Trump's Russia Connections

[TSherbs]

That's not the question though.

It's part of it: that going back to before and then during the 2016 election, Putin has been executing a multi-prong plan to influence American politics and nudge the election such that the figure whom he perceived to be more open to influence (Trump) and to broker a kind of deal on Ukraine with Trump's influence-pedaling operative (Manafort), etc, etc. The election-influencing is part of the thesis. It's not final proof, nor is it irrelevant. And, as all of us acknowledge now, it has been established as fact.

I'm not going to entertain any deflections or six degrees of Donald Trump. Revisit post #9, which was the first link in my response to Chip. He said there's a mountain of evidence, so there should be a lot more than one NYT article.

If you want to concede the Russia-Collusion thing was a hoax invented by Hillary and her campaign, we can talk about Manafort and all sorts of people who deal with other countries for profit (and include Hunter). We can talk about all sorts of Ukraine nonsense (and include Hunter). We can talk about other nations attempts to influence American politics, like China (and include Hunter). We can talk about people in a Presidential circle and potential compromised positions (and include Hunter).

Otherwise, I'm going to have to play the "whataboutism" card.

Why "must" you link these things?

To me, this is analogous to a discussion on the nutritiousness of beans, and your reply is that you won't discuss beans unless we also discuss beets, peas, and cabbage.

Why "must" you engage in this "whataboutism"? You say that you "have to' but I am asking you to explain why you feel that this is compulsory for your participation.

[TSherbs]

Not only this, but you are insisting that others actually agree and assent to your claim that HRC engineered a "hoax" of her own. I have never read a word about Trump's collusion nor Hilary's hoax, but I have relied on the results of the Mueller report (parts of which I have read) to come to the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence of "collusion" to support the claim. I don't rely on your claims or Chuck's or Chip's or HRC's to make my decision. Asking people to *accept* your assertions (off topic) as a requirement for for your good faith engagement on the topic just doesn't make sense to me. Which is why I keep asking about motive, to try to figure out why.

[Chuck Naill]

I have no claims, Ted. Let’s me be clear. Your trying to engage, in a nice way, a very difficult person who says they want good discussions. What they want is agreement. It’s all they want. He has followed the Trump path since 2015.

[TSherbs]

Back to the topic:

I also don't think that this case moves the needle at all in this discussion. This just looks like opportunist grift to me, that it could have been anyone's money that this guy would have funneled illegally. But maybe someone will make more of it at a later time. But that is how I see it now.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-opera...044820477.html

[Chip]

Snipes aside, I posted the Mueller Report.

Yes, somebody is delusional.

Indeed. Given the length limit on this forum, how did you post a 448-page report? The same way Trump declassified top secret documents?

Here's a summary:

The Mueller report, officially titled Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election, is the official report documenting the findings and conclusions of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 United States presidential election, allegations of conspiracy or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russia, and allegations of obstruction of justice. The report was submitted to Attorney General William Barr on March 22, 2019,[1] and a redacted version of the 448-page report was publicly released by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on April 18, 2019. It is divided into two volumes. The redactions from the report and its supporting material were placed under a temporary "protective assertion" of executive privilege by then-President Trump on May 8, 2019, preventing the material from being passed to Congress,[2] despite earlier reassurance by Barr that Trump would not exert privilege.[3]

The report concludes that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities".[4][5][6] Investigators had an incomplete picture of what happened due in part to some communications that were encrypted, deleted, or not saved, as well as testimony that was false, incomplete, or declined.[7][8][9] However, the report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion"[10][11][12] but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts.[13][14][15] It also identifies links between Trump campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government,[16] about which several persons connected to the campaign made false statements and obstructed investigations.[4] Mueller later stated that his investigation's conclusion on Russian interference "deserves the attention of every American".[17]

Volume II of the report addresses obstruction of justice. The investigation intentionally took an approach that could not result in a judgment that Trump committed a crime.[18][19][20] This decision was based on an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution,[21][22][23] and Mueller's belief that it would be unfair to accuse the president of a crime even without charging him because he would have no opportunity to clear his name in court; furthermore it would undermine Trump's ability to govern and preempt impeachment.[19][22][24][21][25] As such, the investigation "does not conclude that the President committed a crime"; however, "it also does not exonerate him",[26][27] with investigators not confident of Trump's innocence.[28][29][30][31] The report describes ten episodes where Trump may have obstructed justice while president and one before he was elected,[32][33] noting that he privately tried to "control the investigation".[34][35][36] The report further states that Congress can decide whether Trump obstructed justice and take action accordingly,[19][37][38] referencing impeachment.[39][40]

On March 24, 2019, Barr sent Congress a four-page letter detailing the report's conclusions. On March 27, Mueller privately wrote to Barr, stating that the March 24 Barr letter "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions" and that this led to "public confusion".[41] Barr declined Mueller's request to release the report's introduction and executive summaries ahead of the full report.[42] Also on March 24, Barr's letter stated that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded that the evidence was "not sufficient to establish" that Trump had obstructed justice.[43][44] On May 1, Barr testified that he "didn't exonerate" Trump on obstruction as "that's not what the Justice Department does"[45] and that neither he nor Rosenstein had reviewed the underlying evidence in the report.[46] In July 2019, Mueller testified to Congress that a president could be charged with crimes including obstruction of justice after the president left office.[47] In 2020, a federal judge decided to personally review the report's redactions to see if they were legitimate. The judge said Barr's "misleading" statements about the report's findings led him to suspect that Barr had tried to establish a "one-sided narrative" favorable to Trump.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report

[Chuck Naill]

@dneal or whoever you are, please drink the koolaid....LOL!!

[dneal]

Snipes aside, I posted the Mueller Report.

Yes, somebody is delusional.

Indeed. Given the length limit on this forum, how did you post a 448-page report? The same way Trump declassified top secret documents?

Here's a summary:

-snip-[/FONT]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report

You posted a wiki link.

If you look back at post #4, you'll see I linked the redacted report directly from the DOJ website. Here it is again (the pertinent portion). See those blue letters? That indicates a hyperlink. They're the ones that say "Mueller Report itself".

Maybe even we could look at the Mueller Report itself?

...the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities

[dneal]

Why "must" you link these things?

To me, this is analogous to a discussion on the nutritiousness of beans, and your reply is that you won't discuss beans unless we also discuss beets, peas, and cabbage.

Why "must" you engage in this "whataboutism"? You say that you "have to' but I am asking you to explain why you feel that this is compulsory for your participation.

What's with the air-quotes and word "must"? Is that word in the post you quoted? Why "must" you misrepresent my post, and include some analogy?

It is perfectly clear that I said I'm not going to entertain deflections or six-degrees of Donald Trump. In modern vernacular, that should be understood as a reference to six-degrees of Kevin Bacon, an amazing example of the six degrees of separation principle.

I'm not linking the other items. I am using them as an example of all sorts of things we can diverge to (including some important things that are strangely absent, with this constant fixation on Trump).

My use of the word "have" is a colloquial usage. I don't "have" to do anything here. It's pointing out the hypocrisy of one side's frequent use of "whataboutism" as it serves their disingenuous purposes.

Not only this, but you are insisting that others actually agree and assent to your claim that HRC engineered a "hoax" of her own. I have never read a word about Trump's collusion nor Hilary's hoax, but I have relied on the results of the Mueller report (parts of which I have read) to come to the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence of "collusion" to support the claim. I don't rely on your claims or Chuck's or Chip's or HRC's to make my decision. Asking people to *accept* your assertions (off topic) as a requirement for for your good faith engagement on the topic just doesn't make sense to me. Which is why I keep asking about motive, to try to figure out why.

I'm not insisting people agree with my claim, because it's not my claim. It's clearly demonstrated and a matter of record. You having not read about it proves nothing but a limited information stream. Feel free to google "Robby Mook testimony", and see what you get and if any of those sources are not-trashy enough for you to trust. Chip seems happy to throw out anything that threatens his echo-chamber. The Washington Post, of all things, was his latest victim. I'm still waiting on the verdict for CBS.

So let's try again to get this back on track. Post #9, referencing the two posts in a different thread that prompted this one:

Hillary's "Russian collusion" narrative, which prompted a 3-year, $30million investigation, which turned up essentially nothing. After the fact, we discovered the material prompting it was false and paid for by democrat operatives (i.e.: Steele Dossier).

This is false. If you don't know that, you're disregarding a mountain of evidence. I've posted numerous sources and links demonstrating that there was collusion. Several Trump henchmen have been convicted of lying about it. You pay no attention to anything that contradicts your delusions or undercuts your sense of superior judgement.

Chip clearly said it was false, underlined it for emphasis, and claimed there was a mountain of evidence. This thread curiously was created the following day. His evidence so far is a NYT article, a Salon piece, and a wiki link.

Anyone who has followed the Steel Dossier story understands Hillary paid for it, and seeded it. That is the origin of the Russia-collusion debacle, Mueller Report, and subsequent (and unsuccessful) impeachment. Anti-Trump biased employees in the DOJ/FBI were found to have told half-truths and outright lies to a FISA court (see DOJ IG report linked in post #4). Kevin Clinesmith pled guilty to fabricating evidence by doctoring an email submitted to the FISA court. The Mueller Report says the Trump Campaign did not conspire or collude with Russia in 2016 - which was the gist of the story. Since it's all false, and put forth by Hillary (see: Robby Mook); that qualifies as a hoax in my book.

Again, all that is a matter of legal record. Not some trumped-up story by the NYT we now know to be false.

So my questions, again, which are simple to answer:

Did Trump collude with Russia to win the 2016 election?

Did Hillary conspire to create a Trump/Russia collision hoax?

Did the NYT get a Pulitzer for claims that were proven false, by the Mueller report and Durham investigation (which is ongoing, but the evidence in the Sussman and Danchenko trials remains)?

Isn't it strange that none of you can acknowledge what is on the record? It's not a matter of pointing out bias (although it does that). It's not a matter of convincing you of my "claims". It's a matter that the echo-chamber is so tight, or personalities so petty; that none of you can even acknowledge three simple facts.

Kool-aide, indeed.

[Chuck Naill]

Russia was involved, period. It is a matter of record. Doesn't matter who agrees or disagrees.

[TSherbs]

As I said, I found the article in the OP worthy of consideration.

I'm otherwise done here, and moving on.

[dneal]

Russia was involved, period. It is a matter of record. Doesn't matter who agrees or disagrees.

Chuck, I agreed with that.

Now can you agree that Trump did not collude with Russia (which is also a matter of record)?

Can you agree that Hillary personally prompted the "Russia-Collusion" narrative/hoax (which is a matter of record)?

Can you agree that the NYT's reporting (that they won a Pulitzer for) regarding Trump/Russia collusion was, as a matter of record, incorrect?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

The Mueller report concluded that it could find no evidence of active collusion between Trump and the Russians with regard to influencing the election. However, there is clear evidence that Trump welcomed Russian interference, preferring a flawed election that was in his favour to a fair election that possibly wouldn't have been. In this manner Trump is in passive collusion with a foreign state trying to influence a domestic election.

However, the report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion"[10][11][12] but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts

[Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 1: "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion"]

[dneal]

The Mueller report concluded that it could find no evidence of active collusion between Trump and the Russians with regard to influencing the election. However, there is clear evidence that Trump welcomed Russian interference, preferring a flawed election that was in his favour to a fair election that possibly wouldn't have been. In this manner Trump is in passive collusion with a foreign state trying to influence a domestic election.

However, the report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion"[10][11][12] but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts

[Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 1: "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion"]

Yes, we agree Russia interfered.

Please see post 9, and post 51. You seem to have answered the first question that Trump and his campaign did not collude with Russia. Would you care to answer the other two?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

As an American are you happy to have had a president who got elected due (at least in part) to interference in the process by a foreign actor?

[dneal]

As an American are you happy to have had a president who got elected due (at least in part) to interference in the process by a foreign actor?

Not entertaining deflections. Thanks for playing.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

This is not a debate, it's a conversation. The question is pertinent and would provide some context.

Edit: There is no requirement to apply labels to justify your decision. If you don't want to answer that question then just say so. That's fine with me.

[dneal]

This is not a debate, it's a conversation. The question is pertinent and would provide some context.

Edit: There is no requirement to apply labels to justify your decision. If you don't want to answer that question then just say so. That's fine with me.

Did you answer my question (post 53)?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

No, because I don't have a definite answer - not having read enough into that side of things. From what I have read (so far), including some of the Mueller report and its summaries, is that there doesn't seem to be clear evidence that HRC started the Russiagate narrative, nor that it was a deliberate hoax. Do you have sources that say otherwise and which are generally accepted by both sides? Happy to read them if so. BTW, the Atlantic also ran a piece that concluded there was no hoax.

[dneal]

As mentioned before, news sources become "trashy" if they say what one doesn't want to believe - so I'll let people who are clearly competent at using an internet search function find a source they are confident in.

You will find right-leaning news sources cited in post #4. While they were posted to illustrate bias, and the inevitable arguing of credibility (although truth is discerned in the aggregate - a meta analysis of sorts); the rest of the key information is present in this thread. There is a link to the Department of Justice's Inspector General's investigation of the unethical actions of some in the FBI and DOJ. See post #4.

Some search criteria could be: Robby Mook* Testimony, for example; or Kevin Clinesmith. Steele Dossier, Michael Sussman trial or Igor Danchenko trial would be others. The issue is the testimony, although some will ignore the inconvenient facts in the testimony and attempt to deflect with the verdicts.

You're right, by the way, that this is not a debate. It is pointing out of matters of record that seemingly are insufficient to penetrate echo-chambers reinforced with Trump Derangement Syndrome. Demonstrating crystal clear examples of cognitive dissonance, some can't acknowledge simple facts. Not yarns spun by media, but proceedings, testimony, evidence and investigation results.

-edit-

*Robby Mook was Hillary's campaign manager. His testimony, under oath in federal court, was that Hillary authorized seeding the information in the Steel Dossier and Alfa Bank. There is no shortage of reporting on this.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

In the UK encouraging a crime is one of the inchoate offences punishable by law. Does the US have a similar law? Clearly Trump encouraged the committing of crimes - interference with an election, hacking online accounts and so on, not to mention the insurrection thing.