Public Service Announcement: Scope of Meuller's Inquiry

Mr Person · Feb 16, 2018

I keep seeing people enter threads that relate in some way to Mueller's investigation and ask where the collusion is. So I am going to provide the letter appointing Mueller, the relevant passages of the federal regulations governing a Special Counsel, and will at least note what the other provisions are generally about.

The scope of the investigation is far broader than just "collusion", and we should care about the results regardless of whether or not there ultimately is any collusion. Yes, America interfered in other countries' elections (well, and went a lot farther many times). But National Security trumps an appearance of hypocrisy, no? Regardless of where you stand politically, you should not be cool with a foreign power trying to influence our elections. You should not be cool with it even if the existence or scale of an effect could not be proven. How could it? There is no way to measure the sum total of information a voter internalized during a campaign season. And let's remember that although we aren't fighting the Cold War anymore, Russia is not necessarily our friend. It was even said that they were our "greatest political foe" back in 2012.

So let's stop trying to deflect by saying where's the collusion and let's stop taking asinine positions on something that we'd worry about at every other point in our history.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

You can read Roseinstein's letter appointing Mueller here:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...nt-Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.html

In part:

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. s. 600.4(a).

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

(d) Sections 600.4 through 600.10 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the special counsel.

28 C.F.R. s. 600.4(a):

(a) Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.

28. C.F.R. s. 600.6:

Subject to the limitations in the following paragraphs, the Special Counsel shall exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney. Except as provided in this part, the Special Counsel shall determine whether and to what extent to inform or consult with the Attorney General or others within the Department about the conduct of his or her duties and responsibilities.

Other provisions the appointment letter refers to:

28. C.F.R. s. 600.7 is about (a) following established practices, (b) independence from daily supervision but subject to various AG control, (c) being subject to disciplinary action for misconduct, (d) immunization from removal of office other than by the AG.

28. C.F.R. s. 600.8 is about access to DOJ resources and reporting reqs.

28. C.F.R. s. 600.9 is about the AG having to tell persons on the judiciary committees about various acts taken with regard to the Special Counsel, and about possible release of those reports

28. C.F.R. s. 600.10 "The regulations in this part are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or entity, in any matter, civil, criminal, or administrative."

_______________________________

capisce?

tres borrachos · Feb 16, 2018

Mr Person said:
I keep seeing people enter threads that relate in some way to Mueller's investigation and ask where the collusion is. So I am going to provide the letter appointing Mueller, the relevant passages of the federal regulations governing a Special Counsel, and will at least note what the other provisions are generally about.

The scope of the investigation is far broader than just "collusion", and we should care about the results regardless of whether or not there ultimately is any collusion. Yes, America interfered in other countries' elections (well, and went a lot farther many times). But National Security trumps an appearance of hypocrisy, no? Regardless of where you stand politically, you should not be cool with a foreign power trying to influence our elections. You should not be cool with it even if the existence or scale of an effect could not be proven. How could it? There is no way to measure the sum total of information a voter internalized during a campaign season. And let's remember that although we aren't fighting the Cold War anymore, Russia is not necessarily our friend. It was even said that they were our "greatest political foe" back in 2012.

So let's stop trying to deflect by saying where's the collusion and let's stop taking asinine positions on something that we'd worry about at every other point in our history.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

You can read Roseinstein's letter appointing Mueller here:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...nt-Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.html

In part:

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. s. 600.4(a).

<snipped for brevity>

capisce?

Yes, but the entire thing is a farce. It's only the Democrats being sore losers. It's a witch hunt. It's all fake news. It's actually looking into Hillary's emails, and Obama tapping wires willy nilly, and Bill Clinton on a tarmac, and what a rotten scoundrel James Comey is, and well, HILLARY!

I wonder if I missed any alt-right talking points from Trump Fan Nation.

Glen Contrarian · Feb 16, 2018

Mr Person said:
I keep seeing people enter threads that relate in some way to Mueller's investigation and ask where the collusion is. So I am going to provide the letter appointing Mueller, the relevant passages of the federal regulations governing a Special Counsel, and will at least note what the other provisions are generally about.

The scope of the investigation is far broader than just "collusion", and we should care about the results regardless of whether or not there ultimately is any collusion. Yes, America interfered in other countries' elections (well, and went a lot farther many times). But National Security trumps an appearance of hypocrisy, no? Regardless of where you stand politically, you should not be cool with a foreign power trying to influence our elections. You should not be cool with it even if the existence or scale of an effect could not be proven. How could it? There is no way to measure the sum total of information a voter internalized during a campaign season. And let's remember that although we aren't fighting the Cold War anymore, Russia is not necessarily our friend. It was even said that they were our "greatest political foe" back in 2012.

Concerning that bolded area - that's what I've been saying for months on end, but it seems that there's a lot of people who think that the possibility of having our government run by proxy from the Kremlin is preferable to any Democrat being elected to the White House.

Captain Adverse · Feb 16, 2018

Of course any red-blooded American would want to support an investigation into Russian interference in any aspect of our society and government processes.

....And yet, the issue most of us have isn't with an investigation into Russian interference in our election process. It never was.

It was the assertion that Trump was a knowing and willing part of a conspiracy involving the Russians.

That member's of his campaign team were working with the Russian's to insure his election by nefearious means, and that he was either aware, or was criminally ignorant; in either case not fit to serve as President.

That's been the narrative pushed by the Left almost from Day 1 of his election.

So thank you for the post...but it has little or no relation to opposition based on the assertions that President Trump actively colluded with the Russians in their actions.

Fletch · Feb 16, 2018

Captain Adverse said:
Of course any red-blooded American would want to support an investigation into Russian interference in any aspect of our society and government processes.

....And yet, the issue most of us have isn't with an investigation into Russian interference in our election process. It never was.

It was the assertion that Trump was a knowing and willing part of a conspiracy involving the Russians. That member's of his campaign team were working with the Russian's to insure his election by nefearious means, and that he was either aware, or was criminally ignorant and in either case not fit to serve as President.

That's been the narrative pushed by the Left almost from Day 1 of his election.

So thank you for the post...but it has little or no relation to why those of us opposed it based on assertions President Trump actively colluded with the Russians in their actions.

Exactly. I am glad Mueller has focused on Russian interference, but it has been the left who have relentlessly made this investigation about collusion with the Trump campaign.

Fletch · Feb 16, 2018

Glen Contrarian said:
Concerning that bolded area - that's what I've been saying for months on end, but it seems that there's a lot of people who think that the possibility of having our government run by proxy from the Kremlin is preferable to any Democrat being elected to the White House.

Not one person believes that.

HowardBThiname · Feb 16, 2018

Mr Person said:
I keep seeing people enter threads that relate in some way to Mueller's investigation and ask where the collusion is. So I am going to provide the letter appointing Mueller, the relevant passages of the federal regulations governing a Special Counsel, and will at least note what the other provisions are generally about.

Thank you for posting both your opinion and the parts of the letter and passages. I won't repost all of the letter and regulations since it'll take up all my word allowance, but I will repost the parts I'd like to understand.

The scope of the investigation is far broader than just "collusion", and we should care about the results regardless of whether or not there ultimately is any collusion. Yes, America interfered in other countries' elections (well, and went a lot farther many times). But National Security trumps an appearance of hypocrisy, no? Regardless of where you stand politically, you should not be cool with a foreign power trying to influence our elections. You should not be cool with it even if the existence or scale of an effect could not be proven. How could it? There is no way to measure the sum total of information a voter internalized during a campaign season. And let's remember that although we aren't fighting the Cold War anymore, Russia is not necessarily our friend. It was even said that they were our "greatest political foe" back in 2012.

I agree that foreign powers should not be interfering in our elections. As you say, our national security - plus the integrity of our electoral system - is at risk.

My concern is -- how far are we willing to go to stop a foreign power from interfering? Because, we can impose sanctions if we have proof that another nation was behind criminal activity, such as "hacking the DNC." But what about propaganda and helping candidates on our soil? In the election, we had a team of Australians and a member of Italian Parliament come to the US to campaign for Hillary.

To me, it appears that foreign nationals will stump for their favorite candidates -- with or without the candidate's approval or even knowledge. While we can certainly change election rules to include disallowing a candidate to seek campaigning help from a foreign power, can we actually stop those foreign nationals from speaking out, publishing, setting up websites, and dropping propaganda bombs on social media? I see no feasible way of stopping that.

So let's stop trying to deflect by saying where's the collusion and let's stop taking asinine positions on something that we'd worry about at every other point in our history.

Okay, so now I will repost the portion of the letter that applies to what I'm wondering about, and I will then respond to the above quote of yours -- I hope it doesn't become confusing.

Here's the reposted part:

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

So, when I read that -- the terms "links" and "coordination" immediately jump out at me. If such links and coordination are found to exist, I will understand if accusations of collusion follow. I also understand that other "unrelated crimes" will be charged (and some have been). And then, of course that Special Council can prosecute any federal crimes arising from the investigation.

My research previously has found (I could be wrong) that collusion, in and of itself, is not a crime, but that if the candidate received "something of value" that would violate election laws. Since I don't know the law, I can only depend on the legal opinions I read, and I read that it would hard to establish tangible value (without a clear link to someone in the Trump campaign paying for, or agreeing to trade political favors for, the release of the DNC emails).

We know (for almost a certainty) that Putin was messing around in our election, but what we don't know (if I'm right) is that the messing around (in the criminal part -- the DNC hacking crime) was coordinated with the Trump campaign.

The new Russian indictments not only cite Russian meddling to help Trump win, but other meddling, such as bolstering Bernie Sanders and actually organizing protest rallies against Trump early on. To me, that suggests that Russia was having a heyday from the get-go. It's obvious they wanted anybody but Hillary (to me).

My question is -- without those cited "links" and "coordination" what possible criminal charges could be levied that relate to collusion?

Vetplus40 · Feb 16, 2018

Fletch said:
Exactly. I am glad Mueller has focused on Russian interference, but it has been the left who have relentlessly made this investigation about collusion with the Trump campaign.

Sorry. Have to throw the "bull****" flag on this post.

Did the "Left" arrange a meeting with Don J. at Trump tower?
Did the "Left" force Trump to concoct a ridiculously phony story about Russian adoption?
The list goes on and on..and on....and on..etc.

Trump has screwed up so many times that Inspector Clouseau could follow his trail to Putin.

SonOfDaedalus · Feb 16, 2018

Captain Adverse said:
That member's of his campaign team were working with the Russian's to insure his election by nefearious means, and that he was either aware, or was criminally ignorant; in either case not fit to serve as President.

That's been the narrative pushed by the Left almost from Day 1 of his election.

But what about that meeting with Don Jr. and the Russians at Trump Tower? They lied about it. Don't you think it's pretty reasonable to find that meeting and all the other meetings they lied about suspicious?

SonOfDaedalus · Feb 16, 2018

Vetplus40 said:
Sorry. Have to throw the "bull****" flag on this post.

Did the "Left" arrange a meeting with Don J. at Trump tower?
Did the "Left" force Trump to concoct a ridiculously phony story about Russian adoption?
The list goes on and on..and on....and on..etc.

Trump has screwed up so many times that Inspector Clouseau could follow his trail to Putin.

...did the Left force Flynn to secretly meet with the Russian ambassador? Did they force Flynn to lie about it? Did Flynn lie or did Trump send him and then fire him to cover it up?

Vetplus40 · Feb 16, 2018

SonOfDaedalus said:
...did the Left force Flynn to secretly meet with the Russian ambassador? Did they force Flynn to lie about it? Did Flynn lie or did Trump send him and then fire him to cover it up?

Exactly why I put "on and on and on" in my previous response. There are so many "red flags" that it simply gets hilarious watching the "Trumpies" conveniently forget them or try to "explain them away".

Checkerboard Strangler · Feb 16, 2018

Folks, you better get used to the fact that Putin loves American social media. They can speak English but very few of us can speak Russian, so it's a lopsided problem, otherwise we would have armies of paid American trolls flooding VKONTAKTE, which is where real actual Russian people go instead of Facebook.

Putin LOVES our social media, and he's using it to his advantage.
I realize that is difficult for some people to believe, but it's really just common sense.

Mr Person · Feb 16, 2018

Captain Adverse said:
Of course any red-blooded American would want to support an investigation into Russian interference in any aspect of our society and government processes.

....And yet, the issue most of us have isn't with an investigation into Russian interference in our election process. It never was.

It was the assertion that Trump was a knowing and willing part of a conspiracy involving the Russians.

That member's of his campaign team were working with the Russian's to insure his election by nefearious means, and that he was either aware, or was criminally ignorant; in either case not fit to serve as President.

That's been the narrative pushed by the Left almost from Day 1 of his election.

So thank you for the post...but it has little or no relation to opposition based on the assertions that President Trump actively colluded with the Russians in their actions.

Fletch said:
Exactly. I am glad Mueller has focused on Russian interference, but it has been the left who have relentlessly made this investigation about
collusion with the Trump campaign.

Read the letter.

Read the statutes.

Consider that a person who might be "on the left" no more accepts the positions of everyone else "on the left" than you would accept positions of persons someone else proclaims are your "side".

Quotation mark abuse intended.

Glen Contrarian · Feb 17, 2018

Fletch said:
Not one person believes that.

Are you sure about that? Because there were hundreds of thousands of Republicans in Alabama who preferred to vote for an accused child molester just so they wouldn't send a Democrat to Congress...and yes, that's precisely what some of them said.

This is the inevitable fruit of the right-wing media, the conservative pundits, and the Religious Right ALL telling their listeners and viewers for the past thirty years that Democrats and liberals are all evil, all lazy, all no good, all untrustworthy, all liars, all communist or socialist or atheist...the list goes on. It's gotten to the point that many (if not most) on the Right simply cannot conceive that the other side might be right about anything at all.

dobieg · Feb 17, 2018

Captain Adverse said:
Of course any red-blooded American would want to support an investigation into Russian interference in any aspect of our society and government processes.

....And yet, the issue most of us have isn't with an investigation into Russian interference in our election process. It never was.

It was the assertion that Trump was a knowing and willing part of a conspiracy involving the Russians.

That member's of his campaign team were working with the Russian's to insure his election by nefearious means, and that he was either aware, or was criminally ignorant; in either case not fit to serve as President.

That's been the narrative pushed by the Left almost from Day 1 of his election.

So thank you for the post...but it has little or no relation to opposition based on the assertions that President Trump actively colluded with the Russians in their actions.

Thanks for saving me the trouble.

It really is ridiculous that you have to point this out.

Mr Person · Feb 17, 2018

Captain Adverse said:
Of course any red-blooded American would want to support an investigation into Russian interference in any aspect of our society and government processes.

....And yet, the issue most of us have isn't with an investigation into Russian interference in our election process. It never was.

It was the assertion that Trump was a knowing and willing part of a conspiracy involving the Russians.

That member's of his campaign team were working with the Russian's to insure his election by nefearious means, and that he was either aware, or was criminally ignorant; in either case not fit to serve as President.

That's been the narrative pushed by the Left almost from Day 1 of his election.

So thank you for the post...but it has little or no relation to opposition based on the assertions that President Trump actively colluded with the Russians in their actions.

dobieg said:
Thanks for saving me the trouble.

It really is ridiculous that you have to point this out.

Point this out?

He's lying.

Since day one, the conversation has always been about more than collusion. It's been about Russian attempts to interfere. It's about the various other criminal acts by people on team Trump, even if unconnected to Russia.

To the extent there has been any narrative, it has come from Trump's defenders. That stupidly dishonest narrative is actually what you and adverse are saying here (and no doubt said in every other thread on the subject). It is the repetition of the straight-up lie that "the left" was only talking about collusion.

Every time something bad about team Trump comes out, Trump tweets "no collusion" and his defenders dutifully flock to whatever threads they can find to repeat "no collusion".

Fletch · Feb 17, 2018

Glen Contrarian said:
Are you sure about that? Because there were hundreds of thousands of Republicans in Alabama who preferred to vote for an accused child molester just so they wouldn't send a Democrat to Congress...and yes, that's precisely what some of them said.

This is the inevitable fruit of the right-wing media, the conservative pundits, and the Religious Right ALL telling their listeners and viewers for the past thirty years that Democrats and liberals are all evil, all lazy, all no good, all untrustworthy, all liars, all communist or socialist or atheist...the list goes on. It's gotten to the point that many (if not most) on the Right simply cannot conceive that the other side might be right about anything at all.

And the left wing portrayal of people on the right is what? Lets see, racist, fascist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic. Did I leave anything out?

dobieg · Feb 17, 2018

Mr Person said:
Point this out?

He's lying.

Since day one, the conversation has always been about more than collusion. It's been about Russian attempts to interfere. It's about the various other criminal acts by people on team Trump, even if unconnected to Russia.

To the extent there has been any narrative, it has come from Trump's defenders. That stupidly dishonest narrative is actually what you and adverse are saying here (and no doubt said in every other thread on the subject). It is the repetition of the straight-up lie that "the left" was only talking about collusion.

Every time something bad about team Trump comes out, Trump tweets "no collusion" and his defenders dutifully flock to whatever threads they can find to repeat "no collusion".

No not really. To say Trump collusion wasn't the integral part of this whole narrative is just being dishonest. Now that it looks like the FBI is leaning towards exonerating Trump on that count, liberals and the media are trying to backtrack and say it was more about Russian interference and some goofy idea that Trump can no longer deny it as fake news when that was never what he was referring to in the first place.

It's silly and shows how petty and miserable your side is. Sad.

Mr Person · Feb 17, 2018

dobieg said:
No not really. To say Trump collusion wasn't the integral part of this whole narrative is just being dishonest. Now that it looks like the FBI is leaning towards exonerating Trump on that count, liberals and the media are trying to backtrack and say it was more about Russian interference and some goofy idea that Trump can no longer deny it as fake news when that was never what he was referring to in the first place. It's silly and shows how petty and miserable your side is. Sad.

Yes I know that's your narrative. The point was that what you are repeating is a stupid lie.

Stop lying.

Mr Person · Feb 17, 2018

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.0d602e897f6b

Russian interference via DNC hacks June 14, 2016

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...gns-point-to-russia-being-behind-the-dnc-hack

Blog post re: same from June 25, 2016

“The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations...The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process.”

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07...omeland-security-and-office-director-national

DHS, 10/7/16

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...sia-hacking-report-intelligence-agencies.html

(Office of National Intelligence Director)
1/6/17

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05...ian-hacking-effort-days-before-2016-election/
June 5, 2017, leaked NSA report.
DNI

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-in-the-2016-election/?utm_term=.40b14f32675a
7/6/17, Wapo Summarizes.

On and on and on. Russian interference has been in the news. Russian interference was discussed here as well. But every time, Trump defenders said either "fake news" and ignored it, or just said "no collusion".

Stop lying, people.

dobieg · Feb 17, 2018

Mr Person said:
Yes I know that's your narrative. The point was that what you are repeating is a stupid lie.

Stop lying.

You're being dishonest and you know it. What has been on the headlines in the papers and tv for the last year?

Now you're trying to say the hundreds of hours CNN and MSNBC have devoted to Trump/Russia collusion in breathless fashion along with the dozens of sensational headlines out of the NYTImes and Washington Post were simply a part of the equal story of Russian interference?

Sorry but you can't change the truth now because you're upset it looks like option #1 ain't going so hot.

Captain Adverse · Feb 17, 2018

dobieg said:
No not really. To say Trump collusion wasn't the integral part of this whole narrative is just being dishonest. Now that it looks like the FBI is leaning towards exonerating Trump on that count, liberals and the media are trying to backtrack and say it was more about Russian interference and some goofy idea that Trump can no longer deny it as fake news when that was never what he was referring to in the first place.

It's silly and shows how petty and miserable your side is. Sad.

dobieg said:
You're being dishonest and you know it. What has been on the headlines in the papers and tv for the last year?

Now you're trying to say the hundreds of hours CNN and MSNBC have devoted to Trump/Russia collusion in breathless fashion along with the dozens of sensational headlines out of the NYTImes and Washington Post were simply a part of the equal story of Russian interference?

Sorry but you can't change the truth now because you're upset it looks like option #1 ain't going so hot.

Thank you for both of these posts. Saves me from answering the "gentleman's" responses.

As you correctly point out, both in the MSN and echoed over and over in this Forum through most of last year...it's been all "Trump collusion" and "Trump obstruction of justice" to prevent proving he was involved.

Still, anyone who is willing to call someone a "Liar" simply for arguing against their narrative is not worth responding to at all IMO.

Mr Person · Feb 17, 2018

Captain Adverse said:
Thank you for both of these posts. Saves me from answering the "gentleman's" responses.

As you correctly point out, both in the MSN and echoed over and over in this Forum through most of last year...it's been all "Trump collusion" and "Trump obstruction of justice" to prevent proving he was involved.

Still, anyone who is willing to call someone a "Liar" simply for arguing against their narrative is not worth responding to at all IMO.

A gentlemen would respond to the person he is criticizing and he wouldn't mask a personal jab as a "compliment" in quotation marks.

This took me seconds to find after he made his claim:

Mr Person said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.0d602e897f6b

Russian interference via DNC hacks June 14, 2016

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...gns-point-to-russia-being-behind-the-dnc-hack

Blog post re: same from June 25, 2016

“The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations...The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process.”

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07...omeland-security-and-office-director-national

DHS, 10/7/16

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...sia-hacking-report-intelligence-agencies.html

(Office of National Intelligence Director)
1/6/17

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05...ian-hacking-effort-days-before-2016-election/
June 5, 2017, leaked NSA report.
DNI

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-in-the-2016-election/?utm_term=.40b14f32675a
7/6/17, Wapo Summarizes.

On and on and on. Russian interference has been in the news. Russian interference was discussed here as well. But every time, Trump defenders said either "fake news" and ignored it, or just said "no collusion".

Stop lying, people.

There is a ton more where that came from. That is not anywhere near the full amount.

Russian interference was regularly in the news and regularly talked about.

Stop lying.

dobieg · Feb 17, 2018

Mr Person said:
A gentlemen would respond to the person he is criticizing and he wouldn't mask a personal jab as a "compliment" in quotation marks.

This took me seconds to find after he made his claim:

There is a ton more where that came from. That is not anywhere near the full amount.

Russian interference was regularly in the news and regularly talked about.

Stop lying.

Comical.

It was simply a side note and a prelude for every news organisation to delve into Trump/Russian collusion. Why are you being so dishonest about this?

Mr Person · Feb 19, 2018

dobieg said:
Comical.

It was simply a side note and a prelude for every news organisation to delve into Trump/Russian collusion. Why are you being so dishonest about this?

Oh, I'm not the one who is posting lies. It's a real shame some people require the narrative that it was only about collusion in order to make their position on this coherent to themselves. It just isn't true.

:shrug:

Public Service Announcement: Scope of Meuller's Inquiry

Mr Person

A Little Bitter

tres borrachos

HoHoHo

Glen Contrarian

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage

Fletch

Fletch

HowardBThiname

Vetplus40

SonOfDaedalus

SonOfDaedalus

Vetplus40

Checkerboard Strangler

Make Video Horizontal Again

Mr Person

A Little Bitter

Glen Contrarian

dobieg

Mr Person

A Little Bitter

Fletch

dobieg

Mr Person

A Little Bitter

Mr Person

A Little Bitter

dobieg

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage

Mr Person

A Little Bitter

dobieg

Mr Person

A Little Bitter