We Already Know There Was Collusion

[uptower]

It'll get released in proper redacted form, then Dems will call it a cover up for not getting released in full. It's so cliche that it's boring.

Will Trump's crimes be redacted or just a few names for security reasons? Big difference.

 

[maxparrish]

It is more or less established fact now that the Trump Campaign colluded with foreign agents. What we're waiting on is answers as to what extent Trump himself knew about this and was involved, and therefore the reasons for the other thing we already know: why he has been obstructing justice the whole time.

From the first story:

"The president’s shouts of “no collusion” cannot be accurately applied to the man he picked to chair his campaign. Manafort was in cahoots with a fellow alleged to have ties with Russian intelligence, and through this person Manafort was apparently communicating with a Putin ally about a policy issue crucial for the Kremlin, as Putin was underhandedly assisting the Trump campaign. This all comes across as a secret orgy of back-scratching—that is, collusion."

Two apt quotations:

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.” (Churchill)

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" (Einstein)

So after reading your desperate bitter-ender obsessive and delusional trope, the combined term -"fanatically insane" (or "insane fanatic") - came to mind.

 

[uptower]

Two apt quotations:

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.” (Churchill)

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" (Einstein)

So after reading your desperate bitter-ender obsessive and delusional trope, the combined term -"fanatically insane" (or "insane fanatic") - came to mind.

I wrote the post before the Mueller report dropped, apparently only a few hours. Based on the information available I now accept there is not enough evidence that Trump willingly conspired with Russians.

As for any other unanswered questions, we need more than just Barr's opinion, and we need to see the whole report. It also notably does not clear Trump of obstruction: we'll put that in the wait and see basket.

So one side (including me) was wrong about one point. Bearing in mind that the Mueller probe has led to further investigations, we still have plenty more to suspect the president of. Show's not over.

 

[Athanasius68]

I wrote the post before the Mueller report dropped, apparently only a few hours. Based on the information available I now accept there is not enough evidence that Trump willingly conspired with Russians.

As for any other unanswered questions, we need more than just Barr's opinion, and we need to see the whole report. It also notably does not clear Trump of obstruction: we'll put that in the wait and see basket.

So one side (including me) was wrong about one point. Bearing in mind that the Mueller probe has led to further investigations, we still have plenty more to suspect the president of. Show's not over.

Mueller didn't say there wasn't enough evidence to prove that Trump "willingly conspired." He said there was no evidence of a conspiracy-- period.
In other words, Trump might as well have been accused of shooting somebody on 5th Ave. It would be just as preposterous.
Based on this, maybe some humility is in order with regards to other claims of wrongdoing.

 

[Athanasius68]

I wrote the post before the Mueller report dropped, apparently only a few hours. Based on the information available I now accept there is not enough evidence that Trump willingly conspired with Russians.

As for any other unanswered questions, we need more than just Barr's opinion, and we need to see the whole report. It also notably does not clear Trump of obstruction: we'll put that in the wait and see basket.

So one side (including me) was wrong about one point. Bearing in mind that the Mueller probe has led to further investigations, we still have plenty more to suspect the president of. Show's not over.

Mueller didn't say there wasn't enough evidence to prove that Trump "willingly conspired." He said there was no evidence of a conspiracy-- period.
In other words, Trump might as well have been accused of shooting somebody on 5th Ave. It would be just as preposterous.
Based on this, maybe some humility is in order with regards to other claims of wrongdoing.

 

[GDViking]

LMAO his summary is from the report the mueller gave did you not read?
of course you didn't read so i will simplify it for you.

No collusion
No obstruction.

We only know one single sentence from the report and it clearly states that this does NOT exonerate trump...

 

[tres borrachos]

Please show me where you know more about this than Muller, and the DOJ that made the call.
"After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues… Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."

all it takes is you actually reading not that you care.
you will continue to be dishonest.

See right there in black and white confirmed with other people
No obstruction. all it takes is reading and being honest.

What are you babbling about now?

You show me the Mueller report. I never claimed to know what's in it. You are.

You need to show me the Mueller report where it says "no obstruction". I read the Barr letter. For the dishonest among us, here is what Barr said (and where he claimed to be quoting directly from the Mueller report):

“While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

 

[tres borrachos]

LMAO his summary is from the report the mueller gave did you not read?
of course you didn't read so i will simplify it for you.

No collusion
No obstruction.

You are lying again. From Barr's letter, which he said was a direct quote from the Mueller report:


“While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Stop lying ludin. You are making yourself look foolish.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

Here is Barr's letter...

Read Attorney General William Barr’s Summary of the Mueller Report - The New York Times

There are a total of TWO quotes contained in Barr's letter which come directly from the Mueller Report. Here is the first...

“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Pretty straight forward statement that clearly states that the investigation into collusion failed to produce a case against Trump or anyone in his campaign.


Here is the second quote directly from the Mueller report. This quote relates to the portion of the investigation dealing with obstruction of justice...

“while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Here is Barr's response to the obstruction question...

The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel's office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel's obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.

What basically happened is that Mueller punted the obstruction question to the Attorney General. The Attorney General's decision on the obstruction matter is highlighted in bold. Also noteworthy is the statement directly after what is highlighted in bold. The decision was based on the evidence(lack of) in the Mueller Report and not "the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president".

In a nutshell, there wasn't a case for obstruction and there wasn't a case for collusion.

 

[MrWonka]

Who has been charged with collusion so far?

Yeah, see when the people that colluded are in charge of doing the charging we don't really care about that. When the full report is made public and someone independent gets to make that decision then we'll talk.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

We only know one single sentence from the report and it clearly states that this does NOT exonerate trump...

Actually, we know TWO. See post 184.

 

[Obscurity]

How do we know there was "collusion?"

I'm totally against essentially 90% of Trump's platform, but let's be realistic here.

The entire thing was a sham; not the investigation itself, the allegations of collusion. I believe the investigation will end up showing two things;

1. The dossier was a KGB hit piece designed to further divide americans.
2. The DNC hack and release of emails was equally a Russian hit piece designed to further divide americans.

It is undeniable that Russia is a bad actor and Russia is doing all of this on purpose. However, the evidence is not there that trump colluded. Manafort? He was lobbying to get Ukraine AWAY from Russia. Not that what he did do wasn't illegal, but the lobbying part wasn't pro-Russia at all.

At this stage the stooges that peddled this clintonian conspiracy ought to resign, and I don't mean politicians. I mean MSM.

 

[Obscurity]

I know a lot of conservatives here think democrats=progressives, but they are wrong. Jimmy Dore is an unabashed progressive.

 

[Erod]

Will Trump's crimes be redacted or just a few names for security reasons? Big difference.

It doesn't matter. Dems will claim the former no matter what gets redacted.

 

[Erod]

I know a lot of conservatives here think democrats=progressives, but they are wrong. Jimmy Dore is an unabashed progressive.

All of our personal politics aside, this is what is most troubling.

The media has been hijacked by non-journalists. People who couldn't give a rip about real journalism and only sought careers in this field to inject propaganda as fact.

The few real journalists in the mainstream media have either been fired, or are so marginalized like token remnants of a distant past. You can see the pain in Brokaw's eyes, or Ted Koppel's, when they see what their profession has become. They pushed the envelope a bit left in their day, but they did try to maintain a general sense of fairness and objective balance.

That is gone.

Love or hate Trump - and I'm somewhere in the middle - a fair person feels a degree of sympathy for what has been an obnoxiously childish and unfair coverage of him on a 24/7 basis in order to drive him crazy and skewer him. All because they are upset that they lost an election.

The media is upset that they lost an election. Ponder that. That's not what media is supposed to be.

Bret Baier is as true a journalist as there is in the aftermath. Neil Cavuto, perhaps. Maybe another one or two out there. Otherwise, journalism on the airwaves is dead. Jim Acosta is EXACTLY what journalism is in 2019.

Trump actually killed the media. "Fake news" has proven to be a real thing, not just a campaign strategy. He called it what it is, and that is what I think he'll be most lauded for in the end. Trump took down the mainstream media agenda, and hopefully, brought it back to its intended role as a result.

CNN and their ilk is the true enemy of the United States. They constrict information and attempt to control any and all narratives. But Scooby Doo came by and pulled the mask off.

The gig is up. Nobody believes a word they say about anything now. And why would they?

 

[Vern]

Oh--so nobody ever thought Trump & Co. conspired with Russia to win the election.
How Orwellian...

I took issue with your "fix the election" when the claim was "help trump win". My post was pretty clear. Its no shock to me you pretend to not understand. Dobieg is not pretending.

Do you live in a foreign country or haven't had access to tv or the internet for the past 2 years?

 

[GDViking]

Actually, we know TWO. See post 184.

I stand corrected...

 

[joko104]

We did already know there was collusion - and with Russians - by Hilary Clinton, Bill Clinton, President Obama, Obama's DOJ and FBI.

What hasn't happened is ANY investigation into that collusion nor release of any documents or reports about it. Instead, there was been a total cover-up.

 

[GDViking]

How do we know there was "collusion?"

I'm totally against essentially 90% of Trump's platform, but let's be realistic here.

The entire thing was a sham; not the investigation itself, the allegations of collusion. I believe the investigation will end up showing two things;

1. The dossier was a KGB hit piece designed to further divide americans.
2. The DNC hack and release of emails was equally a Russian hit piece designed to further divide americans.

It is undeniable that Russia is a bad actor and Russia is doing all of this on purpose. However, the evidence is not there that trump colluded. Manafort? He was lobbying to get Ukraine AWAY from Russia. Not that what he did do wasn't illegal, but the lobbying part wasn't pro-Russia at all.

At this stage the stooges that peddled this clintonian conspiracy ought to resign, and I don't mean politicians. I mean MSM.

I absolutely do not believe that the dossier was a KGB hit job.

Steele is far too professional and experienced to fall for that.

He claimed that he could not say everything was true, however he predicted that about 70% would be accurate, it has proven far more accurate than that...

 

[American]

It is more or less established fact now that the Trump Campaign colluded with foreign agents. What we're waiting on is answers as to what extent Trump himself knew about this and was involved, and therefore the reasons for the other thing we already know: why he has been obstructing justice the whole time.

From the first story:

"The president’s shouts of “no collusion” cannot be accurately applied to the man he picked to chair his campaign. Manafort was in cahoots with a fellow alleged to have ties with Russian intelligence, and through this person Manafort was apparently communicating with a Putin ally about a policy issue crucial for the Kremlin, as Putin was underhandedly assisting the Trump campaign. This all comes across as a secret orgy of back-scratching—that is, collusion."

I guess you got your day ruined.

/thread

 

[Fletch]

Yeah, see when the people that colluded are in charge of doing the charging we don't really care about that. When the full report is made public and someone independent gets to make that decision then we'll talk.

So you think Mueller found all sorts of evidence against Trump but Barr and Rosenstein wrote the exact opposite. :cuckoo:

 

[Fletch]

I absolutely do not believe that the dossier was a KGB hit job.

Steele is far too professional and experienced to fall for that.

He claimed that he could not say everything was true, however he predicted that about 70% would be accurate, it has proven far more accurate than that...

It hasnt, actually. Cohen was never in Prague, so a huge portion of the thing has already been exposed as a fraud. But of course there are aspects of truth in it. Think of it this way: You and your wife went to the Outback last friday night. Fact. While there you passed classified documents to a Russian spy. Lie. You were at the Outback, but you didnt pass any documents to anyone. But there is some truth to the story, right? Its half true. But you cannot argue that there may be some truth to the second part simply because the first part is accurate.

 

[MrWonka]

So you think Mueller found all sorts of evidence against Trump but Barr and Rosenstein wrote the exact opposite. :cuckoo:

I think that is absolutely a possibility. Considering the Right is still going around claiming that Hillary is a crook despite James Comey(a Registered Republican at the time) making the call you're in no position to be arguing against the validity of that possibility.

 

[ludin]

What are you babbling about now?

You show me the Mueller report. I never claimed to know what's in it. You are.

You need to show me the Mueller report where it says "no obstruction". I read the Barr letter. For the dishonest among us, here is what Barr said (and where he claimed to be quoting directly from the Mueller report):

“While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

I did it is there in black and white straight from the report.
I see you as typical with you no chance of being honest.

NO collusion
no obstruction

sorry you don't like it you will just have to get over it.

 

[ludin]

You are lying again. From Barr's letter, which he said was a direct quote from the Mueller report:


“While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Stop lying ludin. You are making yourself look foolish.

yes you are lying.
I posted you there is no evidence.
YOu take 1 line out of the other 300 lines that were posted.

WHy are you lying i even posted them for you.
Yes you are making yourself look foolish.

"the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities."

From the report
NO EVIDENCE.

The Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated" with Russians who worked on those hacking efforts, according to Barr's letter, "despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

from the mueller report
NO EVIDENCE.

Mueller's report did not reach a conclusion on whether the Trump campaign obstructed justice, and left that decision to Barr and officials at the DOJ -- who determined there was insufficient evidence of obstruction.

No evidence or lack of evidence.
from the mueller report.

I see you left those out tres.

why are you lying and being dishonest?
save your stupid games for someone else.
they are not going to work here.

quit lying and being dishonest.

NO collusion
no obstruction
these are facts.