The Russia Investigation: Mueller - "Over the course of my career, I've seen a number of challenges to our democracy.The Russian govt's effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious."

[[scooter] 11,629]

18 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

20 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

For sale at Barnes and Noble also (same release date):

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/books/1130727433;jsessionid=68EEF3A69856BF15BF91DEB43839D5C5.prodny_store02-atgap03?ean=9781510750166

 

20 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

The first is the Department of Justice’s own The Mueller Report: The Final Report of the Special Counsel into Donald Trump, Russia, and Collusion, which is being published by Skyhorse Publishing and has an introduction by U.S. lawyer Alan Dershowitz. The full report can be purchased for $12.99 and has a release date of March 26.

960 pages, 13 bucks.

20 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

The second publication is The Washington Post's The Mueller Report, which is priced at $15 and is also set to be released on March 26. 

720 pages, 15 bucks.

Turns out the whole thing is based on speculation.

"Bill Wolfshal, Skyhorse v-p and executive director of sales and marketing, said the company is prepared to do a book as big as 960 pages, but is also capable of doing a much smaller version if the government releases a modified version of the full report."

[Widbil83 1,667]

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Nice of you to mock me. But I already admitted this was based on personal speculation on my part. And I can’t use a metric because it will take months to learn whether or not anything “sinks in”. 

Sorry for coming off as mocking , it was just set up too perfect.   

[Widbil83 1,667]

36 minutes ago, squistion said:

That so called conservative humor again...

LoL

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hNxYLgUgO1Y

[Joe Summer 7,428]

How do you guys take "I do not have direct evidence of collusion, but I have my suspicions" and turn that into "There was no collusion"?

[sho nuff 12,071]

3 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

How do you guys take "I do not have direct evidence of collusion, but I have my suspicions" and turn that into "There was no collusion"?

Also he is a convicted lying liar...but oh wait not on that part.

[Henry Ford 57,996]

9 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

How do you guys take "I do not have direct evidence of collusion, but I have my suspicions" and turn that into "There was no collusion"?

It’s pretty easy. Be incredibly dishonest. 

[prefontaine 1,082]

1 hour ago, Widbil83 said:

2 hours ago, Mile High said:

And: “The questions have been raised about whether I know of direct evidence that Mr. Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia. I do not, and I want to be clear. But I have my suspicions.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.boston.com/news/politics/2019/03/02/ap-fact-check-trump-twists-cohens-words-on-collusion/amp

Here is his real quote-

Quote

Cohen addressed the question on everyone's mind: Was there collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia? 

"Questions have been raised about whether I know of direct evidence that Mr. Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia. I do not. I want to be clear. But, I have my suspicions," Cohen said.  

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/card/cohen-says-he-doesn-t-know-if-there-was-collusion-n976826

This is such a weird post. What am I missing? "Here is his real quote-" with the exact same quote from a different article. 

Did you not actually read the post you quoted? 

[[scooter] 11,629]

6 minutes ago, prefontaine said:

2 hours ago, Widbil83 said:

2 hours ago, Mile High said:

And: “The questions have been raised about whether I know of direct evidence that Mr. Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia. I do not, and I want to be clear. But I have my suspicions.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.boston.com/news/politics/2019/03/02/ap-fact-check-trump-twists-cohens-words-on-collusion/amp

Here is his real quote-

Quote

Cohen addressed the question on everyone's mind: Was there collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia? 

"Questions have been raised about whether I know of direct evidence that Mr. Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia. I do not. I want to be clear. But, I have my suspicions," Cohen said.  

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/card/cohen-says-he-doesn-t-know-if-there-was-collusion-n976826

This is such a weird post. What am I missing? "Here is his real quote-" with the exact same quote from a different article. 

Did you not actually read the post you quoted? 

Technically, the quotes were not exactly the same, because yours contains the words "the" and "and", while Widbil's quote does not.

(Your quote is correct, though.  )

[Bucky86 15,691]

Just now, [scooter] said:

Technically, the quotes were not exactly the same, because yours contains the words "the" and "and", while Widbil's quote does not.

(Your quote is correct, though.  )

PROOF it was FAKE NEWS!

[Widbil83 1,667]

27 minutes ago, prefontaine said:

This is such a weird post. What am I missing? "Here is his real quote-" with the exact same quote from a different article. 

Did you not actually read the post you quoted? 

No you’re not missing anything, the original poster buried it at the bottom after a paragraph about nothing.  I wanted to make sure the collusion truthers saw it.

[NickyHatton 183]

Bizarro world at this point jesus 

[mr roboto 7,633]

1 hour ago, Joe Summer said:

How do you guys take "I do not have direct evidence of collusion, but I have my suspicions" and turn that into "There was no collusion"?

Listening skills and nuance aren’t their strongest qualities. 

[Henry Ford 57,996]

“I wanted to make sure you guys saw that Trump’s personal lawyer suspects he colluded with the Russians.”

[lazyike 1,096]

4 hours ago, Widbil83 said:

Cohen was specifically asked if he saw or knew of any Russian collusion and said no.  How is this not “completely knocking down” the entire story?  This is the Democrats star witness.

Cohen was not part of Trump’s campaign. When it comes to the “Russian probe”,  Manafort, Flynn, Donald Jr, and Stone are much more significant than Cohen as a witness.

[Henry Ford 57,996]

4 hours ago, Widbil83 said:

Cohen was specifically asked if he saw or knew of any Russian collusion and said no.  How is this not “completely knocking down” the entire story?  This is the Democrats star witness.

I’m going to use this in court. 

“Your honor, my client never told me he was selling drugs and I never saw it happen.  I move for dismissal.”

[The Commish 9,967]

3 hours ago, Marauder said:

5 hours ago, Widbil83 said:

Cohen was specifically asked if he saw or knew of any Russian collusion and said no.  How is this not “completely knocking down” the entire story?  This is the Democrats star witness.

I thought the GOP party line is that Cohen is a lying liar and you can't believe anything he says.   Do you believe he was truthful in his testimony Wednesday?  Or do think he was lying about everything except this?

Who knew consistency could be so hard?   

[msommer 7,552]

4 hours ago, BobbyLayne said:

Catalonia

What about Catalunia?

 

[Henry Ford 57,996]

4 hours ago, BobbyLayne said:

This is Stupid Watergate. None of these bumbling crooks are smart enough to collude.

You don’t have to be smart.  It’s really misleading when they use words like “conspiracy” in a crime.  It makes it sound like people have to have some rudimentary intelligence beyond the reptile brain to be charged. 

[BobbyLayne 7,116]

38 minutes ago, msommer said:

5 hours ago, BobbyLayne said:

Catalonia

What about Catalunia?

Cataloony wants a breakup, Spain said not so fast. Then they said If we can't have you, nobody can. Strange times we are living in, et al. We were discussing nationalism, authoritarian crackdowns, et al.

How's that Hard Brexit coming along? Three weeks and they're still hoping for an Article 50 delay?

[BobbyLayne 7,116]

[/hijack]

(we have a few Brexit threads)

[Sammy3469 9,332]

Seems like the Senate Intel has honed in on Trump’s trip to Russia in 1996 which I guess is related to Depirska.  Here’s the requisite Trump at a cocktail party with Calamari.

https://twitter.com/natashabertrand/status/1101916716148379648?s=21

[Slapdash 14,427]

3 minutes ago, BobbyLayne said:

45 minutes ago, msommer said:

5 hours ago, BobbyLayne said:

Catalonia

What about Catalunia?

Cataloony wants a breakup, Spain said not so fast. Then they said If we can't have you, nobody can. Strange times we are living in, et al. We were discussing nationalism, authoritarian crackdowns, et al.

How's that Hard Brexit coming along? Three weeks and they're still hoping for an Article 50 delay?

Catalunya 

[Henry Ford 57,996]

7 minutes ago, Sammy3469 said:

Seems like the Senate Intel has honed in on Trump’s trip to Russia in 1996 which I guess is related to Depirska.  Here’s the requisite Trump at a cocktail party with Calamari.

https://twitter.com/natashabertrand/status/1101916716148379648?s=21

Uh, is that a glass of wine in his hand?

[Sammy3469 9,332]

14 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Uh, is that a glass of wine in his hand?

I’d guess vodka based off the food spread, but I’m sure it was just water.

[msommer 7,552]

16 minutes ago, BobbyLayne said:

Cataloony wants a breakup, Spain said not so fast. Then they said If we can't have you, nobody can. Strange times we are living in, et al. We were discussing nationalism, authoritarian crackdowns, et al.

How's that Hard Brexit coming along? Three weeks and they're still hoping for an Article 50 delay?

Ok. I see where you are coming from and it (the Catalunia situation) is a bit more complicated than that.

The Spanish constitution specifically states that Spain is whole thus cannot be sundered. The Catalans agreed to this when it (the constitugion) was remade after Franco and Spain went from a fascist dictatorship republic to a constitutional monarchy. 

The situation is akin to Feb of 1861 in the US. The Southern states seceded and Lincoln said not so fast. He might have said "see ya" but chose to say this union cannot be sundered with reasoni ng from the constitution.

Latest on Brexit is it looks like a hard landing

 

[BobbyLayne 7,116]

35 minutes ago, msommer said:

Ok. I see where you are coming from and it (the Catalunia situation) is a bit more complicated than that.

The Spanish constitution specifically states that Spain is whole thus cannot be sundered. The Catalans agreed to this when it (the constitugion) was remade after Franco and Spain went from a fascist dictatorship republic to a constitutional monarchy. 

The situation is akin to Feb of 1861 in the US. The Southern states seceded and Lincoln said not so fast. He might have said "see ya" but chose to say this union cannot be sundered with reasoni ng from the constitution.

Latest on Brexit is it looks like a hard landing

 

Som una nació. Nosaltres decidim (in English, "We are a nation. We decide"). At any rate, I referenced not because I wish to take up their cause, but as another example of government crackdowns which seems common in today's world.

The slaveholders thought themselves to be conducting a second Revolutionary War, a war of Independence from the oppressive North.

[[scooter] 11,629]

1 hour ago, Henry Ford said:

1 hour ago, Sammy3469 said:

Seems like the Senate Intel has honed in on Trump’s trip to Russia in 1996 which I guess is related to Depirska.  Here’s the requisite Trump at a cocktail party with Calamari.

https://twitter.com/natashabertrand/status/1101916716148379648?s=21

Uh, is that a glass of wine in his hand?

Yes, but that's because he's practiced at the art of deception.

[The Commish 9,967]

6 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Just a quick note on this because I know this is a current theme being emanated from Trump.

The reason the financial, taxes and Trump Org stuff is important and relevant is because - as has been the case with the Russia investigation itself - the Feds' theory has been that Trump and members his campaign and his corporation have been secretly hiding the nature of their activities from oversight by the US government and its laws. That is the essence of the "Conspiracy to commit fraud against the US." That's the charge, not "collusion."

Just as an example that's one reason why the Stormy/McDougal/Cohen/AMI stuff matters. It's not the scandal or even the payments, it's the nature by which they hid their activities. In that situation the conspiracy involved a shell company, a third party. and misidentified payments through a corporation. That's the idea and it really is all one big thing. Now I don't know if Trump & Pals will face indictments for Russian active measures, interference, espionage, whatever you want to call it, but if/when they do all that stuff will be part of their case, that is that's how Trump did things.

That's also why Cohen saying he was not literally directed by Trump but that he knew he was expected to lie and act for him all the time is also part of the case. He was part of this larger organization and conspiracy and that's how people within it acted.

You wasted a lot of key strokes here GB

[The Commish 9,967]

4 hours ago, Joe Summer said:

How do you guys take "I do not have direct evidence of collusion, but I have my suspicions" and turn that into "There was no collusion"?

cognitive dissonance

[msommer 7,552]

38 minutes ago, BobbyLayne said:

Som una nació. Nosaltres decidim (in English, "We are a nation. We decide"). At any rate, I referenced not because I wish to take up their cause, but as another example of government crackdowns which seems common in today's world.

The slaveholders thought themselves to be conducting a second Revolutionary War, a war of Independence from the oppressive North.

The catalans see themselves as a separate nation, wanting to secede from the repressive rest of Spain.

I'm also not speaking against their grievances against the Spanish government, but their methods are wrong. If you are unhappy with the constitution - gather support to change the constitution.

So I don't think the "crackdown" example holds water in this case, the Spanish goverment is fighting secession with the constitutions and the laws the Catalans have agreed to (but evidently wished they hadn't)

[BobbyLayne 7,116]

6 minutes ago, msommer said:

50 minutes ago, BobbyLayne said:

Som una nació. Nosaltres decidim (in English, "We are a nation. We decide"). At any rate, I referenced not because I wish to take up their cause, but as another example of government crackdowns which seems common in today's world.

The slaveholders thought themselves to be conducting a second Revolutionary War, a war of Independence from the oppressive North.

The catalans see themselves as a separate nation, wanting to secede from the repressive rest of Spain.

I'm also not speaking against their grievances against the Spanish government, but their methods are wrong. If you are unhappy with the constitution - gather support to change the constitution.

So I don't think the "crackdown" example holds water in this case, the Spanish goverment is fighting secession with the constitutions and the laws the Catalans have agreed to (but evidently wished they hadn't)

The South had no legal or moral right to secede.

I'm not sure if that is true of the Catalans, but this is entirely the wrong thread to discuss either movement. 

[msommer 7,552]

5 minutes ago, BobbyLayne said:

The South had no legal or moral right to secede.

I'm not sure if that is true of the Catalans, but this is entirely the wrong thread to discuss either movement. 

Tha Spanish constitufions leaves no doubt about the rights of any region to secede.

[ren hoek 3,266]

Sam Sacks @SamSacks

A lot of folks want to redefine what Russiagate is now that it’s clear the most sensational aspects of it have always been bogus.

"Russiagate” is the following: Donald Trump was cultivated as a Russian asset for years due to the fact that Putin has kompromat on him. He was then “activated” to run for the WH, which he won thanks to a conspiracy involving the Kremlin. Putin now dictates US policy.

And this isn’t letting “the crazies”’define Russiagate, this is letting top cable news hosts, sitting Senators and Representatives, think tank presidents, and serious journalists define the story. That’s the narrative they’ve presented to us.

It’s clear now that this didn’t happen. There is no kompromat. Trump ran for the WH to boost his brand & get licensing deals in Moscow & other places. No one, from the campaign to the Kremlin, actually thought he’d win, and the plan fell apart when he did. “Russiagate” is dead.

To now say Russiagate is merely a story about international corruption & Trump’s shady business dealings is to ignore the vast majority of Russiagate coverage over the last few years: the dossier, the Rachel Maddow rants, Democrats constantly speculating what Putin “has” on Trump

Newspaper & magazine covers depicting the White House as St. Basil’s. All the dumb ads in Cyrillic. The conspiratorial mega threads that were endorsed by leading mainstream journalists. The bot frenzy. Y'all can’t just erase all of this since this is why people became skeptics!

Now, the most serious crimes Trump is facing have nothing to do with Russia. The bank fraud. The campaign finances crimes. Repeated violations of the Emoluments clause. Even the obstruction stuff related to Flynn has more to do with Turkey than Russia. None of this is Russiagate.

Russiagate skeptics on the left have never doubted that Trump is corrupt, that he’s surrounded himself with criminals, that he cares far more about enriching himself than governing the country. But they’re not on board with creating a Russian bogeyman to prove all that stuff!

[Henry Ford 57,996]

38 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Sam Sacks @SamSacks

A lot of folks want to redefine what Russiagate is now that it’s clear the most sensational aspects of it have always been bogus.

"Russiagate” is the following: Donald Trump was cultivated as a Russian asset for years due to the fact that Putin has kompromat on him. He was then “activated” to run for the WH, which he won thanks to a conspiracy involving the Kremlin. Putin now dictates US policy.

And this isn’t letting “the crazies”’define Russiagate, this is letting top cable news hosts, sitting Senators and Representatives, think tank presidents, and serious journalists define the story. That’s the narrative they’ve presented to us.

It’s clear now that this didn’t happen. There is no kompromat. Trump ran for the WH to boost his brand & get licensing deals in Moscow & other places. No one, from the campaign to the Kremlin, actually thought he’d win, and the plan fell apart when he did. “Russiagate” is dead.

To now say Russiagate is merely a story about international corruption & Trump’s shady business dealings is to ignore the vast majority of Russiagate coverage over the last few years: the dossier, the Rachel Maddow rants, Democrats constantly speculating what Putin “has” on Trump

Newspaper & magazine covers depicting the White House as St. Basil’s. All the dumb ads in Cyrillic. The conspiratorial mega threads that were endorsed by leading mainstream journalists. The bot frenzy. Y'all can’t just erase all of this since this is why people became skeptics!

Now, the most serious crimes Trump is facing have nothing to do with Russia. The bank fraud. The campaign finances crimes. Repeated violations of the Emoluments clause. Even the obstruction stuff related to Flynn has more to do with Turkey than Russia. None of this is Russiagate.

Russiagate skeptics on the left have never doubted that Trump is corrupt, that he’s surrounded himself with criminals, that he cares far more about enriching himself than governing the country. But they’re not on board with creating a Russian bogeyman to prove all that stuff!

“Russiagate” encompasses a number of different theories. 

Interestingly, all evidence everywhere is consistent with the following, which I floated as a wild theory for a few weeks with friends:

Everything everyone believed was the worst case is absolutely true, top to bottom, with one caveat - Donald Trump is such a narcissist he never understood he was supposed to be owned by the Russians now.  But still thinks he can woo them into the business deals he wants.  Which would be the height of insane idiocy.  But it’s a tough one to argue against.

Me, I still want to see a report to find out what’s going on. 

[SaintsInDome2006 41,521]

Jim Jordan, folks.

[SaintsInDome2006 41,521]

11 hours ago, ren hoek said:

There is no kompromat. Trump ran for the WH to boost his brand & get licensing deals in Moscow & other places.

Isn't this contradictory?

Trump repeatedly denying he had business deals in Russia and Russia knowing he had business deals automatically put him in a position to be subject to kompromat, no?

Btw happy to read in lo these many pages finally a defense of Trump that doesn't involve magic bullet theories like secret drives, Deep State meanies or crimes that aren't really crimes. This isn't that but at least it points to some kind of evidence.

Edited March 3 by SaintsInDome2006

[The Z Machine 3,098]

So now we're at the point where everyone knows that our President is corrupt, shady, surrounded himself with criminals, and has committed multiple felonies, but since it hasn't been proven that he was an active collaborator with a group that illegally interfered in his election to office, it's ok and this is all a nothingburger, so we should move on.

[Dinsy Ejotuz 10,790]

26 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Isn't this contradictory?

Trump repeatedly denying he had business deals in Russia and Russia knowing he had business deals automatically put him in a position to be subject to kompromat, no?

Btw happy to read in lo these many pages finally a defense of Trump that doesn't involve magic bullet theories like secret drives, Deep State meanies or crimes that aren't really crimes. This isn't that but at least it points to some kind of evidence.

Yeah... Russians knowing Trump planned to leverage his run/Presidency into tens of million$ is kompromat by itself.  To say nothing of providing policy relief to the Russians in order to get that $$.  Even if you ignore working with Russians to acquire FB data, develop messaging, and target voters it's still a huge vulnerability.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz 10,790]

13 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

So now we're at the point where everyone knows that our President is corrupt, shady, surrounded himself with criminals, and has committed multiple felonies, but since it hasn't been proven that he was an active collaborator with a group that illegally interfered in his election to office, it's ok and this is all a nothingburger, so we should move on.

No.

We're at the point where we leave those folks behind.  Stop giving their ####ty arguments the time of day until they break the law/rules, and then punish them.  Judges across the country are providing the template.

[Slapdash 14,427]

58 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Isn't this contradictory?

Trump repeatedly denying he had business deals in Russia and Russia knowing he had business deals automatically put him in a position to be subject to kompromat, no?

This is correct.  That was a pretty impressive self-own.

[Bucky86 15,691]

Talk about grasping at straws 

[SaintsInDome2006 41,521]

It is weird that Trump has spent so much time denying the Russians did the DNC hack yet was so adamant in real time that they had indeed hacked "Hillary."

[timschochet 24,571]

12 hours ago, ren hoek said:

 There is no kompromat. Trump ran for the WH to boost his brand & get licensing deals in Moscow & other places. No one, from the campaign to the Kremlin, actually thought he’d win, and the plan fell apart when he did. 

Actually this is pretty close to what I believe. 

But assuming that it’s true, within this truth there are  all kinds of corruption, cover ups, lying and obstruction of justice. Enough to impeach and remove the President? Probably not, politically speaking, though it would be for me. Enough to stain this President in terms of history and severely hurt his re-election chances? I think so, amd certainly hope so. 

Edited March 3 by timschochet

[ren hoek 3,266]

8 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

“Russiagate” encompasses a number of different theories. 

Interestingly, all evidence everywhere is consistent with the following, which I floated as a wild theory for a few weeks with friends:

Everything everyone believed was the worst case is absolutely true, top to bottom, with one caveat - Donald Trump is such a narcissist he never understood he was supposed to be owned by the Russians now.  But still thinks he can woo them into the business deals he wants.  Which would be the height of insane idiocy.  But it’s a tough one to argue against.

Me, I still want to see a report to find out what’s going on. 

There's a lot of evidence that is incongruent with that.  Manafort's work pushing Ukraine to the EU, Trump's nuclear escalation with Russia.  Dossier looking more bogus by the day.  Unless he committed perjury before Congress and lied to SCO, Cohen did not go to Prague.  

I'd bet dollars to donuts the section of the dossier Gubarev took Buzzfeed to court over (which they lost on grounds of Buzzfeed's reporting being legitimized by the FBI, not the dossier being truthful) was false too.  Most of the hyperventilating about Russia the past couple years fell apart upon further inspection.  They had to make a really big deal out of emails and online memes to sell the narrative.  It'll be interesting to see how the libel suit against conspiracy fabricator Christopher Steele plays out in the fall. 

The scary part is not that they would push a sensational conspiracy theory to millions of well-meaning people, who were engaging in politics for the first time and seeking an explanation for 2016, but that they could get them to believe it.  And unlike the QAnon/DeepState/Seth Rich conspiracy stuff which I'm sure some would point to in response, this was peddled by the "free press", advanced by credulous intelligence figureheads, endorsed by members of congress- all the institutions and serious people that have spent the past 2 years pretending they're better than Trump.  

[ren hoek 3,266]

1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Isn't this contradictory?

Trump repeatedly denying he had business deals in Russia and Russia knowing he had business deals automatically put him in a position to be subject to kompromat, no?

Btw happy to read in lo these many pages finally a defense of Trump that doesn't involve magic bullet theories like secret drives, Deep State meanies or crimes that aren't really crimes. This isn't that but at least it points to some kind of evidence.

I guess if you want to conflate failed building plans with the grand 2016 election influence conspiracy, it could be considered 'kompromat'.  If the narrative hadn't been blown out of proportion, and media hadn't sold out basic journalistic principles to incriminate him, the known/proven corruption would probably land a lot harder.  By doubling down on the bogus and outlandish conspiracy theory, Trump can claim vindication.  The other stuff will look inconsequential by comparison. 

[SaintsInDome2006 41,521]

5 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

I guess if you want to conflate failed building plans with the grand 2016 election influence conspiracy, it could be considered 'kompromat'.  If the narrative hadn't been blown out of proportion, and media hadn't sold out basic journalistic principles to incriminate him, the known/proven corruption would probably land a lot harder.  By doubling down on the bogus and outlandish conspiracy theory, Trump can claim vindication.  The other stuff will look inconsequential by comparison. 

I think I mentioned this once before, it's possible you don't understand the theories of the case. Quid pro quo in the form of Trump's hoped for return on a Moscow hotel - he has been pursuing this since 1987 - for relief on sanctions is one such theory. And the issue of kompromat is what you raised, clearly Trump didn't want anyone knowing about his current activities while he was actually campaigning and even during the transition and Russia held that over him, they likely still do. You specifically raised that, it's not conflation.

[Sinn Fein 29,574]

So, why did everyone lie about the contacts with Russia during the campaign?

 

From Russia's perspective - this has always been about lifting sanctions.  So why were all the conversations with Trump's campaign about lifting sanctions?  What were the Russians offering in exchange for lifting sanctions?

Why is Trump intent on lifting sanctions?

Why did the Treasury Department already lift some sanctions?

Why did Trump fail to implement some sanctions authorized by Congress?

 

Occam's razor suggests that Russia offered something to get sanctions lifted - that is how negotiations work.  So, what did Russia offer, and to whom did they make that offer?

[moleculo 6,563]

1 hour ago, ren hoek said:

There's a lot of evidence that is incongruent with that.  Manafort's work pushing Ukraine to the EU, Trump's nuclear escalation with Russia.  Dossier looking more bogus by the day.  Unless he committed perjury before Congress and lied to SCO, Cohen did not go to Prague.  

I'd bet dollars to donuts the section of the dossier Gubarev took Buzzfeed to court over (which they lost on grounds of Buzzfeed's reporting being legitimized by the FBI, not the dossier being truthful) was false too.  Most of the hyperventilating about Russia the past couple years fell apart upon further inspection.  They had to make a really big deal out of emails and online memes to sell the narrative.  It'll be interesting to see how the libel suit against conspiracy fabricator Christopher Steele plays out in the fall. 

The scary part is not that they would push a sensational conspiracy theory to millions of well-meaning people, who were engaging in politics for the first time and seeking an explanation for 2016, but that they could get them to believe it.  And unlike the QAnon/DeepState/Seth Rich conspiracy stuff which I'm sure some would point to in response, this was peddled by the "free press", advanced by credulous intelligence figureheads, endorsed by members of congress- all the institutions and serious people that have spent the past 2 years pretending they're better than Trump.  

I think these are legitimate concerns.  Someone should look into all of that - perhaps a special counsel.  And, after he has his report, it would be nice for his report to be tested in, say, a court trial before anyone sees any official actions.

Unless your rant is limited to what the free press reports on, I which case I have no answer for you.

[SaintsInDome2006 41,521]

Let’s say hypothetically there’s a jeweler and he’s badly in need of funds. One day he receives a message that a well known local mob figure would like to send an emissary to discuss how the jeweler can get some funds through a friend at a bank. Hm ok the jeweler is not sure if that’s legal exactly but yeah he really needs the money. So he goes to the meeting. He brings his two business partners, one of whom used to work for an organization run by the same mob figure. He gets there and instead of one person there are 5, including some people who he really has no idea who they are or why they are there but are of let’s say of the brass knuckle variety.

When the meeting starts the emissary says nothing about the loan with the bank. Instead this person asks if the jeweler’s jewels are insured and would he ever consider loaning them out, and yaknow if they’re not returned he could just make a claim. The jeweler seems puzzled. What about the loan? Sure, he says he’d probably make a claim if his jewels go missing. The meeting ends.

During that week the jeweler tells his friends his money troubles are over.

A week later presto a bank calls the jeweler offering a loan.

The following fiscal year at the beginning of a new policy, the police learn that the jeweler attempted to loan out jewels from the store out the back and off the books but was stopped by a vigilant employee who knew nothing of the above. The jeweler says no one in the jewelry business is more vigilant against theft than he look at all the alarms he has installed.

The insurer insists the jeweler hire a private detective to investigate all this. When he does the jeweler asks him to take it easy when talking to one of his chief employees. When he doesn’t, the jeweler fires him.

What just happened?

[Sinn Fein 29,574]

Warner: ‘Enormous amounts of evidence’ of possible Russia collusion

 

As evidence, Warner cited on NBC's "Meet the Press" ongoing negotiations about Trump Tower and the dump of WikiLeaks material.

"Where that evidence leads, in terms of a conclusion ... I'm going to reserve judgment, until I'm finished," Warner said.

But he added: "There's no one that could factually say there's not plenty of evidence of collaboration or communications between Trump Organization and Russians."

 

***

Asked Sunday by NBC host Chuck Todd whether a Russia conspiracy without any actual evidence of a crime being committed could lead to impeachment of the president, Warner again said he would wait to reach his conclusion but qualified his statement by looking at history.

"I have never, in my lifetime, seen a presidential campaign, from a person of either party, have this much outreach to a foreign country and a foreign country that the intelligence community, and our committee has validated, intervened, massively, in our election and intervened with an attempt to help one candidate, Donald Trump, and to hurt another candidate, Hillary Clinton," he said.

Warner also said that some of the "key people" the Senate committee wants to talk to are "caught up" in the Mueller criminal investigations.

"Those criminal investigations need to conclude, before we get a chance to talk to them," he said.