• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you believe in "Russia-gate?"

Do you believe that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election?

  • Yes

    Votes: 23 31.1%

  • No

    Votes: 33 44.6%

  • I'll wait until there's more information before I decide

    Votes: 18 24.3%
  • Total voters
    74
  • Poll closed .
Chomsky said:
My current tally:

1] Collusion: Proven
2] Conspiracy: Proven
3] Federal Election Crime: T.B.D.
4] Quid Pro Quo: T.B.D.
Click to expand...

unless you are including this under one of the above and i didn't catch it, i would add :

5] Obstruction of justice : TBD

sometimes, it's the coverup that becomes a prosecutable issue. once again, we don't know, and we'll have to wait on Mueller's report.
 
Chomsky said:
No problem, I realize you hold no animus in your question.

I read the article, but it only had their rewritten excerpts from the email. But no, I didn't watch the video. I'll check it out, if it's not too long.

My only point, was: I generally can't make an informed decision concerning veracity, without the full & larger context.

Edit: The 18 second video in the Twitter post? That's Mark Zurckerberg!
Click to expand...

It doesn't look like Mark Zuckerberg.

I think the context is clear. The mainstream media has always demonized Russia and so has the US government. It's not hard to believe that they're going to distract the public by saying that people of Russian descent or nationality are suspicious. I don't know what else you need. The e-mail is pretty clear.
 
apdst said:
Actually, none of that's illegal
Click to expand...

It is. I would write up a post, but Chomsky nails the explanation in his reply. See point #2. A criminal conspiracy is a plan made by a person(s) to commit a crime, and then takes steps to complete the act. The crime itself does not need to be committed. Ex, an accountant who plans to embezzle funds from his employer by altering system records, but is caught before withdrawing the funds.

Additionally where Chomsky is also correct is that we don't yet know if Trump's campaign actually obtained Podesta's stolen emails or other information. If so this ratchets up tenfold.

Chomsky said:
Exactly.

1] From the email chains, it's obvious to me collusion has occurred. The emails would seem to be prima facie evidence of this.

2] Since the Trump Towers Russian meeting(s) involves the Trump Campaign seeking Russian influence upon the election, and the Russians attempt to assist the campaign in providing the influencing materials - thereby conspiring to violate federal campaign laws - it would seem that criminal conspiracy took place that day(s).

3] What we still don't know, but Mueller may, is whether the Trump campaign actually received and took possession of the Russian election materials? If so, this would supersede the conspiracy, jumping directly to federal election crime itself.

4] What we also don't know, and again Mueller may, is did the Trump Campaign perform any actions relating to a quid-pro-quo in this or other matters? That Trump's campaign and staff seem to be inundated with Russian contact - contact which they denied and attempted to hide to the point of being guilty of felonious perjury - and that Trump seems to be overtly Russian-friendly to the point of insisting upon changing nearly seven decades of consistent GOP party platform to embrace Russia, would seem to indicate quid-pro-quo is not outside the realm of possibility.

My current tally:

1] Collusion: Proven
2] Conspiracy: Proven
3] Federal Election Crime: T.B.D.
4] Quid Pro Quo: T.B.D.
Click to expand...
 
Helix said:
unless you are including this under one of the above and i didn't catch it, i would add :

5] Obstruction of justice : TBD

sometimes, it's the coverup that becomes a prosecutable issue. once again, we don't know, and we'll have to wait on Mueller's report.
Click to expand...
Yes, fair point. And I also suppose if Don Jr. used the hacked password he was given by WikiLeaks to gain access into the server of the opposition PAC, that may be a cyber crime or further election crime too.

But I think it's important to remember, that of the 5 listed items we're discussing, I believe only two seem to be reasonably ascertained --> collusion & conspiracy.

Collusion though, as we all seem to have learned from Trump and his lawyers & surrogates, does not necessarily imply a criminal act per se, as terrible as that may sound.

And the Trump Tower's conspiracy may have gone no further than Trump's campaign attempting, but not succeeding, in getting the goods on Clinton.

But even if not culminated by the exchange of Russian supplied election materials, I would argue that the known facts of the Trump Towers meeting are enough to meet the technical definition of conspiracy. We see this same bar used in reverse police stings for drugs & hookers. Those individuals nabbed in stings are charged with "conspiracy to possess narcotics" or "conspiring to commit prostitution", and they do indeed get found guilty and subsequently sentenced! Regardless of their not getting their drugs or hooker.
 
The Lurker said:
By that, I mean do you believe that Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election? Do you believe that there's any there there?
Click to expand...
No I do not. Making up nonsense about the president and nitpicking over stupid **** is what sore losers do every presidential election. When Obama was in Office sore losers claimed he wasn't born in the US and a secret Muslim . sore losers nitpicked over Obama having a marine hold an umbrella for him as though somehow all the ****ty work details that marine had to do was not degrading but holding an umbrella for the president somehow is. They acted like they were somehow the hosts of Queer Eye for the straight guy show by nitpicking over Obama wearing some color of clothing on some obscure holiday. They nitpicked over Obama not properly saluting as though that is something every civilian knows how to do.They bitched about about not wearing an American flag pin even though many of them suck the testicles of multinational corporations and sold our jobs overseas. When Bush was president many sore losers did similar ****. They made up stories of him going awol, stealing the election, masterminding 911, claim he lied about Iraq even though everyone and their mom has been saying the same **** even before he was in office, wanted to name sewage plant after him, constantly protested outside his home in Texas, and all sorts of other ****.
 
The Lurker said:
It doesn't look like Mark Zuckerberg.

I think the context is clear. The mainstream media has always demonized Russia and so has the US government. It's not hard to believe that they're going to distract the public by saying that people of Russian descent or nationality are suspicious. I don't know what else you need. The e-mail is pretty clear.
Click to expand...
So then who is it? And what exactly was he talking about?

See, this is the problem when attempting to evaluate claims using articles not providing full content.

However since we don't know exactly who it is, I'll withdraw my Zuckerberg comment. I assumed it was him testifying before Congress.

But neither you, nor your article, provided any evidence supporting your conclusions.
 
Helix said:
unless you are including this under one of the above and i didn't catch it, i would add :

5] Obstruction of justice : TBD

sometimes, it's the coverup that becomes a prosecutable issue. once again, we don't know, and we'll have to wait on Mueller's report.
Click to expand...

Nixon's mistake
 
Helix said:
yep, his presidency couldn't survive that one. sometimes i wonder if that's still the case, though.
Click to expand...

No.

A lot has happened since then, not the least of which was Clinton lying under oath and getting away with it..."obstruction of justice" the same crime Nixon was supposed to have committed and he walked.

Trump was right when he said he could shoot someone and still get elected' America has become a cauldron of hate, presidents the "Caesar", the instrument of retribution and revenge.
 
brothern said:
It is. I would write up a post, but Chomsky nails the explanation in his reply. See point #2. A criminal conspiracy is a plan made by a person(s) to commit a crime, and then takes steps to complete the act. The crime itself does not need to be committed. Ex, an accountant who plans to embezzle funds from his employer by altering system records, but is caught before withdrawing the funds.

Additionally where Chomsky is also correct is that we don't yet know if Trump's campaign actually obtained Podesta's stolen emails or other information. If so this ratchets up tenfold.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the kind words.

I think excellent examples of un-consummated criminal conspiracies are police stings, whether they involve drugs, prostitution, etc.

In all these cases the object of the perp's desire is non-existent, and the perps are never charged with the underlying crime itself. Rather, the perps are charged with conspiracy - more specifically,

"conspiracy to ... possess narcotics, commit prostitution, etc."

And yes, those perps are very often found guilty and sentenced!
 
Chomsky said:
So then who is it? And what exactly was he talking about?

See, this is the problem when attempting to evaluate claims using articles not providing full content.

However since we don't know exactly who it is, I'll withdraw my Zuckerberg comment. I assumed it was him testifying before Congress.

But neither you, nor your article, provided any evidence supporting your conclusions.
Click to expand...

I'll just say this: it might very well depend on who you believe.

I choose to not trust the mainstream media because they have a history of lying. They demonize and create hysteria. McCarthysm should not be supported, which is what the mainstream media (which got us into the Iraq war) has been doing.
 
Fearandloathing said:
No.

A lot has happened since then, not the least of which was Clinton lying under oath and getting away with it..."obstruction of justice" the same crime Nixon was supposed to have committed and he walked.

Trump was right when he said he could shoot someone and still get elected' America has become a cauldron of hate, presidents the "Caesar", the instrument of retribution and revenge.
Click to expand...

i'm not sure i'd go that far yet, but i understand the argument. i suppose that we'll see how both sides react when the investigation is complete and the evidence or lack of it comes out.
 
Helix said:
yep, his presidency couldn't survive that one. sometimes i wonder if that's still the case, though.
Click to expand...

Goldwater, Scott and Rhodes are no longer around ...
 
rocket88 said:
We know they attempted to do so. Whether they succeeded is another story.
Click to expand...

But, we have zero evidence that Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russians to influence the election. But, you are right that it's about impossible to prove that any Russian interference actually changed the election results. On top of that, we also know that the US is in over their own heads in trying to influence the election of other countries.
 
Helix said:
we'll see what Mueller finds out.
Click to expand...

Mueller has found out nothing. Absolutely nothing. He's caught a few criminals, but zero evidence of Trump or his campaign colluding with Russians in order to influence the election.
 
Chomsky said:
Exactly.

1] From the email chains, it's obvious to me collusion has occurred. The emails would seem to be prima facie evidence of this.

2] Since the Trump Towers Russian meeting(s) involves the Trump Campaign seeking Russian influence upon the election, and the Russians attempt to assist the campaign in providing the influencing materials - thereby conspiring to violate federal campaign laws - it would seem that criminal conspiracy took place that day(s).

3] What we still don't know, but Mueller may, is whether the Trump campaign actually received and took possession of the Russian election materials? If so, this would supersede the conspiracy, jumping directly to federal election crime itself.

4] What we also don't know, and again Mueller may, is did the Trump Campaign perform any actions relating to a quid-pro-quo in this or other matters? That Trump's campaign and staff seem to be inundated with Russian contact - contact which they denied and attempted to hide to the point of being guilty of felonious perjury - and that Trump seems to be overtly Russian-friendly to the point of insisting upon changing nearly seven decades of consistent GOP party platform to embrace Russia, would seem to indicate quid-pro-quo is not outside the realm of possibility.

My current tally:

1] Collusion: Proven
2] Conspiracy: Proven
3] Federal Election Crime: T.B.D.
4] Quid Pro Quo: T.B.D.
Click to expand...

If it was so obvious, then why isn't the investigation over and they can proceed. The investigation is not over, nor will it be anytime soon, because they are not finding enough of anything to indict anyone other than some honest to gosh crooks they have found.
 
Moderate Right said:
Mueller has found out nothing. Absolutely nothing. He's caught a few criminals, but zero evidence of Trump or his campaign colluding with Russians in order to influence the election.
Click to expand...

we'll see if your opinion is correct when the official report comes out.
 
Moderate Right said:
Mueller has found out nothing. Absolutely nothing. He's caught a few criminals, but zero evidence of Trump or his campaign colluding with Russians in order to influence the election.
Click to expand...

So are you now going to change your handle to "Psychic Moderate Right"?
 
Perotista said:
The media has always had a bias. But that bias was very covert and those in the media tried to hide it. The idea was just report on what is happening and keep one personal opinions out of it. Not any more. We have cable news channels dedicated to one party or the other and they slant their news that way depending on which party or ideology they have.

I do think if one realizes this, one can shift through all the propaganda and end up with the news story without all the slants presented. It isn't easy, but can be done. When that doesn't work, just sit back and wait. Sooner or later one or more of the news channels will be proven wrong.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I do.
 
Cardinal said:
If Trump didn't collude with Russia, he's doing a hell of a job of convincing the world that he's guilty anyway. But otherwise, this:
Click to expand...

It's very easy to convince you lefties of Russian Collusion because you are such easy marks and desperate. It's like people with cancer getting duped by false cures. You guys have so much sour grapes over the election you will believe absolutely any propaganda against Trump. It's actually quite funny to watch. I about busted a gut recently when new flashes came up that Ivanka and Jared were in a picture with the Confederate flag in the background.
 
Helix said:
unless you are including this under one of the above and i didn't catch it, i would add :

5] Obstruction of justice : TBD

sometimes, it's the coverup that becomes a prosecutable issue. once again, we don't know, and we'll have to wait on Mueller's report.
Click to expand...

LOL. From the first minute the left said there was plenty of obvious evidence against Trump for obstructing justice. If the evidence was so obvious, why even bother with an investigation that lasts months or years? Just handcuff him now with the obvious evidence.
 
Moderate Right said:
But, we have zero evidence that Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russians to influence the election. But, you are right that it's about impossible to prove that any Russian interference actually changed the election results. On top of that, we also know that the US is in over their own heads in trying to influence the election of other countries.
Click to expand...

But we do have evidence of widespread lying about the campaigns contacts with Russians. Why were the lying if there is nothing to hide? No one is trying to prove that the Russians swung the election but a candidate participating in illegal election meddling by a foreign power is a crime none the less. Also "whataboutisms" have no bearing on this case whatsoever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom