Clinton colluded with Russia.
Kunstler continues:
"Mrs. Clinton’s additional dealings with Russians — and the choo-choo train of cash money they rode in with — reached a high tide during her tenure at the State Department, when her foundation hauled in more than $150-million from Russian business interests alone (that is, from oligarchs), not to mention the mere half-million in walking-around-money that husband Bill received for giving a single speech to a Russian banking group. How is it that a Secretary of State trafficked in so much grifted loot without raising any red flags for institutional auditors?" https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation … th/#more-'
I am not sure how you two come to be so uninformed/misinformed. It must require some extraordinarily convoluted thought processes--with more than a dash of wilfull blindness--to remain so much in the dark.
Or could it be that you are, to use the polite eumphemism, merely "disingenuous?"And yet, even with all the foreign money raised, there's no evidence that big donors got any special favors from the State Department.
The Clinton Foundation is what's called a public charity. That means it mostly raises money from other people and foundations (including, by the way, a gift of between $100,000 and $250,000 from the Trump Foundation in 2009). The Clinton Foundation spends that money on things like HIV and malaria prevention in Africa. It spends close to 90 cents of every dollar it gets on charitable causes, and earns top marks from watchdog groups. Meanwhile, the Trump Foundation was forced to close because they were proven to have illegally used the charitable funds for Trump's personal gain and on his campaign.
What those two and I cannot fathom is how you can keep coming on here with zero evidence of any of your conspiracy theories.
Valeant, you say, "There's no evidence that big donors got any special favors from the State Department." The Uranium One deal is one known "special favor" that was conferred. However it is worth bearing in mind that Hillary took a great deal of care to make sure all evidence was destroyed: She had her server wiped with Bleach Bit--after she had already received a subpoena, no less--and had aides destroy her mobile phones by "breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer."
An FBI report states that, "Hillary Clinton had at least 13 mobile devices according to the investigation, used by the former Secretary of State to send official emails using her private email server, in a practice some are likening to a mobster’s use of burner phones to avoid detection by authorities."
Kind of a funny way to run a State Department.
"Lack of evidence" is perhaps a poor choice as an argument on your part.Hillary was one of eight who decided to make the deal, Vile. You seem to be a Sean Hannity fan.
Not even a fair try.....The Uranium One deal required multiple approvals by the U.S., beginning with the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. Under federal law, the committee reviews foreign investments that raise potential national security concerns.
Unless Blueheron can prove that all of the following people received cash to approve the Uranium One deal, then it's another stupid conspiracy theory being touted without any proof:
The Committee on Foreign Investments has nine members, including the secretaries of the treasury, state, defense, homeland security, commerce and energy; the attorney general; and representatives from two White House offices (the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy).
We'll wait to hear the proof that all nine people needed to approve the deal were bribed by the Russians. And wait....and wait. Why? Because Blueheron is here spouting lies with zero factual basis.I've never believed much of what Vile claims. She's another lost Trumpster who believes Fox News.
Valeant, there is a great deal of evidence of close, long-standing ties between Simpson, Veselnitskaya, and Akhmetshin. The three were involved in, and collaborated together, in representing Russian oligarchs for some time--seeking the repeal of the Magnitsky Act, and defending a company called Prevezon, owned by Russian oligarch Denis Katsyv, accused of laundering some of the proceeds of the fraud Magnitsky allegedly uncovered. Simpson, Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin were all three working on Prevezon's behalf.
So I think we may confidently say that these three were as thick and thieves.
Oddly, too, it appears that Fusion GPS was the source of the "dirt" Natalia was peddling at the Trump Tower meeting. In an interview with Bloomberg, Veselnitskaya said she went to the Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump Jr., his brother-in-law Jared Kushner, and top campaign adviser Paul Manafort to show them proof of tax evasion by major Democratic donors, the "proof" was in the form of a memo provided by Fusion GPS--hence she was acting as Simpson's envoy. Plus of course the two of them both immediately before and immediately after the Trump Tower meeting.
Trump et al basically decided this information was a nothingburger,
Democrat donors failing to pay Russian taxes appearing to them to be a non-starter in the "dirt" department. I mean, who gives a shit?
Anyway, there are very strong indications that the situation was as described by Kunstler: a setup.You took your facts from the Daily Caller. Hardly reliable. And what she took was Putin's false claim that Browder, through associates, namely the Ziffs, siphoned 400 million to Clinton. It's the same claim he made in Helsinki, after conferring with Trump in private, with no outside parties there to listen. Here is some background with the specifics on who those parties actually donated to:
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete … -donation/
Yes, Simpson and Venelnitskaya worked on the same case. When told that she had taken information from that case to the Trump Tower meeting, here is the quote from the company:
"No one from Fusion GPS had any idea Ms. Veselnitskaya would be meeting with anyone from the Trump campaign," attorney Josh Levy said. "Nor did anyone from Fusion GPS know she would be sharing anything she learned from either the company or the Prevezon matter with the Trump campaign. This whole episode came as a complete surprise to Fusion when the news broke this summer."
It comes down to who you believe then, the American version or the Russian version. And we all know where you traitorous Trump defenders side with.
But now that you bring it up, here was Trump Jr.'s response to being offered that information from the case:
Trump Jr. did promise to reexamine the Magnitsky matter if his father was elected, Veselnitskaya said.
"In case if we are successful in this campaign, maybe one day we would be interested in getting back to it. Because all that you told us sounds very interesting," she said, paraphrasing Trump Jr. "And who knows? Maybe one day we'll get back to that conversation, but not before that."
Sure sounds like collusion to me. Quite literally saying he'd be open to a quid pro quo, according to your star witness Veselnitskaya.
Well, I'd say if still watch CNN, you are one of the small percentage of the US population who lives in an airport or a nursing home--or, perhaps like Jake--in a group home. (I suspect that's what happened to the poor dear--though it clearly wasn't the first thing that happened to him.) That's about the only viewership those oinkers have left--except you, I guess. So perhaps they have some remaining viewers who have not yet been diagnosed--or apprehended--or who are still at large for other unknown reasons.
It is actually hard to imagine what the MSM could do to further discredit itself, short of running a hard-hitting series on Elvis sightings (and attributing his demise to Russia). Though I do have to admit that they may have already done that for all I know, since I don't live in a nursing home or a group home and don't hang around airports much.This is the reason you want an honest administration in charge. Trump has lied so often about anything and everything you cannot take him seriously anymore, especially when war is possible. We're in a mess with our allies because of his many lies and insults to our friends around the world.
Sharlee,
I admire your attempts to try to speak the truth to those who are closed to it. Facts do not matter to these people. Only their misguided and false agenda.
Here is an illustration of the kind of people we are dealing with here.
Oh Mike, that's so cute....
Apparently you thought so too. Did you create it or steal it? My vote is for the latter..If it needs explained to you please let me know. I will do my best. I'm here for you.
I always understand your stolen memes, Mike. And the intelligence--or lack of--behind them.
Thank you, Mike... I don't back down when I have one in a corner. Facts are on my side. Some stick their fingers in their ears and hum. I just turn up the volume.
Although I know they hear me when they turn to the first deflection, then to threats and bullying.
My mother lives down in the same area as Sharlee, so she gets exposed to the same barrage of misinformation. I, for one, am glad she is here so I know the topics I'll need to cover to deprogram her when she visits me.
LOL. That's the best laugh I've had in weeks.
My late father was the same way. He was for the most part a good man, but he watched Fox News all day and was furious at all Democrats because he believed the garbage spewing out of Faux News.
Obama was a Muslim and Communist, etcetera, etcetera.Now you guys know what I put up with in my area of the south. Talking points from "God's channel".
He lived in North Carolina. God and Trump country.
Randy this comment has nothing to do with this thread, except . . . I have also found myself in mixed company of hard-right conservatives.
Amazingly, I found their convictions so grounded that I immediately knew it was useless to offer facts that countered those convictions. So I just sat and nodded as they validated each other's perspectives.
GATo the both of you, Randy and GA: I don't even put up political signs in my neighborhood because I'm afraid my house or cars will be vandalized. All the other houses had "Vote Republican" or "Vote Trump" signs during the last election. Oddly enough, this is a middle class neighborhood with mostly retired blue-collar workers, but you can't tell that by first impressions. One has to live here a few months. Living in an underground house and driving a Prius is a "liberal" enough sign. We've been vandalized enough already.
Doris, I'm surrounded by people--my kin included--who still use the "N" word liberally. I've never had a sign on my lawn for either party, but the locals knw what I stand for. I suppose my reputation in the past let's me get away with my "extreme" opinions.
I understand what you are saying MizBejabbers. The instance I mentioned to Randy occurred at a wedding. As we sat around the reception table it was clear by the conversation that there was absolutely no quarter for a dissenting opinion. The conversation was as hard-core Hannity as you can get and it was clear any dissension would have been viewed as blasphemy, so I just sipped my drink and smiled.
There is no better advice than that to pick your battles. This instance was a battle I had no chance of winning - so I passed.
GANot me, there's no doubt I'll wade in no matter the odds! If you lived here you'd never voice your opinion if you waited for reinforcements. What wusses.....
Now that's just silly Randy. What sense does it make to argue with a tree?
The tree won't pay any attention, but will you feel better for arguing with it?
The folks at the table may walk off in a huff, but will you have accomplished anything?
Imagine this Randy. You and I are sitting at a table of Hannity fans. They are stating the truth of Hannity's views. You confront them and I just smile and listen to them. Do you think you have profited by confronting them? I don't think you have. I just think you are arguing with a tree.
Where is the profit in that, beyond your feeling of righteous indignation?
GAThose robes must get heavy at times. And the surety of that judgment, oh my, such burden to assume.
Arguing with a tree is something we all do on these forums, Gus..
And what personal attack are you speaking of?I'm definitely a tree. I believe there is more than enough evidence that Trump committed crimes to get elected and more crimes once he was elected to obstruct his initial crimes, that he is unfit for the office. No amount of opinion from his supporters will ever change that for me.
Nope Valeant, you are not a tree. The "trees" are the ones that aren't open for discussion, regardless of whether that discussion might change anyone's mind.
GA
What he means in his condescending comment to you is that he thinks it's a personal attack when we criticize their factually wrong posts.
But it's not a personal attack when they call us names, post insulting memes, smear your posts with labels of "righteous indignation", etc.You got me on that one Randy, Yes, sometimes the exchanges here do amount to "arguing with a tree."
I suppose I should also loosen-up a bit on that "Tolerance is a virtue" thing because sometimes the satisfaction is worth it. Maybe that is why mud wrestling is popular in some areas.
GA
I have a certain visibility in my small town because of my job but also because I serve on the Planning Commission and two other boards. I choose to not get into national politics, or any issue that points to my being a flaming liberal, in order to maintain a certain level of effectiveness in my work. Local.politics and service to a community are not about left/right but about being able to maintain good relationships in order to work together to solve problems and get things done.
I am keenly aware of how people would sometimes make false assumptions about my positions on local issues if they knew I was a liberal Democrat. As it is, I am viewed as pro-business (because I am), and I know for a fact that some conservatives would assume I am not if they knew how liberal I am on certain issues.You are a rare breed. In my experience, liberal democrats are socialist and hate business in general, and think all big businesses are evil and greedy and exploits the workers.
I believe in a well-regulated capitalist system. I also believe certain necessary services are best provided in a not-for-profit system, most notably health care, education, law enforcement, and prisons. That is not socialism.
I agree with you there. Please tell your fellow liberal progressives to stop using the term “democratic socialism”. It is a false concept. The confusion with “socialism” is mind boggling. I heard some people say the public library is socialism. What?
Randy, nice to hear from you again. The American South is known for its God's talking points. My maternal relatives are Southern & religion is the be & end all in their lives. Religion is number 1 w/them. I find that so beyond the pale. My mother was brought up religiously & she tried(in vain) to raise me the same way. But I became a nontraditional New Ager. I even converted my mother to my beliefs. The American South is not one of the most progressive regions.
"My mother lives down in the same area as Sharlee, "
Never heard of Michigan being described as down, as states in the lower half of the USA? Do you consider Michigan a southern state?I have no idea what you are talking about. I said nothing about Michigan.
That was for me. I had a belief she was just north of Orlando.
I live in Michigan, and in the winter I live in Puerto Vallarta Mexico. Not sure why it matters? My, this thread had really gone off the rails...
Because geography does tend to affect political view. And in looking over profiles, I thought I had seen Florida listed on yours at one time. If I was wrong, I do apologize for that.
Yes, when someone continues to say Hillary Clinton colluded with Russia, even after being repeatedly shown to be wrong, they are "off the rails," willfully promoting false information in support of a political candidate, i.e., "propaganda."
Concise, logical and to the point.
It cleared up my headache.Not sure how many times I need to post this link... Laws on Foreign Countries contributing to a campaign. I am not willing to mince words with you, Here are facts.
https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/The dossier was not a contribution, no matter how many times you say it was. Contribution = something of value GIVEN.
Fusion GPS was paid. It was a campaign expense.Sharlee, what does a law about foreign countries contributing to a campaign have to do with the DNC paying Fusion GPS for Trump research?
I was addressing one of Val"s comments where he made the claim it was illegal to take money from a foreign government, along with the claim one can solicit dirt from a foreign government. I have posted several links referring to the matter. This should clear it up in regards to collecting Dirt on one's opponent.
Ellen Weintraub, the chairwoman of the Federal Election Commission, to release a statement reiterating a long-standing U.S. prohibition on foreign assistance in U.S. elections.
“Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election,” Weintraub, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, wrote. The other link covers the illegality of taking cash.
"Although the FEC hasn’t ruled on whether opposition research constitutes a thing of value, a spokesman noted that the commission has advised that candidates report “research/research services” as campaign expenditures. In recent years, a number of political campaigns have reported expenses related specifically to opposition research.
U.S. political campaigns spend tens of millions of dollars on opposition or “oppo research” — damaging information gathered for political advantage. In the 2016 election cycle, campaigns and political action committees spent nearly $71 million on “research,” according to Campaign Legal Center.
“Opposition research is something people ordinarily pay for, so in that sense, it looks like it could be considered a thing of value and fall within the prescription of the law,” said James Gardner, an election law expert, and professor at State University of New York at Buffalo.
But simply “listening” to information derived from foreign sources may not rise to the level of a campaign finance violation."
I had hoped to point out the legality on both. The FEC has not as of yet determined if legal to seek opposition research from foreign countries. I hoped to correct his assumption that it is legal to seek OP research because as of yet the verdict is still out.
https://www.voanews.com/usa/us-politics … arch-legal
Just wanted to let Val know I am aware of the law in regards to taking cash from other countries.
https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/And yet, you continue to ignore this response as it completely blows your claim out of the water:
Currently, campaigns can contract with foreign individuals and firms to do work. The allegation that this is wrong is completely baseless. And what makes this allegation surreal is: Guess who hired a foreign firm to do important data analysis in 2016? Donald Trump! Cambridge Analytica was British. If Clinton using Steele was a scandal, then so was Trump using Cambridge. The fact that Steele was doing oppo research, which admittedly can be made to sound seamy on propaganda television, is neither here nor there legally.
And again, that work was legal. You know who said so? House Republicans! Yes—the House intel committee issued a report in March 2018, when the House was under GOP control, that included these words: “Under current federal election law, foreigners are prohibited from making contributions or donations in connection with any campaign in the United States. However, it is not illegal to contract with a foreign person or foreign entity for services, including conducting opposition research on a U.S. campaign, so long as the service was paid for at the market rate.”Yes, I know it is legal at this moment in history. I was the one that posted all the info you are responding to. I have just been trying to point out that the FEC is now having to consider if opposition research "a thing of value". I thought my copy and paste would help explain my point.
“Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election,” Weintraub, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, wrote.
"Although the FEC hasn’t ruled on whether opposition research constitutes a thing of value, a spokesman noted that the commission has advised that candidates report “research/research services” as campaign expenditures. In recent years, a number of political campaigns have reported expenses related specifically to opposition research."
The verdict is still out, and may never be dealt with. It would appear the DNC would not have broken any law in regards to initiating the opposition research. I would think as I pointed out a while back this also clears Trump Jr of any form of campaign crime in regards to Opposition research. Guess that's why Mueller did not indict him on the Trump Tower meeting or make mention of it in the list of possible crimes of collusion.
Thought it wise to settle this once and for all. So Copy and paste is the only way to do it along with site link... The DNC, as well as the candidate, broke the law. The FEC is currently being sued for lagging with their decision on what laws were broken. I don't make the laws, but I do know where to find them.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalnewsl … f373dc3d99
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 … iolations/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/did- … ier-author
https://ijr.com/fec-faces-suit-failure- … paign-dnc/
"FEC RECORD: OUTREACH
Foreign nationals June 23, 2017
The FEC often receives questions about the rules governing foreign nationals’ participation in U.S. elections. While this article responds to some of the most common questions, it does not cover all aspects of foreign national activity. Readers should consult the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) and Commission regulations, advisory opinions, and relevant case law for additional information. For questions involving proposed activity for which there may not be clear guidance, you may consider requesting your own advisory opinion (AO) from the Commission. Please note, however, that the Commission’s jurisdiction is limited to provisions of the Act and does not include other laws that may also apply to foreign national activity.
The Act and Commission regulations include a broad prohibition on foreign national activity in connection with elections in the United States. 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and generally, 11 CFR 110.20. In general, foreign nationals are prohibited from the following activities:
Making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States;
Making any contribution or donation to any committee or organization of any national, state, district, or local political party (including donations to a party nonfederal account or office building account);
Making any disbursement for an electioneering communication;
Making any donation to a presidential inaugural committee.
Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to an FEC enforcement action, criminal prosecution, or both.
Definition
The following groups and individuals are considered "foreign nationals" and are subject to the prohibition:
Foreign citizens (not including dual citizens of the United States);
Immigrants who are not lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
Foreign governments;
Foreign political parties;
Foreign corporations;
Foreign associations;
Foreign partnerships; and
Any other foreign principal, as defined at 22 U.S.C. § 611(b), which includes a foreign organization or “other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.”
https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/
The altruism of some forum posters is beyond laudable. Protecting HP from the dangers of association with nefarious "propaganda" peddlers. What a lofty effort.
Except . . . The judgment. Those robes must get heavy at times. And the surety of that judgment, oh my, such burden to assume.
GAYes, it can get snooty at times, and I'm not defending our baser impulses to judge others, but....
I'm only speaking for myself, but I am weary of living with the results of these people's ignorant decisions. I live in a county that went 67% for Trump. I have friends and family members who believe that Trump never lies, Limbaugh is a fount of wisdom, Bill and Hillary have had dozens of people murdered, Iraq had WMD, immigrants are stealing our jobs, climate change is a hoax, Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya, Roy Moore is not a pedophile, racism against whites is more prevalent than any other type of racism, and on and on.
These people vote. I'm sick of living with their crap. I'm not noble enough to always cut them slack. But, like I sad, some of them are my friends and neighbors. Like you, I keep my mouth shut because it's useless to say anything.Tell it all sister....tell it all! Right there with you, Pretty!
Amen Ms. I understand what you are saying. But . . . look at what that means. What most would see as normally sensible people hold views that you see as absolutely detached from reality.
Now imagine this, they see your dissension as something that borders on blasphemy. But, if they truly believe their perspective can you fault them for their zeal?
Of course, we believe they are misguided, (to be charitable), but they believe the same of us. In this instance I hold to a golden rule of my own; Tolerance is a virtue, ;-)
GAYeah,I get it. My tolerance tank sometimes runs dry. ;-)
Mine too. I am sure you have seen instances of that empty tank on these forums. (hopefully, those instances were years ago, I do try to get better with age)
GA
Hang in there bud. I will see if I can get someone to help me with an equally witty comeback. ;-)
GANot witty, just an observation. Regardless, I have complete confidence that you will come up with something.
Nope, still at a loss. I am not hopeful unless I get some help.
GAYou could try, "I see the irony in saying 'Tolerance is a virtue' even though I have a history of posting condescending comments and personal attacks against people who aren't conservative enough."
But that wouldn't be true bud. Surely you don't think I will offer you the chance to brand me as a liar too.
GA
Some people confuse arrogance with contempt. I admit a growing contempt toward the Trump zealots and apologists.
Nothing is base about judging them when they constantly lash out with garbage and keep attacking on a personal level. Note how many of them have been banned versus the moderates and liberals.
Otherwise, I strongly agree with being "weary of living with the results of these people's ignorant decisions". Likewise, I grow weary of their propaganda on here.
They are dragging our country into a cesspool that is the laughing stock of the world.My contempt for them got me banned for a week last month, for many of the same reasons you listed. Like you, I feel it's necessary to combat the falsehoods they spew for the integrity of this site and this nation.
It is funny to me, as a conservative, how you level the charges against people you disagree with using the same tactics.
“Shredding the Constitution...” and all.
Your side has done the most harm to our republic,
Like the Kavanaugh hearings, the Mueller investigations, the impeachment drum beating, the corruption of the FBI and the DOJ...
the courts, the hall of Congress, and the media.Please consider the words glib, and propaganda. Calling some of your posts "glib" in no way compared with you accusing me as well as others that disagree with you of being propagandists. Talk about being ignorant. Please read your above post, do you recognize all the derogatory words you have used? This to me seems very hypocritical. You certainly can insult anyone that has a different opinion but is more than obvious you can't take it when someone points out your hypocrisy.
A propagandist is a person who tries to persuade people to support a particular idea or group, often by giving inaccurate information.
I understand what you are saying PrettyPanther. Sometimes it is an effort not to speak up, but most of the time it is obvious that it wouldn't make a difference anyway.
However, as a slight nod to being human, sometimes a knothead will be just too much of a temptation to resist.
GA
Thanks for the sarcastic cheap shot in my direction. I knew you couldn't resist throwing mud and making this personal once again.
Sad to hear more apologies for zealots and propagandists at the expense of HP and the country.
It must have been tough biting your tongue with me for so long.
Glibness at its very best... My but you sit on a lofty throne. I still am waiting for an example of just one of my comments that I promoted propaganda. Perhaps you are too busy posting your own form of propaganda?
"Sad to hear more apologies for zealots and propagandists at the expense of HP and the country."
I see no aspect of an apology in GA's comment? Funny you do. Makes me think you have a problem comprehending others words? It is and has been apparent you have little respect for others opinions. But perhaps you need to read other words more carefully, before deflecting and or misconstruing others comments as propaganda.Since you have invited me in . . .
I wasn't "biting my tongue" promisem. I was respecting your wishes, you did ask me not to address your comments here.
Speaking of sarcasm, was that a sincere "thanks" or a sarcastic one? (of course, that was just a rhetorical question)
You assumed my comment was a personal attack, is it safe for me to assume the apologist inference was also personal?
GALet's not be coy. You invited me in with a post that clearly was an attack on me.
How is "apologist" a personal attack compared to the uninvited diatribe you launched in my direction?
The debate didn't involve you at all. But you jumped in anyway with another grenade.
I truly am sad you would rather start another personal battle than oppose fake news on HP.Yes beat GA down, he just posted an opinion different than yours. WOW!
You took it as an attack on you promisem. Several other posters also responded. Was it an attack on all?
Are you saying that "apologist" has positive connotations? And how is it that you can determine which "debates" I jump in on? However, I jumped in as a discussion, not a debate. My original comment wasn't intended to prove or disprove any points - which is the purpose of a debate response.
I didn't start a personal attack promisem, I merely offered an observation. That you took offense from that observation is on you. The others that responded didn't seem to.
GAYes, GA, as usual, you started an insidious personal attack and hide behind word games to deny it.
I'm not surprised you won't admit that your comment below referred directly to what I said about protecting HP's reputation and mocked me for it.
"The altruism of some forum posters is beyond laudable. Protecting HP from the dangers of association with nefarious "propaganda" peddlers. What a lofty effort."
Except . . . The judgment. Those robes must get heavy at times. And the surety of that judgment, oh my, such burden to assume."
Regarding your other word games, yes, apologist has a negative connotation. That you constantly apologize for the bad behavior and fake news of other right wingers and Libertarians on here is just an "observation".
Exactly where did I deny you the right to participate in a "debate"? For the 50th time, you are putting words in my mouth. A zero credibility statement.
No one else responded directly to your diatribe about me. Another zero credibility claim.Damn promisem, you are really making me work.
How about you doing some work. Show me where I have apologized for ". . . bad behavior and fake news of other right wingers and Libertarians . . . '
I am saying you can't support that statement, here is your chance to really prove me wrong.
"Exactly where did I deny you the right to participate in a "debate"?'
You might have a point there bud. Excpet that I didn't say you were denying me the "Right" to participate. I said; " And how is it that you can determine which "debates" I jump in on?"
When you said "The debate didn't involve you at all. But you jumped in anyway with another grenade. I took that as an inference that I had no business butting in because the conversation didn't involve me. Was that an incorrect interpretation of your intent? If you think my interpretation amounts to putting words in your mouth, then you are right - one of us is wrong.
As for no one else responding; PrettyPanther did - directly: https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/343 … ost4081656
Randy did - indirectly to PrettyPanther's reply; https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/343 … ost4081660
PhoenixV did; https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/343 … ost4081770
Do any of those at least nudge me to the edges of your "zero credibility claim', or are you sticking with it? Does your "no one else" mean only folks you designate?
GANow you want to get into exhaustive arguments about the meaning of the word "right" among other deflections from what started this new battle.
I will forgive you and move on if you simply apologize for the personal attack you initiated.I agree that we should just move on promisem. I feel that I have addressed your claims fairly and successfully, so there is no need to keep hunting for new ones to argue about.
It has been a couple of productive days, thanks for the engagement.
GA
PROMISEM It is very obvious you consider your word the last word. You jump in a conversation put in your vague two cents worth, not to mention vague ridiculous threats and accusations. Such as accusing me of posting propaganda or bringing up another users lack profile information inferring they were also here to post propaganda. It's very clear you are not willing to respect others views. Yes, I have used some vague words to show my disdain for your rudeness. To bad more here won't step up and call out your insults. I suggest you read this thread and discover how you conduct yourself first hand. You jump in, you bait with vague haughty insults. Then you get very defensive when anyone comes back and calls out. You go from one user to the next. I have done nothing to be ban for. Hopefully, HP is watching your comments and all the vague lofty insults.
I would prefer you not to address my comments.
Save your comments for those that lap them up... I have your number. I find the majority of your comments dripping with fluffy air, no substance, GLIBBNESS.I see you are stalking me now.
You prefer that I don't address your comments. But you keep launching personal attacks out of the blue after I've largely left this thread.
You used the words "you" and "your" 18 times in the single short post above. How very glib and personal.Stalking you? Please read this thread as I suggested. It is you that did the stalking. I have made every attempt to stay clear of you on any and all threads. You continually respond to comments I post where I have not addressed the comment to you. Which I would not have a problem with if you were not so insulting. Read this thread... I will not respond to any of your future posts. I suggest you do the same.
Although you and Heron are putting on a clinic in this thread, I was going to suggest that you guys just give up. Lets be honest, talking to them is like talking to an old knotheaded tree. However, now that it looks like you could actually make a couple of them cry, please go on.
Give me a break, unless you think they're going to cry of frustration because no matter how many times they've explained it, and no matter how simple they make it for her, she's going to simply disagree...
I am tossing in the towel. I appreciate your advice, why the heck didn't you suggest this 40 some pages back... LOL
No worries. I will respond only if you post more Fox News propaganda or launch more personal attacks.
Otherwise, I will ignore you.I have reported you to HP. You see I don't make idle vague threats, I own up to mine. Not sure why you feel you have the right to insult others? I have as much right to an opinion as you. And you certainly won't run me off, with your threating comments, and "silly" insults. I will continue to report you to HP if you are inappropriate. I have asked you not to address my comments. You do realize all your posts can be viewed? Hopefully, HP will have a look see...
Threats - a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.Lordy, still stalking.
You keep insisting I leave you alone, but you come back for more. Just calm down and move on.Really, I responded to your comment??? You need help, no really you do. Once again reported this comment.
LOL. Thanks, IB. I'm just getting peacefully detached at this point.
You're strong. I'd already be banned. LOL
The hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness of some people is astounding!
Judgement, robes, surety, burden to assume..."
This sounds so familiar. Lenin quote?Not sure about the quote, but I liked his music.
GAI am sure you do.
https://youtu.be/_JbLsYoL3ugNah, I was thinking of something more like this;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74DZHXhdcVQ
GA
Much of this discussion centers on the credibility of posters' sources of information. In fact, when information is offered, there are several here whose standard reply is to throw ridicule on the source of the information, rather than arguing the facts at issue.
This is really just another form of name-calling, a frequent argument of those who cannot argue their point on the basis of facts and reason--the equivalent of saying, "You wrong, because you're a pee-pee head." Here we find the "you're a pee-pee head" argument enjoys almost equal popularity with the "your source is a pee-pee head" argument.
Actual facts (not all, but many) are documented and available. Some of us here also familiar with the use of our faculties of reason--as codified in Western Civilization for over 2000 years--whereby facts may be examined and ordered according to a long-standardized method of arriving at truth (or the absence thereof).
So get off the "pee-pee head" arguments. Present documented facts. Present your reasoned argument.We have been.
Fact - over 1,000 (1,023 to be exact) federal prosecutors, experts in the field of criminality mind you, signed a letter stating that the conduct listed in the Mueller Report, pertaining to the obstruction of justice issue, would have been more than enough to indict another person, had they not been president.
From the letter:
'Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.
The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming.'
https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement … b7691c2aa1
Fact - Mueller, in the report, details why DOJ guidelines prevented him from indicting a sitting president. He also clearly wrote in there that holding a president accountable was the job of Congress - not the Attorney General by the way - but of Congress.Oh, OK. Here's a "pee-pee head" argument.
1. Mueller delivered 37 indictments. Yes or no?
2. The Clinton campaign paid an American firm for information about the Trump campaign. Yes or no?
3. More than 1,000 former federal prosecutors (per Valeant) said that Trump obstructed justice. Yes or no?
You simply need to answer yes or no to each question.I have better questions
1. Were any of the indictments provided by Mueller against the Trump Campaign? Did any of them involve obstruction of justice or collusion? Were they for anything more than process crimes?
2. Did the Clinton Campaign pay for information from an American Firm that originated from a foreign source?
3. Out of the many federal prosecutors who say President Donald Trump obstructed justice, were any of them the 18 prosecutors who worked directly for Mueller and had access to all of the information gathered by the investigation during its two years? Are these former prosecutors basing their opinion on nothing but what was released to the public as they did NOT have access to all of the documents provided during the two years of the Mueller investigation?
You simply need to answer yes or no to each question.1A.) Yes, Cohen for Campaign Finance Felonies where he named Trump as a co-conspirator.
1B.) Mueller lists the ten instances of obstruction of justice, but goes into painstaking detail about how DOJ guidelines prohibited him from indicting Trump due to him being sitting president. So, that's not a yes or no type of question because an indictment was not a possibility for one of the crimes you listed and the other wasn't a crime as the actual crime would have been conspiracy.
1C.) Yes, as I stated with the Cohen charges, those directly affected the outcome of the election as he illegally suppressed information relative to the outcome and went to jail for it.
2.) Yes, and doing that is legal, according to a general counsel for the FEC and done by many campaigns, so not sure why it's an issue for you.
3A.) No, for the same reason Mueller stated that he would not render an opinion on charges, but just lay out the evidence for CONGRESS to evaluate since it is the president.
3B.) Yes, and the fact that they can conclude that there's more than enough to charge him BEFORE seeing the truly damning material should be even more of a concern.1. If you can provide a legal document that was filed with a court that listed President Donald Trump as a co-conspirator, I will be impressed. NOT a link to an article, a link to public record from a court filing of a legal document listing the president as a co-conspirator.
2. So you do admit, based on your "yes" answer that Hillary Clinton's campaign paid for the Steele dossier.
3. So, your "yes" answer establishes that the prosecutors who had seen all of the investigative materials during two years of the Mueller investigation did not believe it provided sufficient evidence for Mueller to render an opinion.1. No problem. Here is the sentencing memo where it is mentioned:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/07/politics … index.html
As well as the article that explains the memo's conclusions:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story … tor-222938
2. Yes, a law firm representing her campaign legally paid an American company to do research that ended up producing the dossier.
3. No, not what I am saying at all. Because the DOJ guideline prevented Mueller from indicting Trump, he refrained from rendering an opinion on the obstruction of justice charges, leaving it to Congress to do so. The 1,000 former federal prosecutors who saw that section of the report say it's clear he broke the law.I am always so impressed by your efforts.
1. Okay, I think you know who this memo concerns. It is stated in the first page.
It says United States v. Michael Cohen.
If President Donald Trump was listed in this particular memo as a co-conspirator, his name would also be on the first page. A section of the memo would cover the co-conspirator and the reasons he has been listed as such. That was not done in this memo. Look at the table of contents.
2. So, then we have established whether directly or indirectly, the Hillary Clinton Campaign and the DNC paid for the fake dossier created by Christopher Steele.
3. The DOJ guidelines did not prevent Mueller from rendering an opinion on the findings of the investigation. It could also be suggested Mueller did not provide an opinion because the findings in the report did not support his conclusion.
It doesn't matter if 10,000 former prosecutors say anyone broke the law. Unless they have been involved in the investigation and creating the report, they are like fans in the stands complaining how a baseball team is being managed. Their opinion really means nothing in the scheme of things.1. Ok, so you're holding Clinton responsible for her law firm spending her money on legal opposition research, but not Trump when his counsel illegally spends his money on campaign finance violations, even with audio tape of Trump ordering Cohen to do it. Glaring hypocrisy, but the GOP is known for that so whatever.
And Trump was named in the memo as Individual-1. Read more than the table of contents and you might realize this. Denying it is just plain lying at this point, it's widely recognized. But, again, lying is the GOP thing these days.
2. Yeah, so? It was something that was legal and done by many campaigns. There's nothing wrong with paying an American company to do opposition research. The Mueller Report even mentions that Cohen suppressed a video recording of Trump, which could have likely been the infamous pee-pee tape.
3. Oh? Why? Because Barr said so after the fact? Mueller clearly operated under the premise that they did. How do I know this? Because he spelled it out so even a third grader could understand it and reiterated it in his press conference. But, apparently, it was too hard for Trump supporters to understand.
And then you go on to provide another conspiracy theory with no proof.
So those fans see someone hit a baseball. You're saying they are not qualified to determine if it was a hit unless they were the pitcher or batter? Yeah, that makes sense. Horrible analogy to flawed logic.You are not good on details and struggle to comprehend the concept of what is and is not a fact.
1. "his counsel illegally spends his money on campaign finance violations, even with audio tape of Trump ordering Cohen to do it" These are false assumptions not based in fact. If you read the legal memo you provided and scan it for the word Donald Trump his name is mentioned zero times. Again, you are assuming Individual-1 is President Donald Trump.
2. Cohen suppressed a video recording of Trump, which "could have" likely been the infamous pee-pee tape. Again, no facts just blatant assumptions.
3. More assumptions on your part.
A fan sitting in the stands has no idea what is going on behind the scenes to manage the team. It is easy to look at what happens in public and make assumptions. With you, you can assume, this is a perfect analogy.
Even the author Christopher Steele has admitted the dossier he produced was unverified.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/16/politics … index.html
I think it is safe to assume the Hillary Clinton Campaign, the DNC as well as the FBI have the resources to verify the claims made in such a document. It was not done, but a false and unverified dossier was used as a reason to get a FISA warrant against someone running for president.
You can draw your own conclusion, but these are facts.The fact that you deny Trump is Individual-1 tells everyone how in denial you are. It's a widely accepted fact, even among conservatives.
Even if the tape wasn't the infamous pee-pee tape, the existence of a tape that needed suppression in Russia certainly lends weight to the fact that the Russians likely have something to hold over the head of the US president.
Mueller writing in his report and being specific in his press conference are not assumptions. Those are indisputable except to those that live in Trump's fantasy reality, as you clearly do.
Yes, the dossier was used to get a FISA warrant on Carter Page, who was not running for president. Carter Page, who was no longer with the campaign when the FISA warrant was granted. Carter Page, who had previously been recruited by the Russians and who traveled to Russian and met with high ranking Russians while working for the Trump Campaign. After the Russians had broken US law by hacking the DNC. I find it treasonous to think we wouldn't want to put someone in that scenario under surveillance."It's a widely accepted fact"...accepting an assumption as fact does not make it a fact. It makes it an assumption people WANT to be a fact but is not.
"Russians likely have something to hold over the head of the US president" "Likely"...this again is an assumption an not a fact.
"indisputable" No, they are all open to interpretation.
"Carter Page, who was no longer with the campaign when the FISA warrant was granted."
So, why would the FBI, with its vast resources use an unverified false dossier for such a FISA warrant without first vetting it? Why did FISA warrant application not state the dossier was not verified and part of a political campaign?
"the FBI has an obligation to certify to the court before it approves FISA warrants that its evidence is verified, and to alert the judges to any flaws in its evidence or information that suggest the target might be innocent."
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/41990 … abuses-yet- Your link says, "According to sources" Isn't that simply opinion which you don't accept here, but do on a link which you agree with?
Is that a yes or no, Mike? And any day you ignore a question is a good day...for me that is.
And by the way, does wishing someone a good day really work when they ask you a question you don't want to answer? I ask his because several times you done the same when queried about your claims or opinions.
I mean seriously, Mike? "Perhaps if I wish Randy a nice day he'll forget he asked me a question I don't wish to answer".I wish Randy a good day because I don't think he can really provide an intellectual argument on the topic. He has a history of providing nothing beyond snarky comments. Maybe I should say "Bless Your Heart."
I really don't care what excuse you use, Mike. You have a habit of avoiding questions you want to avoid answering, plain and simple. And yes, you seem to believe you are intellectually superior in your arguments. Where did you get that idea? I know, "Bless your heart, Randy."
You're true to form, Mike. Get in a bind and slink away....
But you do indeed need to make it a little less transparent if you want people to actually believe you. Have a nice flounce...Is it? Apparently you realize you're better off posting your silly memes than actually getting into an altercation you cannot win. Good idea!
Go ahead then, make the case who else Individual-1 might be. Start with Obama or Clinton, that's where you far-right skeptics tend to assign blame.
True on the video, until they can produce it, there is only sworn testimony to prove that a conversation took place confirming the suppression of the video. I have to concede that it is only a possibility that it exists. But, based on that testimony of Trump's 'fixer', it's something worthy of investigating unless you don't care about national security.
In regards to Mueller, I could tell you that blood is red and you would argue it's blue because Barr told you so. You see this kind of stuff in cults and isn't really worth arguing.
The dossier was not the only piece of evidence used to get the FISA warrant. So why do you think that it was? And if you read the Democratic rebuttal to Devin Nunes' letter on the matter, you would be able to see that the political nature of the dossier was disclosed to the courts, as well as the timeline of the FISA warrant being granted on someone not with the campaign a few weeks to the actual election. Hardly 'spying on the campaign' as your side likes to falsely claim. So, you again come here and spew false information about the dossier.
https://twitter.com/EllenLWeintraub/sta … llegal-fbi
Perhaps this will help solve the question on the problem of seeking oposition research from a foreign country.
It much appears one can not seek or pay for oposition reserch from any foreign country.I got this guys...
And I would rebut that by saying the Clinton campaign and DNC sought opposition research from an American company. That company contracted Steele.
Currently, campaigns can contract with foreign individuals and firms to do work. The allegation that this is wrong is completely baseless. And what makes this allegation surreal is: Guess who hired a foreign firm to do important data analysis in 2016? Donald Trump! Cambridge Analytica was British. If Clinton using Steele was a scandal, then so was Trump using Cambridge. The fact that Steele was doing oppo research, which admittedly can be made to sound seamy on propaganda television, is neither here nor there legally.
And again, that work was legal. You know who said so? House Republicans! Yes—the House intel committee issued a report in March 2018, when the House was under GOP control, that included these words: “Under current federal election law, foreigners are prohibited from making contributions or donations in connection with any campaign in the United States. However, it is not illegal to contract with a foreign person or foreign entity for services, including conducting opposition research on a U.S. campaign, so long as the service was paid for at the market rate.”
Mike (and Blue Heron), if you are posting here again, are you going to answer my three yes or no questions?
No. Why? They are designed to only show a slim view of the issue rather than looking at the entire picture.
Are you saying you can't even admit that Mueller handed out 37 indictments?
What I object to is the "You simply need to answer yes or no to each question."
That being afraid of existing facts that don't support your position.
- I knew mike wouldn't answer the questions, even after Valiant answered his. Stick to your cute memes, Mike. Then you won't have answer any questions...
First, you have misquoted me. Second, I was not addressing you. I was addressing a bet I made with Randy.
Once again, Our bet was over Trump being indited for a crime. It did not include any other form of indictments. Hopefully, this makes it clearer for you? Not sure why you misquote me? I guess you hope no one will read my actual post?
I never disputed how the money was funneled through a law firm. Just never did.
I also did not dispute the 1000 prosecutors signing a letter.
I did say I have never been able to find or see the letter or have any real verification of the letter.
Please do not imply I said otherwise. You're deflecting once again. Adding misquotes, and I don't appreciate it.
All this "tree" talk prompted a recollection. Have you ever seen those yard decor kits that include eyes, nose, mouth, and ears, (that look like tree bark), to put a face on a tree?
Maybe we should adopt a forum mascot. I vote for the tree.
GAHad some friends who live about 100 miles away and we visited them often. They had a very nice mobile home on the property we stayed in frequently, surrounded by black walnut trees. The wife of the couple claimed to be some sort of modern witch--she's harmless as far as I know- who had every tree decorated with these faces.
You always felt they were looking at you when outside...I gotta get some. My property has several trees in front of the house. Maybe a couple of tree faces and one of those bear hugger kits too.
I can just see the neighborhood kids riding by on their bikes at dusk.
GA
I can get behind tree photos. Here is one I came across this weekend.
Promisem, I was able to find your three questions, though with some difficulty, as they were a good ways upthread.
1. Mueller delivered 37 indictments. Yes or no?
Yes. The VAST majority of these indictments were of Russian nationals or Russian companies (26 Russian nationals, three Russian companies)--individuals and entities that Mueller felt confident he would never have present evidence against in a court of law. Pure grandstanding. When one of these companies (Concord Management) decided to actually appear in court to answer the, Mueller tried to forestall actually proceeding against them (since he had no evidence).
Others who were indicted (Manafort and Gates) were indicted for past shady dealings unconnected with Trump.
Several others were indicted for "process" crimes, mostly arguably bogus.
Michael Cohen was indicted for a bunch of past dodgy financial dealings, mostly unrelated to Trump--except for one campaign finance violation.
There are a couple of others I don't remember hearing anything about, such as Richard Pinedo, who pleaded guilty to identity theft in connection with Russian indictments. (I have no idea what that was about.)
They are all pretty much horseshit in terms of actual evidence (in the case of the Russian indictments) or having much of anything to do with Trump
2. The Clinton campaign paid an American firm for information about the Trump campaign. Yes or no?
Yes, the Clinton campaign colluded with Russians. They laundered this through a domestic agent. So.... Colluding with foreign agents is okay if you pay a domestic agent to do it for you?
3. More than 1,000 former federal prosecutors (per Valeant) said that Trump obstructed justice. Yes or no?
Yes. So? If you are bedazzled by the statements of lawyers, I'd say you haven't been around lawyers very much. Lying is pretty much their job description.You did not follow the Promisem question rule of "You simply need to answer yes or no to each question."
1. At least you can admit what no one else on your side will admit.
2. "The Clinton campaign paid an American firm for information about the Trump campaign."
"Yes, the Clinton campaign colluded with Russians."
How is paying an American firm for campaign information, which the Trump campaign also did, colluding with Russians?
If that is your logic, it means the Trump campaign also colluded with Russians simply by paying an American firm for campaign information.
3. I have been around many lawyers, judges and prosecutors throughout most of my life. Some were good and some bad. The credibility of 1,000+ prosecutors and a former FBI director carry more weight than one individual's word.
Thanks for having the honesty and intellectual integrity to answer the questions yes or no.
Phoenix, much of the problem here is that our liberal posters have never been trained to think and reason and hence continually put forth logical fallacies and believe they have made an argument. I'm not saying they CAN'T think; I think they probably could if they would exert themselves.
The most common logical fallacy they present is "the appeal to authority"--usually in connection with media: "You must believe CNN or whomever, because they are the government-inspected, government-approved source." The continual name-calling of "unapproved" media falls under the heading of the "ad hominem" fallacy.
Then you have the "1000 attorneys say" bullshit. It is first of all an "appeal to authority," perhaps, risibly, on the theory that somebody considers attorneys to be authority figures. As for the citation of large numbers of believers as proof of the veracity of something, I don't know if this is a formally recognized logical fallacy or not. Perhaps the ancients didn't cover it because they figured nobody was that stupid.
News flash: Just because 1000 people say something, this does not make it true. (Especially 1000 attorneys.) There are probably more than a thousand people who believe they have sighted Elvis.Since the opinion of the professionals in the area we're discussing obviously means nothing to you, I suggest going to your local plumber for your next colonoscopy. Because, hey, who needs to rely on the experts in the field when any person in authority would seem to do the trick.
I do love conservative logic. It makes a world of sense.It's not conservative logic. They are not real conservatives, any more than Trump is.
Now that would be a good one Randy, except, opioid addiction strikes all levels of society - not just the morons.
GA
Argumentum ad populum or maybe communal reinforcement, considering todays media behavior training.
Just as an example, of an appeal to authority when it suits them ; they dont like the results of the Mueller report and reject it. Another time, it's the gospel, but only if there some specific detail in the report they agree with.Who says you "must believe CNN"? Real logic requires facts to draw a conclusion.
What does it say about the lofty intellectual skills of Trump supporters when they simply smear everyone who doesn't love Trump as liberals and CNN watchers?
Pretenses of intellect are not the same as actual logic and objectivity.
Ergo est horsepoopum.Have you been trained to think, Sharon? Where were you trained?
Promisem, I see you have moved on to the "straw man" argument. I don't know whether to believe that you have researched logical fallacies and are trying to commit them all, or if it just comes naturally to you.
Blueheron, I see you are changing the subject again to hide astonishing examples of pseudo intellectualism, i.e.:
If the reply uses your own quotes in direct response to your own statements, it's hardly a straw man argument.
Please research and understand such terms before using them. And please stay on point.
Vos nescitis quidquam de inductionem et ratiocinationem tractatur sedantur.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has agreed to testify before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees on July 17 after they subpoenaed the special counsel Tuesday, according to the committees' chairmen, Reps. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and Adam Schiff, D-Calif.
It's about time, IB! I'm weary of congress pussyfooting around with Trump.
This is wonderful. In my opiniion, it may result in more facts about the report. It is only fair that we hear from Mueller, we the people hird him...
Several here have maintained that Mueller's indictments of Russians are somehow "proof" that the Kremlin engaged in "sweeping and systematic" meddling in the 2016 US election. And I have repeatedly pointed out that Mueller's indictments were mere PR, since he felt assured that he would never have to confront the accused in court--there being no way to compel Russian nationalists to appear.
However, Mueller's office was caught off guard when some of the Russians actually showed up in US court to defend themselves (Concord Management LLC). Mueller accused Concord Management and Consulting, LLC of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social media in order to sow discord among American voters. Concord was also accused of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the 2016 US election.
However, when Concord responded to the summons and appeared in court, Mueller moved to have the case thrown out on the grounds that the defendants were not "properly served." The court rejected this absurd motion, observing that the defendants were present. Mueller was thus put in the wholly unexpected and uncomfortable position of having to present some evidence of some kind to back up his indictment.
So.... The case has gone to court and a ruling was issued on May 28, but only unsealed on July 1, although the media has been largely silent about it.
Judge Dabney L. Friedrich ruled this week that the Special Counsel's indictment of a Russian troll farm "does not link the defendants to the Russian government."
Judge Friedrich writes "It is significant and prejudicial that the government itself drew a link between these defendants and the Russian government," adding "In short, the Court concludes that the government violated Rule 57.7 by making or authorizing the release of public statements that linked the defendants' alleged activities to the Russian government..."
Yet the special counsel’s much-publicized final report claims to have “established” and “confirmed” Russian government activities based in part on the indictment against Concord, which is a breach of prosecutorial rules, Friedrich said.
For example, Mueller’s report says that Concord CEO Yevgeny Prigozhin “is widely reported to have ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.” That’s an assertion, not evidence.
So now we have a court ruling making it clear that Mueller's mouth wrote a check his ass couldn't cash.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07- … n-meddlingSo who were the Russians working for? Other than Putin, I mean? I've got it....Richard Steele!
Yeah, zerohedge is a real source of info for the Trumpsters.Oh, so why is the case continuing? Why? Because there is plenty of evidence of guilt in there.
WASHINGTON (CN) – Though critical of newly released information not contained in the indictment, a federal judge said she will not impose sanctions in the criminal case over 2016 election meddling by Russia.
U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich unsealed her July 1 ruling on Monday night, agreeing with attorneys for Concord Management and Consulting that the special counsel Robert Mueller’s mentions of the case in his long-awaited report could unfairly prejudice a jury.
Owned by Russian oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin, Concord is the only defendant named in a February 2018 indictment to appear in court. The company will go to trial in Washington on charges that it funded the Internet Research Agency’s campaign of online trolls in support of President Donald Trump’s election — allegations that Mueller expanded upon in the expansive report he turned over earlier this year to Attorney General William Barr.
For defense attorney Eric Dubelier with Reed Smith, the twin actions of Mueller’s report and Barr’s press conference about it served as “a sword to prejudice Concord, and a shield to hide discovery.”
Tension between the parties, particularly over the ethics of discovery, has long dominated the case: Concord’s attorneys are barred by a protective order from sharing information with the company’s officers, or employees in Russia. Prosecutors argue that the order is crucial to national security.
Though Friedrich said she agreed that Muller and Barr’s statements crossed the line, she found neither sanctions or an order of contempt were warranted since the officials had not acted in bad faith.
“The court remains confident that any prejudice can and will be cured through the passage of time, voir dire, and jury instructions,” the opinion states.
Rule 57.7 prohibits lawyers from expressing opinion that would prejudice a case, but Friedrich emphasized that “a violation of a standing court rule does not involve the same affront to the court’s authority as would a violation of a specific court order directing a party to take or refrain from a particular action.”
So, the judge basically said in her ruling that Mueller and Barr should not have gone public with information about Concord, but that neither did so to maliciously hurt Concord's case.
That's hardly an absolution of the Russians. But you keep defending them anyway, comrade.
Link to the actual court order: https://www.lawfareblog.com/government- … ourt-finds"Several here have maintained that Mueller's indictments of Russians are somehow "proof" that the Kremlin engaged in "sweeping and systematic" meddling in the 2016 US election."
"Judge Dabney L. Friedrich ruled this week that the Special Counsel's indictment of a Russian troll farm "does not link the defendants to the Russian government.""
"Yet the special counsel’s much-publicized final report claims to have “established” and “confirmed” Russian government activities based in part on the indictment against Concord, which is a breach of prosecutorial rules, Friedrich said. "
Are you glossing over the Russian government part intentionally, changing it to random Russian citizens instead, or did you miss that part of the ruling?Not at all. The ruling pertains to making public statements pertaining to the conspiracy between Concord and the Russian government. It's clear on page 4 of the link to the actual ruling that I posted in my reply, something I'm pretty sure you failed to read because you're too lazy to do the work before making idiotic comments.
The ruling DOES not absolve them of guilt. It simply asks Mueller and Barr to refrain from speaking about the connection between Concord and the Russian government in public as it may prejudice the jury that will hear the case.
What Blueheron claims, that Mueller cannot prove his case, is patently false."Judge Dabney L. Friedrich ruled this week that the Special Counsel's indictment of a Russian troll farm "does not link the defendants to the Russian government."
This quotation is false then? The judge's ruling was that the company has not been shown to have a link to the Russian government? I certainly don't see anything there about a gag order of any kind (not even a mild censure) - just that the company has not been proven to be linked to the government. Which is exactly what blueheron said.If you go to the actual ruling, on page 6, '...does not link defendants to the Russian government.' But then the Zerohedge article leaves out a crucial next sentence: 'Save for a single allegation that Concord and Concord Catering had several "government contracts" (with no elaboration).'
So, when the conservative writers that Blueheron reads apply only half the argument, they can make it sound oh so innocent. It's perhaps why you might want to go straight to the source for the truthful information.Yet you're claiming that the report proves the Russian government was involved...because the company allegedly had at least one contract of some kind (unknown) with the government. Yes, it can be made to sound oh so guilty when in fact there is zero evidence to date that the government was involved at all.
Sounds to me like blueheron was correct; there is no evidence, from Mueller, that Russia was implicated here. Innocence has not been proven, but we require proof of guilt rather than innocence for very good reasons.Zero evidence to people like you who rely on one partial single statement and do not take all the evidence into account that was presented by Mueller, the Senate report on election meddling, and the intelligence services of the United States that has been made public in the last two years. Go back to your information free-vacuum where you make your case by ignoring all the public information that exists and has confirmed what was done during the 2016 election.
Yes, I'll depend on the word of the judge that examined the case and ruled no connection found to the government. Blue Heron was correct; it is the proper way to go rather than decide that what you want just has to be true because you want it so badly.
You keep your opinion, based on what you would like to see and ignoring the ruling of the judge.If you depended on the word of the judge, you would have read the ruling to know that what Blueheron wrote was incorrect. What her ruling stated was that Mueller's and Barr's statements that there was clear a connection might prejudice the jury and they should refrain from making any more positive statements.
Tell me why you and Blueheron are defending the Russians in this again? Do you hate your country that much?
Excellent Response.
I would like to add that if they did go to trial, under the rules of discovery, Mueller would have to provide his information to the accused Russians in this case. Mueller's actions show me he did not have enough evidence to convict. I'm sure he never felt the Russian should have such information for their defense. I will go further and believe he was shocked when they showed up in court and wanted their day in court to prove their innocence.
That's precisely the point: Neither Mueller, the Senate report, nor the intelligence services have ever presented any evidence, but have merely made allegations.
The Mueller report merely claimed at the outset that there was Russian interference in the election, without presenting any evidence--and, indeed, without even conducting any investigation to establish such claims. The DNC server has never been examined by the FBI or any other LE agency (after the DNC refused to allow such any examination of it, forensic or otherwise). It is perhaps worthwhile to point out that forensic examination of the DNC server would be THE key evidence to be provided with regard to claims of Russian interference. Neither did Mueller interview William Binney and others whose testimony might have proved to be enlightening on this matter.
In other words, Mueller did not actually investigate or attempt to prove Russian interference in the election AT ALL--he merely made baseless assertions. And issued a number of indictments that he had no expectation of having to take to court.For a guy merely making claims, he sure did have a lot a specific information about how the hack was done:
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/18/muell … zona-hack/Knowing how the hack was done most definitely does NOT indicate that the government had a hand in it. This seems to be something you don't want to acknowledge but it remains true nonetheless. There is no proof from Mueller of Russian government interference in this case.
I suppose we'll hear it from the horses mouth in a few weeks when Mueller testifies before congress. I really do not believe Mueller made false allegations as to the Russian interference. Why would he?
So even though he had the expertise to describe exactly how it was done, he could not have possibly come to an accurate conclusion of who did it? That's your brilliant argument?
And the intelligence services of our country, all 17 that determined it was the Russians, they are wrong too?
You really have disconnected yourself to reality, haven't you?Well, if he did the judge didn't buy it. Not sure what is so difficult to understand about that - your own link says the judge reported that there was no evidence to support a link to the government.
"And the intelligence services of our country, all 17 that determined it was the Russians, they are wrong too?"
Once more, for the umpteenth time, you are trying to claim that anything done by Russian citizens was done on orders from the Russian government. The conclusion does not follow.
Now, you can pretend you know there is more information that was presented to the judge and that it was obviously hidden from him before he made his ruling, or you can pretend that you know better than the judge, but until it is found and ruled on I'll stick with the judge's ruling - not your attempt to implicate a government just because you want to.
Valeant, I little to no doubt that the Russian government tries to affect our country every chance they get, with elections being a golden opportunity. Nor that most of the countries on earth do so. Not even that the US government tries to affect other countries to do what we feel is in our best interests every chance WE get.
But that is not proof that the Russian government did so and is proven in the Mueller report.First off, to display your lack of knowledge on this case, the judge is a woman. So you referencing the judge as a man was an awesome showing.
The Concord case charges them while the Mueller Report takes culpability one step further to include the Kremlin. An honest question, do you believe members of companies with ties to Putin would act without his authorization in an action that attacks the United States, knowing the type of dictator he is? It's why everyone can come to a clear conclusion that Concord acted at his direction.
What this ruling by this judge says is that Mueller and Barr need to halt public statements linking the two. While they both seem to have concluded that Concord and IRA were acting on behalf of the Kremlin, that connection was not presented in the indictment and public statements prejudice the case. That's a far cry from there is no evidence out there that they weren't directed by the Kremlin."The Concord case charges them while the Mueller Report takes culpability one step further to include the Kremlin. "
The judge disagrees with you. What makes you right and the judge wrong? So far all you've offered is that every Russian citizen is a government agent, and a question of "why did they do what they did if they have a government contract for something or other (your "ties to Putin" degrades to this)? Questions are proof of nothing but ignorance, and that I'm ignorant of the answer (Why?) proves exactly nothing. I can speculate - the DNC hired it, Clinton hired it, Nigerians held their first-born in durance vile - but those speculation mean no more than your own.
"While they both seem to have concluded that Concord and IRA were acting on behalf of the Kremlin, that connection was not presented in the indictment. and public statements prejudice the case. That's a far cry from there is no evidence out there that they weren't directed by the Kremlin. "
This is different from "there is no evidence out there" how? Because you conclude the two seem to have concluded, without seeing evidence, that it is true?
The reasoning is flawed, deeply so. You haven't seen the evidence, the judge didn't see the evidence, there is no conviction...yet you assume that because Russian citizens did the foul deed the government was behind it. You recognize the lack of evidence but continue to declare guilt. You are not stupid, you are not ignorant; you have to recognize the flaws in the reasoning - it is no different than the conclusion that every cop is a racist and every (white) murderer of a (black) man is as well.And yet, here is a public document from the United States House of Representatives that clearly backs up the conclusions I made and that you fail to believe:
https://intelligence.house.gov/social-media-content/
What the judge claims, is that this was not offered in the indictment, so Mueller and Barr need to not publicly talk about it further. Like always, you seem to fail to understand what's really being said.
Related Discussions
- 29
Our President, the Liar
by Allen Donald 6 years ago
Here's a recent tweet from President Trump:"Remember, Michael Cohen only became a RAT after the FBI did something that was absolutely unthinkable and unheard of until the witch hunt was illegally started. They BROKE INTO AN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE!"So, none of that is true. The investigation is...
- 93
It is time for Mueller to put up or end the investigation into Trump
by Jack Lee 7 years ago
The Russian collusion has dominated the main street media for over a year now.What is going on? It is time for the special counsel Mueller to wrap things up.Either he has evident or not. No more fishing expeditions.This investigation has taken its course. Time to end it and move on... ...
- 89
Paul Manafort Indictment Not For Collusion
by ga anderson 7 years ago
This should be a hot one. The much anticipated Special Counsel's first indictments have been unsealed - and they aren't about Pres. Trump and Russian election collusion, (yet???)But like a lyric from a song; 'whoo eee, whoo eee babyyy...' It sure paints an ugly picture. And one that seems to be a...
- 6159
Did Trump Really Try To Implement a Coup?
by Scott Belford 9 months ago
All of the available evidence seems to say so.Here is a workable definition of a coups d'état as an "organized effort to effect sudden and irregular (e.g., illegal or extra-legal) removal of the incumbent executive authority of a national government, or to displace the authority of the highest...
- 39
Mueller First Public Statement
by IslandBites 6 years ago
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is set to make a statement about his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.The Justice Department announced Mueller's would make a statement on Wednesday morning--his first in more than two years since he was appointed as special counsel. ...
- 10
Mueller described Trump's exercise of power as "corrupt"
by Don W 6 years ago
I'm continuing to digest parts of the Mueller report. In one section Mueller says that Trump's exercise of power is "corrupt". "The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional...